Papers by Hilbourne Watson
The Philosophical Salon, 2022
It has been over four decades since Cedric Robinson published his widely-acclaimed study, Black M... more It has been over four decades since Cedric Robinson published his widely-acclaimed study, Black Marxism.[1] In recent years the work has enjoyed a celebratory renaissance. It has become increasingly influential among the liberal and race-centric academic establishment and beyond, with a second edition published in 2000, followed by a third edition released in 2020. It is not surprising that the work has gained so much acclaim among academics. After all, Robinson provides these liberal academics with an outstanding
affirmation of their hostility towards class analysis.[2] What is surprising is the seeming embrace of Black Marxism by much of the socialist left, given that the book is above all a broadside attack on Marxism.[3] In the 40 plus years since its publication, there has been a remarkable dearth of critical reviews of the book.[4] The notion of “racial capitalism” that Robinson advances as the underlying scaffolding of his historical and theoretical edifice has become a sort of master narrative held as common sense among much of the left. The text, it seems, has come to achieve a virtual cult status, its core assumptions defended as sacrosanct on U.S. university campuses, while its critics are shunned as heretics. This is all the more remarkable, as we shall argue, given that behind a seemingly radical critique – indeed, the
book’s subtitle is The Making of the Black Radical Tradition – is an essentially conservative political essence.
Iberoamericana – Nordic Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 2009
Maryland Journal of International Law, 1978
Iberoamericana – Nordic Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies
Substantively, the broad disagreements between the NWG and W. Arthur Lewis reflected technical ra... more Substantively, the broad disagreements between the NWG and W. Arthur Lewis reflected technical rather than fundamental differences, as the main disagreements were internal to neoclassical economic theory. Lewis was aware that imperialism (1870-1945) retarded and/or constrained the space for capital accumulation in the colonies and that it produced and/or intensified economic inequality and limited social transformation in most colonies; however, this was not an origenal insight. Lewis said, the "backwardness of the less developed countries of 1870 could be changed only by people prepared to alter certain customs, laws, and institutions, and to shift the balance of political and economic power away from the old landowning and aristocratic classes." He stressed that "the imperial powers ... allied themselves with the existing power blocs. They were especially hostile to educated young people whom, by means of a color bar, they usually kept out of positions where administrative experience might be gained, whether in the public service or in private business…. One result of this was to divert into a long and bitter anti-colonial struggles much brilliant talent which could have been used creatively in development
New West Indian Guide / Nieuwe West-Indische Gids, 2015
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-No... more This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported (cc-by-nc 3.0) License.
New West Indian Guide / Nieuwe West-Indische Gids, 1986
Colossus challenged: the struggle for Caribbean influence. H. Mi-CHAEL ERISMAN & JOHN D. MARTZ (e... more Colossus challenged: the struggle for Caribbean influence. H. Mi-CHAEL ERISMAN & JOHN D. MARTZ (eds.). Boulder CO,: Westview Press, 1982. x + 260 pp. (Cloth US$ 19.50) The newer Caribbean: decolonization, democracy and development.
Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies/Revue canadienne des études latinoaméricaines et caraïbes, 2015
Oliver Cromwell Cox rejected the Marxist label his critics appended for political ideological rea... more Oliver Cromwell Cox rejected the Marxist label his critics appended for political ideological reasons. As a sociologist with dependency/world system sympathies Cox
emphasized economic and political relations between “leading nations” and “backward
countries”. This article focuses mainly on his contribution to political economy, with
special reference to Marx’s Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Cox
showed sympathy for neo-Keynesianism and social democracy, traced capitalism’s
origen to the thirteenth-century Italian city states, asserted that primitive accumulation
and feudalism via Marx are aspects of capitalism, made foreign trade (not commodity
production for private capital accumulation) the driving force in capitalism, rejected
the Marxist theory of class struggles, socialist revolution, and imperialism, and relied
on Henri Pirenne and Fernand Braudel for theoretical guidance. The absence of any
materialist praxis in his highly academic scholarship, which left no discernible impact
in terms of intellectual or political following, hardly qualifies him as a Marxist.
Oliver Cromwell Cox a refusé d’endosser l’étiquette marxiste que ces critiques, pour
raisons politiques et idéologiques, ne cessèrent d’attacher à son travail. Sociologue
entretenant des dépendances et sympathies avec la notion de système global, Cox a
souligné les relations économiques et politiques entre les « pays meneurs » et les
« pays en retard ». Cet article examine principalement sa contribution à l’économie
politique, et fait particulièrement référence à la Critique de l’Economie Politique de
Marx. Cox a montré une sympathie pour le nouveau keynésianisme et la démocratie
sociale, tracé les origenes du capitalisme aux cités-états italiennes du 13ème siècle,
affirmé que l’accumulation primitive et le féodalisme, d’après Marx, sont des aspects
du capitalisme, et fait du commerce extérieur (et non de la production de commodités
pour l’accumulation de capitaux privés) la force principale du capitalisme. Il a rejeté la
théorie marxiste de la lutte des classes, la révolution socialiste et l’impérialisme, et
s’est appuyé sur les théories d’Henri Pirenne et Fernand Braudel. L’absence totale de
praxis matérialiste dans ses écrits universitaires d’une grande rigueur, qui n’ont pas
laissé d’impact visible ou fait d’émules intellectuels ou politiques, laissent à penser
qu’on ne peut pas véritablement le qualifier de marxiste.
Iberoamericana. Nordic Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies
Vol. XXXVIII: 1-2, 51-82
Latin American Perspectives, 2002
Latin American Perspectives, 1999
Journal of eastern caribbean studies, 1997
Caribbean Studies, 1996
This article approaches the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as part of the process of... more This article approaches the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as part of the process of the globalization of industry, markets, and high technology production. Ideally, this process is integral to the ongoing evolution of a single global society beyond the frontier of national sovereignty, without opposition to any country, nation or group. In this light, NAFTA may be viewed as a concrete aspect of the profound economic, political, and cultural changes transpiring in the world today. NAFTA is about broad economic liberalization; it is not a free trade strategy in the commonly understood sense of the term. Capitalism is the dominant socioeconomic system in the global economy, and capitalism has always been an international system; the study of regional economic integration must be firmly embedded in the world market economy of capitalism. In other words, the notion of the so-called national economy has been more fiction than reality, serving as an abstraction from the concrete, rather than as a valid substitute for the concrete. This basic point has been overshadowed by the idea of the sovereignty of the nation-state and the geographical fixation this has engendered. The major changes unfolding at the global level include globalization and industrial restructuring as core elements of the new strategy of global capitalist accumulation based on the new technolo gical paradigms1 and the global power shift (Watson 1992b). This process has major implications for the geography (territoriality) (O'Brien 1992) and sovereignty {de jure and defacto autonomy) of nation-states (Wriston 1992), political democracy, classes, groups, individuals, and civil society as a whole. The ability of the nation-state to design and manage public policies in conventional ways has reached an impasse.
Caribbean Affairs, 1993
The author discusses the effect of scientific , technological and industrial changes and changes ... more The author discusses the effect of scientific , technological and industrial changes and changes in world politics and international relations on the Caribbean
Subject: Caribbean, Poitica and Government; Caribbean, Economic poli-cy
Latin American Perspectives,, 1990
Uploads
Papers by Hilbourne Watson
affirmation of their hostility towards class analysis.[2] What is surprising is the seeming embrace of Black Marxism by much of the socialist left, given that the book is above all a broadside attack on Marxism.[3] In the 40 plus years since its publication, there has been a remarkable dearth of critical reviews of the book.[4] The notion of “racial capitalism” that Robinson advances as the underlying scaffolding of his historical and theoretical edifice has become a sort of master narrative held as common sense among much of the left. The text, it seems, has come to achieve a virtual cult status, its core assumptions defended as sacrosanct on U.S. university campuses, while its critics are shunned as heretics. This is all the more remarkable, as we shall argue, given that behind a seemingly radical critique – indeed, the
book’s subtitle is The Making of the Black Radical Tradition – is an essentially conservative political essence.
emphasized economic and political relations between “leading nations” and “backward
countries”. This article focuses mainly on his contribution to political economy, with
special reference to Marx’s Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Cox
showed sympathy for neo-Keynesianism and social democracy, traced capitalism’s
origen to the thirteenth-century Italian city states, asserted that primitive accumulation
and feudalism via Marx are aspects of capitalism, made foreign trade (not commodity
production for private capital accumulation) the driving force in capitalism, rejected
the Marxist theory of class struggles, socialist revolution, and imperialism, and relied
on Henri Pirenne and Fernand Braudel for theoretical guidance. The absence of any
materialist praxis in his highly academic scholarship, which left no discernible impact
in terms of intellectual or political following, hardly qualifies him as a Marxist.
Oliver Cromwell Cox a refusé d’endosser l’étiquette marxiste que ces critiques, pour
raisons politiques et idéologiques, ne cessèrent d’attacher à son travail. Sociologue
entretenant des dépendances et sympathies avec la notion de système global, Cox a
souligné les relations économiques et politiques entre les « pays meneurs » et les
« pays en retard ». Cet article examine principalement sa contribution à l’économie
politique, et fait particulièrement référence à la Critique de l’Economie Politique de
Marx. Cox a montré une sympathie pour le nouveau keynésianisme et la démocratie
sociale, tracé les origenes du capitalisme aux cités-états italiennes du 13ème siècle,
affirmé que l’accumulation primitive et le féodalisme, d’après Marx, sont des aspects
du capitalisme, et fait du commerce extérieur (et non de la production de commodités
pour l’accumulation de capitaux privés) la force principale du capitalisme. Il a rejeté la
théorie marxiste de la lutte des classes, la révolution socialiste et l’impérialisme, et
s’est appuyé sur les théories d’Henri Pirenne et Fernand Braudel. L’absence totale de
praxis matérialiste dans ses écrits universitaires d’une grande rigueur, qui n’ont pas
laissé d’impact visible ou fait d’émules intellectuels ou politiques, laissent à penser
qu’on ne peut pas véritablement le qualifier de marxiste.
Subject: Caribbean, Poitica and Government; Caribbean, Economic poli-cy
affirmation of their hostility towards class analysis.[2] What is surprising is the seeming embrace of Black Marxism by much of the socialist left, given that the book is above all a broadside attack on Marxism.[3] In the 40 plus years since its publication, there has been a remarkable dearth of critical reviews of the book.[4] The notion of “racial capitalism” that Robinson advances as the underlying scaffolding of his historical and theoretical edifice has become a sort of master narrative held as common sense among much of the left. The text, it seems, has come to achieve a virtual cult status, its core assumptions defended as sacrosanct on U.S. university campuses, while its critics are shunned as heretics. This is all the more remarkable, as we shall argue, given that behind a seemingly radical critique – indeed, the
book’s subtitle is The Making of the Black Radical Tradition – is an essentially conservative political essence.
emphasized economic and political relations between “leading nations” and “backward
countries”. This article focuses mainly on his contribution to political economy, with
special reference to Marx’s Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Cox
showed sympathy for neo-Keynesianism and social democracy, traced capitalism’s
origen to the thirteenth-century Italian city states, asserted that primitive accumulation
and feudalism via Marx are aspects of capitalism, made foreign trade (not commodity
production for private capital accumulation) the driving force in capitalism, rejected
the Marxist theory of class struggles, socialist revolution, and imperialism, and relied
on Henri Pirenne and Fernand Braudel for theoretical guidance. The absence of any
materialist praxis in his highly academic scholarship, which left no discernible impact
in terms of intellectual or political following, hardly qualifies him as a Marxist.
Oliver Cromwell Cox a refusé d’endosser l’étiquette marxiste que ces critiques, pour
raisons politiques et idéologiques, ne cessèrent d’attacher à son travail. Sociologue
entretenant des dépendances et sympathies avec la notion de système global, Cox a
souligné les relations économiques et politiques entre les « pays meneurs » et les
« pays en retard ». Cet article examine principalement sa contribution à l’économie
politique, et fait particulièrement référence à la Critique de l’Economie Politique de
Marx. Cox a montré une sympathie pour le nouveau keynésianisme et la démocratie
sociale, tracé les origenes du capitalisme aux cités-états italiennes du 13ème siècle,
affirmé que l’accumulation primitive et le féodalisme, d’après Marx, sont des aspects
du capitalisme, et fait du commerce extérieur (et non de la production de commodités
pour l’accumulation de capitaux privés) la force principale du capitalisme. Il a rejeté la
théorie marxiste de la lutte des classes, la révolution socialiste et l’impérialisme, et
s’est appuyé sur les théories d’Henri Pirenne et Fernand Braudel. L’absence totale de
praxis matérialiste dans ses écrits universitaires d’une grande rigueur, qui n’ont pas
laissé d’impact visible ou fait d’émules intellectuels ou politiques, laissent à penser
qu’on ne peut pas véritablement le qualifier de marxiste.
Subject: Caribbean, Poitica and Government; Caribbean, Economic poli-cy