Please see the call for contributions below and attached and let others know.
The Capitalist Mode of Power
Critical Engagements with the Power Theory of Value
Editor: Tim DiMuzio
Lecturer, University of Wollongong, Australia
A Call for Contributions
The 2009 publication of Nitzan and Bichler’s Capital as Power: A Study of Order and Creorder has unsettled both heterodox and mainstream theorists of political economy, while igniting debate across the social sciences. Building on decades of research, their book offers not only a provocation to all political economists, but also an new approach to studying capital and capitalist sociality as a mode of power.
This collection, edited by Tim DiMuzio, aims to bring together scholars and practitioners interested in critically appraising and engaging with the work of Nitzan and Bichler, as well as researchers who use a power theory of value in their own work.
Contributions should be no longer than 8,000 words, including notes and references. Style should conform to Cambridge guidelines found here: https://authornet.cambridge.org/informa ... text_notes
Papers should be original (i.e. not published elsewhere), unless the author has explicit permission from the copyright holder to republish the piece in this volume.
Contributions will be evaluated on their merit, as well as on how well they fit within the larger project.
Deadline for Submissions: June 1, 2011
Submissions are to be sent to: email@example.com
Subject Heading: Original Submission CASP
The volume will be organized around the three main themes outlined below.
Theme 1: Historicizing the Emergence of Capital as Power
While Nitzan and Bichler have provided a sketch of the historical rise of the capitalist mode of power, there is considerable room for further historical investigation. Contributions to this section could address the following questions, but are not limited to them:
• How far and in what ways does Nitzan and Bichler’s account of capital as a mode of power upset or contribute to the transition-to-capitalism debates led by Dobb, Sweezy, Brenner and Wood? Is the capitalist mode of power a break from, or continuous with, earlier forms of society and economy?
• How was the emergence of wage labour related to the early rise of capital as power?
• What is the historical relationship between technology and sabotage, and how has this relationship developed and shaped the capitalist mode of power?
• How is the evolution of accounting related to the rise of capital as power?
• How far and in what ways have Hindu-Arabic numbers facilitated the process of quantification and capitalization?
• Can the emergence of capital as power be accounted for by focusing solely on Western states and agents of social change?
• What is the relationship between capitalization and the modern nation state?
• How might we rethink the rise of the modern transnational corporation in light of the power theory of value?
• How did the institution of the national debt spread and deepen historically and what does it portend for the future of capitalization?
• What were the first major capitalized entities? What kind of power was capitalized and why is this important?
• How was the process of capitalization institutionalized in historical struggles?
• What is the historical relationship between the rise of capitalization as a dominant power process and the discovery and use of fossil fuels?
Theme 2: New Explorations and the Power Theory of Value
The second theme of this edited collection considers original and unique contributions that apply the framework of capital as power in general and a power theory of value in particular to the study of the global political economy. Although papers in this section may have a historical dimension, their emphasis will be on asking new questions and shedding new light on aspects of capitalist society.
Theme 3: Critical Engagements with Capital as Power
The third theme of the volume will consider contributions that critically appraise and engage with the framework of capital as power and the power theory of value. Some questions that might be asked in this vein are:
• What are the theoretical and practical limitations of using the framework of capital as power to understand the global political economy?
• Are there methodological shortcomings in the power theory of value?
• Do Nitzan and Bichler offer a convincing critique of neoclassical and Marxian political economy?
• What does the framework of capital as power mean for neo-Gramscian assessments of the global political economy?
• How useful is the power theory of value for understanding (post) modern capitalism?
• What type of new research is needed to better understand capital as a mode of power? Should the research agenda of political economy be reconstructed – and if so, how?
• How does the power theory of value understand exploitation and alienation, and what are the theoretical and practical consequences of these conceptualizations?
• How might we imagine different forms of resistance and social organization that counter or capital as an all-encompassing mode of power?