Multinationals
and the
Nation-State
A. Game
"NA TIO NA L
INTERESTS?”
IN TER E STS ”
OR
“CLASS
In the last few years a su b s ta n tia l nu m b e r of
m arxist analyses of p o st-w a r c a p ita lis m have
lo c a te d th e d o m in a n t c o n tr a d ic t io n o f
im perialism as one betw een m u ltin a tio n a l (or
transnation al) c o rp o ra tio n s and the nation
state. W hile there are v a ria tio n s on the them e,
the general co n c e p tio n is of a “ pow er
s tru g g le ” betw een m u ltin a tio n a l c o rp o ra tio n s
and nation states. T hus in c o n te m p o ra ry
analyses of A ustra lia n c a p ita lis m we fin d
statem ents such as:
"T h e p ro b le m o f b u ild in g u p th e n a tio n sta te is
th a t w ith m u ltin a tio n a ls s u c h n a tio n sta te s c an
e x e rc is e o n ly a lim ite d s o v e re ig n ty o n lo c a l
b ra n c h e s o f s u c h c o m p a n ie s ." (1)
W h e e lw rig h t, w h o has m a d e th e m o st
e x te n s iv e a n a ly s e s o f in te rn a tio n a l c a p ita lis m
Ann G ame is a p o s t-g ra d u a te research s tu d e n t in
A delaide.
in A ustralia, cla im s th a t w ith the rise o f the
(m o stly A m e rica n ) m u ltin a tio n a l c o rp o ra tio n
w h ic h is “ re sp o n sib le to no o n e ” , "w h a t is in
q u e stio n is th e survival o f the nation s ta te .....”
(2). As such analyses have been re fle cte d in
th e strategies of w o rk in g class and le ft p o litic a l
o rg a n is a tio n s it is im p o rta n t to d e m o n stra te
th a t th e y are based on co n c e p ts derived fro m
bo u rg e o is liberal fra m e w o rks, and th a t
c o n s e q u e n tly th e y le a d to in a d e q u a te
strategies fo r a re v o lu tio n a ry m ovem ent. To
p u t it m ost b lu n tly , there is a s ig n ific a n t trend
to w a rd s va rio u s fo rm s o f n a tio n a lism w h ic h
have the e ffe c t o f co n c e a lin g class c o n flic t and
b u ry in g w o rk in g class interests by p ro p o s in g
a lliances w ith the n ational b o u rg e o isie , o r
defence o f o n e ’s own state, against fo re ig n o r
in te rn a tio n a l ca p ita l. W h e e lw rig h t's sta te m e n t
th a t "th e re are c o n flic ts betw een th e interests
o f in te rn a tio n a l c o rp o ra tio n s and the n a tional
in te re s t” (op. cit. p. 60) is n o t u n co m m o n , and
a fre q u e n t s o lu tio n o ffe re d is th a t “Australia”
sh o u ld be p u t in th e hands o f A u stra lia n
o w n e rsh ip ra th e r than being ow ned by
A m erica o r Japan. (3)
18
M U L TIN A T IO N A LS A N D TH E N A TIO N STATE
One o f these analyses o f m u ltin a tio n a l
c o rp o ra tio n s does a ctu a lly a d m it th a t an
exp lanatio n o f the nature of “ n a tio n a l interests
can be p ro vided o n ly a fte r a discu ssio n o f the
re la tio n sh ip s between class and state and
betw een class and im p e ria lis m ” ; b u tth e n goes
on to say th a t it is outside the scope o f the
paper; th a t “ national in te re sts” w ill be
assum ed, as in bourg eo is ideology, “ w ith o u t
a nalysing the real class d im e n s io n .” (4) It is to
be a r g u e d h e re t h a t th e n a tu r e o f
in te r-im p e ria lis t relation s can o n ly be grasped
in the c o n te x t o f those q u e stio n s neglected by
M arine lli and S om aini. M isu n d e rstan d in g s of
these re la tio n s have arisen as a result o f the
m eaning given to such co n ce p ts as the
“ m u ltin a tio n a l c o r p o r a t io n ” , “ n a tio n a l
in terests” , and “ nation sta te ” in a n u m b e r of
recent analyses. It is necessary to break w ith
id e o lo g ica l co n ce p ts and re fo rm u la te the
questio n in class term s. In these term s an
analysis o f in te r-im p e ria lis t c o n tra d ic tio n s
w o uld n o ta s k the question “ w h a t can o r c a n ’t a
state d o in the face o f large m u ltin a tio n a l
c o rp o ra tio n s ? ” Rather, the fo cu s w o u ld be on
the e ffe ct th a t the in te rn a tio n a lis a tio n of
c a p ita l has o n th e re la tio n s b e tw e e n
im p e ria list bourgeoisies, and c o n se q u e n tly on
th e ro le o f th e n a tio n a n d s ta te in
in te r-im p e ria lis t relations.
M U L TIN A T IO N A L C O R PO R A TIO N S
The key features o f the post W orld W ar 2
phase o f capita lism that are noted by m ost
m a r x is t c o m m e n ta to r s ,
b u t v a r io u s ly
interpreted are, firs tly , the massive increase in
d ire ct fo re ig n investm ent (th a tis the se ttin g up
o f m a n u fa ctu rin g plants in o th e r co u n trie s ,
rather than th e take-over o f shares in e xistin g
local ente rprises) (5) and secondly, th a t th is
investm ent is taking place in o th e r advanced
c a p i t a l i s t c o u n t r ie s r a t h e r th a n in
underdeveloped co untrie s. (6)
T h e s ig n ific a n c e
o f d ir e c t fo r e ig n
in v e s tm e n t in s id e o th e r m e tr o p o lita n
co u n trie s (that is, centres of im p e ria lism ) is,
however, often missed; p a rtic u la rly w hen it is
expressed ih term s o f the "rise o f the
m u ltin a tio n a l c o rp o ra tio n ” . The fo cu s on
transnational o r m u ltin a tio n a l c o rp o ra tio n s as
the c h a ra cte ristic feature of th is phase of
cap italism h§s led “ n e o -m a rx is ts ” such as
B arratt Brow h to claim th a t there is a need to
revise the tra d itio n a l m a rxist th e o rie s of
im perialism (Lenin's Imperialism s p e c ific a lly ).
W hile a d m ittin g that there is c o m p e titio n
b e tw e e n th e s e firm s , th is is se e n as
qu a lita tiv e ly d iffe re n t to “ im p e ria lis t state
rivalries at the end o f the n in e te e n th c e n tu ry ”
(m y em phasis). This view rests on the
a s s u m p t io n t h a t " t h e m u l t i n a t i o n a l
c o rp o ra tio n has em erged as a m ore p o w erful
e n tity than the nation state. T he new em pires
are the g ia n t c o rp o ra tio n s ....” (8) The p o litic a l
c o n c lu s io n s o f such a view are the same as
those o f the u ltra -im p e ria lis t p o s itio n - th a t is,
one that claim s there are no c o n tra d ic tio n s
between c a p ita lis t states, the o n ly s ig n ific a n t
c o n tra d ic tio n being th a t betw een im p e ria lism
and the “ th ird w o rld ” . A p a rtic u la r va ria tio n of
th is is s u p e r-im p e ria lism . The a rg u m e n t in this
case is th a t as a result o f th e d o m in a n c e o f US
ca p ita l, all c a p ita lis t states are u n ite d u n der
the leadership and d o m in a tio n o f th e US
super-state. (9) B arratt B row n cla im s th a t in
the lig h t o f the fa c t th a t riv a lry between
c a p ita lis t nation states has been co n ta in e d in
the face o f c o m p e titio n fro m the co m m u n is t
w o rld and national lib e ra tio n m ovem ents (1))
and th a t firm s are “ now transnational ”, Sweezy
is c o rre c t in seeing th e o n ly possible
re vo lu tio n a ry in itia tiv e c o m in g fro m the
im poverished masses in underd e ve lo p e d
c o u n trie s (See Baran and Sweezy Monopoly
C a p ita l). S u c h
p o s itio n s
ig n o re
th e
c o n tra d ic tio n s w ith in and betw een im p e ria list
b ourgeoisies and the im p o rta n c e o f class
stru g g le in m e tro p o lita n c o u n trie s . The view
th a t th e
L e n in is t c o n c e p tio n
of
in te r-im p e ria lis t riva lry (riv a lry betw een states
in defence o f certain fra c tio n s o f c a p ita l) has
been superseded w ith the em e rg e nce of
tra n sn a tio n a l c o rp o ra tio n s is based on a
m isu n d e rstan d in g of the re la tio n between
capital and the state, and leads to re fo rm ism in
practice. (11) That is, if th e rise of the
m u ltin a tio n a l c o rp o ra tio n has in som e sense
m eant the dem ise o f n a tio n a l states, the
q u e s tio n
o f s ta te p o w e r, c e n tr a l to
re vo lu tio n a ry strategy, becom es obscured.
(This is to be taken up again later).
The question o f the d isp la ce m e n t o f d ire c t
fo re ig n investm ent to w a rd s m e tro p o lita n
centres has s im ila rly been m is in te rp re te d by
those w ho hold an u ltra -im p e ria lis t p o sitio n.
(12) Those advanced c a p ita lis t co u n trie s
w here US capital holds d o m in a n t p o sitio n
becom e, in th e ir schem a, q u a si-co lo n ie s,
a nalgous to peripheral co u n trie s : “ a line of
c o n tin u ity is th u s draw n betw een the states of
the T h ird W orld and the sm a lle r in d u stria l
nations e.g. B rita in .” (13) T hat is, the “ p o w e r”
AUSTRA LIAN LEFT REVIEW SEPTEMBER, 1975
of m etro p o lita n states is being destroyed
eith er u nder the d o m in a tio n o f large US
capital, o r the US superstate, o r “ in te rn a tio n a l”
capital “ above” states. (14) T he stra te g y that
suggests itself in the lig h t o f th is view is an
alliance w ith the n ational b o u rg e o is ie against
US im perialism . Such stra te g ie s are based on
m isu nde rstandings o f the re la tio n betw een US
capital and the b o u rg e o isie s w ith in these
form ations. As M andel has p o in te d out, the
p e rc e n ta g e in c re a s e in d i r e c t . fo r e ig n
investm ent inside o th e r m e tro p o le s ,C o n tra ry
to th is view, sig n ifie s intensification of
in te r-im p e ria list co m p e titio n . (15)
It is in tere sting to co m p a re strategies fo r
“ national in d e pe n d e n ce ” of, fo r exam ple,
A ustralia, put fo rw a rd by som e “ m a o ist”
groups, w ith M ao’s view on th e same question
in the case o f se m i-co lo n ia l c o u n trie s:
"W hen im p erialism launches a w a r of
aggression against such a co u n try , all its
various classes can te m p o ra rily un ite in a
national w ar against im p e ria lism ....
“ W hen im p e ria lis m c a rr ie s o n its
oppression not by w ar, but by m ild e r
means - p o litica l, e c o n o m ic and c u ltu ra l the ruling classes in semi c o lo n ia l
co u n trie s ca p itu la te to im p e ria lism , and
the tw o form an a llia n ce fo r the jo in t
oppression of the masses o f the people
Mao T se -tu n g On Contradiction
(F.L.P. P eking 1967, p. 30)
19
M ao’s w a rn in g ag a inst c o lla b o ra tio n w ith
sections o f a ru lin g class in se m i-co lo n ia l
c o u n trie s is even m ore vital in the case of
im p e ria list c o u n trie s.
T h e c r u c i a l p o in t w it h r e g a r d to
m ulTmatToTTaTgorporatlons is~fo understand
th a t they are effects of the co n ce n tra tio n and
ce n tra lisa tio n processes o f capital. 3 h a
worTiJwicfe scale. T h at is. th e y are s im p ly the
ihsffiuFionaTTorm of th is stage o f m o n o p o ly
capitaliS m T T hey d o n ’t s ig n ify th a T ca p ita lism
hasTJuaJjtatively changed, b u tT a t h e r, are^the
necessary re su lt of the basic d yn a m ics ©f
c a p ita lis t d e velopm ent (16) w h ich exist
independent' o f m u ltin a tio n a l co rp o ra tio n s.
M a rtin e lli and S om aini, fo r exam ple, assume
th a t because the “ m u ltin a tio n a l c o rp o ra tio n
em bodies the processes o f c o n ce n tra tio n and
ce n tra lisa tio n ....” (op. cit. p. 69), it is s u ffic ie n t
to fo cu s a tte n tio n on firm s. On the c o n tra ry, it
is precisely because th e y are the in s titu tio n a l
effects o f a process th a t the ch a n g in g
s tru c tu re of g lo b a l p ro d u c tio n and fo rm o f the
a ccu m u la tio n o f capital, and co n se q u e n t class
relations can o n ly p a rtia lly be understood by
lo o kin g at the m u ltin a tio n a l c o rp o ra tio n s and
th e ir activities.
THE M U L TIN A T IO N A L C O R PO R A TIO N AND
THE N ATIO N STATE
In o rd e r to grasp the nature o f in te r­
im p e ria list c o n tra d ic tio n s , it is n o t o n ly
necessary to sh ift focus fro m the institutions of
m u ltin a tio n a l c o rp o ra tio n s to m o d ific a tio n s in
class relations, but also to understand the role
20
M U L TIN A T IO N A LS A N D TH E N A TIO N STATE
o f the state. F irstly, it is im p o rta n t to
d e m o n stra te the c o n c e p tio n o f the state
im p lied in the fo rm u la tio n o f “ a p o w e rs tru g g le
betw een
m u ltin a tio n a l c o rp o ra tio n s and
n atio n states.” (17)
T he tra d itio n a l lib era l view o f in te rn a tio n a l
re la tio n s has been one o f free, separate nation
s ta te s
e m b o d y in g
n a tio n a l
in te re s ts ,
c o m p e tin g w ith each o th e r fo r “ p o w e r” .
B o urg e o is p o litic a l scie n tists and e c o n o m ists
have fo u n d it necessary to m o d ify som e o f
th e ir assu m p tio n s w ith the em ergence o f
m u ltin a tio n a l c o rp o ra tio n s . In general th e y
have added the in te rn a tio n a l c o rp o ra tio n as
a n o th e r in d ivid u a l a c to r on the in te rn a tio n a l
arena c o m p e tin g fo r “ p o w e r” . In th is new
m odel the in te rn a tio n a l c o rp o ra tio n has an
h o m o g e n e ity and equivalence w ith n a tio n
states. It is p re cise ly th is fra m e w o rk th a t som e
m arxists have em p loye d recently.
R obin M urray fo r exam ple, cla im s th a t tw o
tra d itio n a l assu m p tio n s have to be replaced;
firs tly , th a t there is an id e n tity o f in te re sts
betw een a firm and its state, and se co n d ly, th a t
the state has pow e r to c o n tro l the a c tiv itie s of
its firm s, W hat is needed instead is “ a m odel
w h ich c o n ta in s in te rn a tio n a l firm s, n a tio n
states, and in te rn a tio n a l in s titu tio n s as
p rim a ry u n its ” (as opposed to a m odel th a t has
e ith e r o n ly n a tio n states, o r in te rn a tio n a l firm s
as p rim a ry in te rn a tio n a l actors). (18) T hus we
fin d va rious m a rxists speaking in te rm s s im ila r
to those o f the liberal in te rn a tio n a l re la tio n s
fra m ew orks: fo r exam ple, “ p o w e r is the d riv in g
fo rce o f m u ltin a tio n a l c o rp o ra tio n s and th e ir
success lies in th e ir ‘b a rg a in in g p o w e r’ w ith
host n a tio n states.” (19) G oldstein speaks o f
“ p u b lic p o w e r versus private p o w e r” , the
“ m a n a g e r s ” o f th e fo r m e r b e in g
“ a c c o u n ta b le ” , the latter, not. (20) S im ila r
a ssu m p tio n s are involved when W h e e lw rig h t,
fo llo w e d by C atley and M cFarlane, speak of
“ m u ltin a tio n a l c o rp o ra tio n s being re sp o n sib le
to no one b u t th e ir ow n h e a d q u a rte rs.” (21)
T he o th e r side o f th is co in is o f co u rse the
su g gestion th a t m u ltin a tio n a ls can be p u t
u n d e r c o n t r o l o f “ th e p e o p le ” v ia
n a tio n a lisa tio n A lth o u g h it is not the m ain
p o in t to be taken up here, the n o tio n o f
“ a c c o u n ta b ility to the p e o p le ” fa lls e n tire ly
w ith in th e lib e r a l b o u rg e o is n o tio n o f
dem o cra cy. G old stein also refers to a “ ze ro sum s tru g g le fo r pow er o f m anagers of
m u ltin a tio n a l c o rp o ra tio n s w ith m anagers of
state p o w e r.” (22) The c o n c e p t o f zero-sum
pow er, o r c o u n te rv a ilin g pow er, rests on the
p lu ra lis t a ssum ption th a t p o w e r is a given
q u a n tity in a so c ie ty fo r w h ic h a n u m b e r of
a u to n o m o u s g ro u p s o r in d iv id u a ls com pete.
The g a in in g o f som e o f his p o w e r by one
gro u p means its s u b tra c tio n fro m a n o th e r._
A c o m m o n th e m e in a n a ly s e s o f
in te rn a tio n a l firm s is the fle x ib ility o f these
firm s, th e ir a b ility to s h ift p ro d u c tio n units
w herever it su its them , th e c o n se q u e n ce of
w h ich , it is argued, is an “ a b d ic a tio n of
absolute state p o w e r.” (23) T h is p a rtic u la r
a rticle goes on to claim th a t “ toTFi'e e x te n t that
fo re ig n ca p ita l has p e n etrated the national
e co n o m ic space the state loses p o w e r to
defend its ow n c a p ita l.” (24) W hile it is
ce rta in ly tru e th a t states no lo n g e r necessarily
cfefend th e ir “ own c a p ita l” , to speak o f the
state losing pow er v ,-a-vis som e se ctio n of
ca p ita l is m isleading. S im ila rly M a rtin e lli and
S om aini argue th a t because m u ltin a tio n a ls
c o n tro l fin a n c ia l flow s, te c h n o lo g y etc. and
can m ake a rb itra ry c h o ice s th e ir a c tiv ity
generates “ n ational in te re st c o n flic ts .” (25)
T h a t fs, nation states, su p p o s e d ly being
pow erless to c o n tro l “ fo re ig n ” firm s , are less
capable o f a ctin g in the “ n a tio n a l in te re st"
(w hether it be the in te re st o f n a tio n a l capital,
o r “ the p e o p le ” at large). T hus, the general
p ic tu re th a t em erges fro m these a c c o u n ts is
th a t these firm s in som e sense by-pass, o r are
above nation states and w eaken them ,
su ggesting (a lth o u g h never e x p lic itly ) th a t the
national state has in som e w a y to be defended
ag a inst in te rn a tio n a l o r fo re ig n capital.
In o rd e r to de m o n stra te th a t th e main
c o n tra d ic tio n s on an in te rn a tio n a l level today
ca n n o t be unde rsto o d as one between
m u ltin a tio n a ls and nation states it is necessary
to o u tlin e b rie fly the m a rxist c o n c e p tio n of
p o w e r and th e o ry o f the c a p ita lis t state.
MARXIST THEO R Y OF THE STATE
M a rx is t e x p la n a tio n s o f in te r n a tio n a l
c o n flic ts a re lo c a te d in th e fie ld o f
c o n tra d ic tio n s betw een classes, ra th e r than
c o n flic ts o f interest betw een na tio n states. It is
not, how ever, s u ffic ie n t to leave the m atter
here, fo r the que stio n m ust be asked: w hat role
does the state play in “ in te rn a tio n a l re la tio n s ”
o r m ore precisely, in te r-im p e ria lis t c o n flic ts ?
In o -d e r to establish th is it is necessary to look
at the fu n c tio n o f the state in c a p ita lis t
societies. It is im p o rta n t to n o te th a t we are
now lo o kin g at the n a tional state apparatus
A USTRA LIAN LEFT REVIEW SEPTEMBER, 1975
rather than the na tion state. The use o f the
concep t "n a tio n state" fre q u e n tly im p lie s that
the nation
and the state are one and the
same, the conseq uen ce o f th is being the
suggestion th a t there is a n a tio n a l interest
tra nscending class interests.
The m arxist c o n ce p tio n o f the state is th a t it
has a fu n c tio n o f "h o ld in g to g e th e r” societies,
s u c h as c a p ita lis t s o c ie tie s , th a t are
fragm ented by class c o n tra d ic tio n s . (26)
When understood in the c o n te x t o f a so cie ty
divided into classes, the sta te ’s role as a fa c to r
of o rd e r and re g u la tio n , n e ce ssa rily m eans the
re p ro d u ctio n o f the p a rtic u la r social relations
on w hich capita lism is based. In the w o rd s of
Engels:
“ The m odern state is o n ly the org a n isa tio n
w h ich bo urgeois so c ie ty creates in o rd e r
to m a in ta in th e g e n e ra l e x te rn a l
c o n d itio n s o f the c a p ita lis t m ode of
p ro d u c tio n aga inst a tta cks by w o rke rs as
w ell as individ u a l c a p ita lis ts .”
(Anti Duhring)
N ot o n ly is the state essential to c a p ita lis t
s o c ie tie s b e c a u s e th e y a re b a s e d on
c o n tra d ictio n s
and
irre c o n c ila b le
class
antagonism s, but these also make in te llig ib le
the appearance of the state as s ta n d in g above
society.
“ In o rde r th a t these a n ta g o n ism s and
c la s s e s w ith c o n f lic t in g E c o n o m ic
interests m ig h t not c o n su m e them selves
and society in a fru itle s s stru g g le it
became necessary to have a pow er
seem ingly stand in g above so cie ty that
w o u ld alleviate c o n f lic t .....”
(Engels, Origin of the Family, Private Property
and the State, M .E .S .W . (In te rn a tio n a l 1969)
p. 586)
The apparent separateness of the state is not
to be understood in the sense of either it being
a neutral umpire between contending class
interests or having some interests of its own.
This appearance is made necessary in order
that a class society be reproduced; that is, the
economic and political dominance of the
capitalist class be maintained. W ithout the
state apparatus the antagonistic nature of the
relations of p ro d u c tio n w o u ld be laid bare, and
hence “ so cie ty" threatened by sharper class
struggle.
N ow we can return to the q u e stio n o f state
pow er, p a rtic u la rly the n o tio n that the pow er
21
o f th e s ta te is b e in g th r e a te n e d by
m u ltin a tio n a l c o rp o ra tio n s . T h is assum es th a t
pow er is a c tu a lly located in the in s titu tio n s of
the state. T h is s tric tly speaking is n o tth e c a s e ;
po w e r in c a p ita lis t so cie tie s means class
pow er, and state pow er is a p a rtic u la r aspect of_
the power of the ruling class. The state itse lf
has no “ p o w e r” - rather it is w here ru lin g class
po w e r is exercised. The p o litic a l d o m in a tio n
and pow er o f the c a p ita lis t class is realised
th ro u g h the re la tive ly a u to n o m o u s state
apparatus. It is because o f the relative
a u to n o m y o f th is apparatus th a t the state
appears to have pow er itself over so ciety.
D iffic u ltie s w ith state p o w e r in the analyses
discussed above, have p a rtia lly arisen o u t o f a
c o n fu s io n o f s ta te p o w e r w ith s ta te
in te rve n tio n , p a rtic u la rly state in te rv e n tio n on
behalf of “ n a tio n a l” fra c tio n s o f ca p ita l. T hat
is, when the state is seen to act on b e h a lf of
"fo re ig n ” c a p ita l as opposed to n ational
fra c tio n s it is fre q u e n tly expressed in te rm s of
loss o f pow er o f the state to act in the national
“ in te re s t.”
B ill W a rre n , in a rg u in g a g a in s t th e
a s s u m p t io n t h a t m u l t i n a t i o n a l s a re
t h r e a t e n i n g th e p o w e r o f th e s t a t e
d e m onstrates p re cise ly the same c o n fu s io n .
(27) He argues th a t the p o w e r of nation states
vis-a-vis large firm s is in fa c t greater now , and
increasing, on the g ro u n d s th a t the processes
o f c o n c e n tra tio n and c e n tra lis a tio n o f capital
have fre q u e n tly been co n se q u e n ce s of
d e liberate state policies. W hat he q u ite
c o rre c tly appears to be em phasising is the
increasing need fo r state in te rve n tio n w ith the
increasing in te rn a tio n a lis a tio n of ca p ita l. (28)
This, however, is n o ta q u e s tio n of the increase
o r decrease o f state p o w e r but ra th e r a
qu e stio n o f id e n tify in g the se ctio n s o f the
ca p ita lis t class in w hose interests the state is
intervening.
It is now cle a r th a t it makes little sense to
speak of m u ltin a tio n a ls (in o th e r w ords,
fra c tio n s o f ca p ita l) th re a te n in g the p o w e r o f
nation states, o r p o s s ib ly e lim in a tin g them
when state p o w e r is the expression o f class
pow er, and the re p ro d u c tio n of ca p ita l is
depen d e n t on the state. Such an a p p ro a ch
evades the task of class analysis, p a rtic u la rly
an analysis o f the d iffe re n t fra c tio n s o f capital
o f w hich the b o u rg e o isie is c o m p rise d .
C o n fu sio n has arisen at th is p o in t because
w ith the in te rn a tio n a lis a tio n o f capital it is not
necessarily “ n a tio n a l” fra c tio n s w h ic h w ill be
22
M U L T IN A T IO N A L S A N D THE N A TIO N STATE
defended by the state. T hat is, th e general
interest o f capital m ay not c o rre s p o n d to the
p a rtic u la r interests o f n a tional fra c tio n s o f the
b o urgeo isie. (29)
p o litic a l d o m in a tio n o f the c a p ita lis t class.
This d o m in a tio n c a n n o t be o ve rco m e unless
the state apparatus itse lt is sm ashed, o r as
M arx and Engels put it:
C o m peting fra ctio n s o f capital are p o ssib ly
interested in e lim in a tin g each o th e r, b u t not
the state apparatus. For all ca p ita ls o p e ra tin g
w ith in a p a rtic u la r socie ty require th e state to
play a d o m in a n t part in re p ro d u c in g th e social
c o n d itio n s n e c e s s a ry fo r c a p it a lis t
p ro d u c tio n . A nd, it m ust be noted, th a t despite
c o m p e titio n between se ctions o f ca p ita l, all
sections have interests in co m m o n such as
co n ta in in g w o rkin g class struggle, raising the
rate o f p ro fit, etc. N ational state in te rv e n tio n is
a p re -re q u isite fo r the necessary in te rn a tio n a l
expansion o f capital. And here indeed th e re is
a c o n tra d ic tio n : the increasing im p o rta n c e of
in te rve ntion of the national state as a co n d itio n
of capital e xp andin g internationally. T h is is an
“ The w o rk in g class ca n n o t s im p ly lay hold
o f the ready made state m a ch in e ry and
w ield it fo r its ow n p u rp o s e s .” (31)
expression o f the general c o n tra d ic tio n of
capitalism , between the te n d e n cy to w a rd s
s o cia lisa tio n o f the p ro d u ctive process and the
private nature of a p p ro p ria tio n , w hich is
depend ent upon the in te rve n tio n o f the
national state. Expressing the c o n tra d ic tio n in
th is w ay is n o t at all the same as saying th a t
there is a s tru g g le between tw o en titie s,
m u ltin a tio n a l c o rp o ra tio n s and nation states.
The p o litica l consequences are qu ite d iffe re n t.
T here are tw o main p o litic a l c o n c lu s io n s to
be draw n from the above. F irstly, there is a
need fo r p ro le ta ria n in te rn a tio n a lis m as
a g a inst “ s o c ia l-p a trio tis m ” . S e co n d ly, the
enem y of the people is still the b o u rg e o is ie and
its state; and the stru g g le a g a in s t them can
o n ly be led by a class c o n s c io u s labor
m ovem ent.
FO O T N O TE S
1.
1974, p. 6.
2.
E.L. Wheelwright. Radical Political Economy,
ANZ, Sydney, 1974, pp. 36-37.
3.
McFarlane and Catley speak of the Labor
governm ent’s inability to respond adequately to
the “contradiction between the growing
nationalism of the Australian people .... and the
de facto econom ic and political power of
transnational corporations." (op. cit. p. 5).
There is no attem pt here to identify what "the
Australian people" consists of, or whose
interests “their" nationalism serves.
Alberto M artinelli, Eugenio Somaini, "Nation
S tates and M u ltin a tio n a l C o r p o ra tio n s ” ,
Kapitalistate I, 1973, p. 69.
-
C O N C L U S IO N
The m ain p o in t of the fo re g o in g has been to
argue against various fo rm s o f n a tio n a lism ,
such as th a t prom oted by “ m aoists", th a t com e
from seeing th e fo re ig n o rin te rn a tio n a l nature
of capital as the c h a ra c te ris tic th a t makes it
“ the en em y” . The basic a n ta g o n is tic re la tio n s
o f e x p lo ita tio n on w h ic h ca p ita lism is based
have not changed: it is the form th a t changes in
d iffe r e n t p n a s e s o f im p e r ia lis m . T h u s ,
the role o f the state in c a p ita lis t so c ie ty has n o t
changed either. The basic tenets o f m a rxism leninism are also s till valid. W he th e r the
argum ent be th a t the state is the “ to o l” o f
foreig n or in te rn a tio n a l capital, o r th a t its
pow er is being threatened, the th e o re tic a l
m istakes and p o litica l consequences are the
same. S tra te g ica lly these new th e o rie s lead to
reform ism . The national state in these
schem as is e ith e r to be defended ag a inst
foreign capital, or taken over in ta c t by the
people (the w o rk in g class in alliance w ith
fra ctio n s o f national ca p ita l) o u t o f the hands
of the fo re ig n m onopolies. (30) Such n o tio n s
ignore the role o f the state in m a in ta in in g the
B. McFarlane & R. Catley, From Tw eedledum to
Tweedledee, A & NZ Book Company, Sydney,
4.
5.
See e.g. J. Dunning, Studies in International
Investment, Allen & Unwin, 1970, for figures on
proportionate increase in US investment abroad
since the war.
6.
US investments in Europe quadrupled 1957-67,
whereas they not quite doubled in Canada, and
hardly increased in Latin America. J. Dunning
(ed ), The Multinational Enterprise, Allen &
U n w in , 1971, p o in ts o u t d ire c t fo re ig n
investment constitutes 75 per cent of capital
exported now, as against 10 per cent before
1914.
7.
M. Barratt Brown, Essays on
Spokesman, 1972, p. 39.
8.
Loc. cit.
9
See e.g. P. Sweezy, P. Baran, M onopoly Captial,
Penguin, 1968; H. Magdoff, The Age of
Imperialism, M onthly Review, 1969; Sweezy and
Magdoff in M onthly Review; M. Nicolaus, "USA:
The Universal C ontradiction". NLR, No 59
1970.
Imperialism,
M U L TIN A T IO N A LS AND TH E N A TIO N STATE
10. This is Sweezy's most recent position. See
“ Imperialism in the Seventies” , Monthly
Review, Vol. 23. No. 10, 1972, pp. 2-5. Also June
and Oct. 1971. Previously he took the more
com m only held ultra-im perialist view that
imperialism is united under US hegemony.
W hile it is axiom atic that revolutionary
movements are the threat to capitalism (the
victories in Indo-China being the most recent
testim ony to this) neither this nor the fact that
one capitalist country may have hegemony at a
particular time can lead to a peaceful unity of
international capitalist interests. The very
dynam ic of the capitalist production process
makes this an im possibility.
11. The obvious comparison here is with the
reformism of the German SPD and K. Kautsky,
the initial proponent of a theory of peaceful
ultra-im perialism .
12. This fact has also been w idely used by “ neom arxists” in attempts to refute Lenin, e.g. M.
Kidron, “ Imperialism: highest stage but one” , in
Capitalism and Theory, Pluto Press, 1974,
London (first appeared in 1962 in International
Socialism), pp. 132-3. On an em pirical level
these arguments overlook the fact that Lenin
referred to capitalist investments in other
advanced capitalist countries. More im portantly
th o u g h , th e y are based on a la ck of
understanding of M arx’s tendential law of falling
rate of profit.
13. M. Nicolaus, op. cit., p. 15.
14. This latter notion comes out, e.g. in R. Murray,
“ The internationalisation of capital and the
Nation State” . NLR, No. 67, and P ici^otto and
Radice, Kapitalistate, No. 1, 1973, p. 57.
15. E. Mandel, “ Laws of Uneven Development,”
NLR, No. 59, pp. 27-28. It should be pointed out
that in his argum ent for a “ United Europe"
Mandel himself neglects inter-im perialist
com petition on a European level. Europe vs.
America?, NLB, 1970, pp. 57-58.
16. This is not to be understood in the terms put
forward by Barratt Brown, that “ modern
technology pushes firm s beyond frontiers of
nations" (p. 56, op. cit.). Technology is not the
d e te rm in a n t fa c to r. C o n c e n tra tio n and
centralisation (and hence improvements in
technology) occur as a result of the imperatives
of com petition between capitals.
17. Sweezy and M agdoff go one step further when
they refer to the “ nation", “ m ultinational
corporations and nations are fundam entally
and irrevocably opposed to each other,” ,
Monthly Review, Nov. 1969 In this article, the
“ nation” , defined as a “ collectivity with
pretensions to sovereignty” , the “ nation state” ,
and th e “ n a tio n a l in te re s t” are used
interchangeably.
23
18. In Dunning (ed.) The Multinational Enterprise,
p. 266. Previous reference has been made to
Barratt B row n’s suggestion that in fact
m ultinational corporations have become the
dom inant factors in international relations,
whereas nation states were previously. The
issue here is not which of these entities has won
the struggle, but rather, the framework that sees
them as equivalent (but not necessarily equal)
entities in a struggle. Barratt Brown is by no
means alone in his opinion - cf. Kindleberger,
Hymer, Sampson, Vernon.
19. A.G. Papandreou, “ M ultinational C orporations
and Empire” , Social Praxis, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1973.
20. W. Goldstein, “ The M ultinational C o rporation” ,
Socialist Register, 1974, Merlin, p. 292.
21. W heelwright, op. cit. p. 37. McFarlane & Catley,
op. cit., p. 5.
22. Goldstein, op. cit., p. 295.
23. Picciotto and Radice, op. cit. p. 57. Murray, NLR,
No. 67, pp. 107-109.
24. Ibid. p. 62. These authors do in fact give a more
accurate account of the function of the state
“ regulation of the national market econom y on
behalf of the capital operating within it.”
25. Op. cit., pp. 74-76.
26. For the most comprehensive contem porary
work on the m arxist theory of the state see N.
Poulantzas, Political Power and Social Classes,
NLB, and Sheed & Ward, 1973.
27. B. Warren, “ How International is Capital?",
NLR, No. 68, 1971, pp. 85-86.
28. W riters such as Mandel have argued that the
internationalisation process could provoke
some form of supranational state. Not only is
this mechanistic, but it falls into the ultra­
im perialist mistake of thinking that it is possible
to eliminate the contradictions from capitalism,
and ignores the fact of uneven development of
social form ations on which inter-im perialist
contradictions are based.
29. It has frequently been noted that, contrary to the
initial purpose of the EEC, it has been more
advantageous to US capital than European. See
Mandel, Europe vs. America, p. 60; Turgendhat,
The M ultinationals, Penguin, 1973, pp. 106-107.
30. cf. Lenin's castigation of the "Leaders of
Socialism” (G erm an SPD) for their adaption “to
the interests not only of ‘their national
bourgeoisie', but of ‘their’ s ta te .....” State and
Revolution in Selected Works, Vol. 2, Moscow,
1970, p. 287.
31. Marx & Engels, Introduction to German edition
of Com m unist Manifesto, 1872. MESW, op. cit.,
p. 31.