|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
078630
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Pluto Press, 2007.
|
| Description |
x, 257p.
|
| Standard Number |
0745320945
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 052562 | 327.7304709045/SAU 052562 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
084674
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
I argue that American global power should not be considered as a case of empire, at least not in the way that we have come to define empires, historically. Rather, because it is consistent with and embedded in a postcolonial organization of political space that rests on upholding the legal-constitutional and political autonomy of states and promoting new sources of capitalist accumulation, the organization and realization of American global power is significantly different from other imperial experiences. The denial of empire, however, does not mean that the United States is not imperial or imperialist. The way in which American global power is organized and the socioeconomic and political relations that flow from it have reproduced enduring patterns of hierarchy, domination and exploitation, all of which highlight the enduring patterns of military power and geopolitical hierarchy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
060631
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
117523
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The 2008-2009 global economic crisis has revived debates concerning the decline of American hegemony and the rise of China. This article engages with these debates on two levels. First, through situating the 2008-2009 crisis in longer-term development trends in the world economy, I suggest that the empirical evidence of American decline is more ambiguous and that the crisis itself is not, necessarily, an indicator of decline, but rather an organic feature of uneven development with more open political consequences. Secondly, I offer a revised neo-Gramscian perspective on American hegemony by highlighting the contradictions between the structural logic of uneven development and the neoliberal historical bloc. Through this I provide an alternative overview of the evolution of American hegemony over the last 30 years pointing to the likely continuation of American/neoliberal global hegemony.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
051228
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Frank Cass, 2001.
|
| Description |
xvi, 238p.
|
| Series |
Cold war history; no.2
|
| Standard Number |
0714682268
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 048230 | 327.73047/SAU 048230 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
107561
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article offers a critical assessment of Fred Halliday's theorization of the Cold War and, in particular, his attempt to offer a more global perspective on it through a greater focus on the role of developments emanating from the Third World as constitutive of the Cold War. The author argues that although Halliday's theorization of the Cold War as 'inter-systemic conflict' is a major advance in our understanding of the Cold War-through the attention it pays to the causal linkages between capitalist development and imperialism, revolutionary transformations and superpower geopolitical confrontations-it fails, ultimately, to fulfil its potential as a theory of global Cold War. Halliday's temporalization of the Cold War and his insistence on the autonomy of the superpower arms race and strategic competition end up detaching developments in the Third World from the axis of superpower conflict and, consequently, suggests a residual Eurocentrism within his theory. The article begins by contextualizing the wider theorization of the Cold War and the (absence) place of the Third World in it. It then proceeds to assess critically Halliday's conceptualization of the Third World in the Cold War. The final section outlines an alternative theoretical framework for a theory of global Cold War that builds on elements of inter-systemic conflict focused on how geopolitical confrontations involving the superpowers derived from the revolutionary consequences of uneven capitalist development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
067522
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Routledge, 2006.
|
| Description |
ix, 203p.
|
| Contents |
B
|
| Standard Number |
0415354250
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 050581 | 327.973009051/COL 050581 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|