What do you think?
Rate this book
Empire of Capital
Capitalism makes possible a new form of domination by purely economic means, argues Ellen Meiksins Wood. So, surely, even the most seasoned White House hawk would prefer to exercise global hegemony in this way, without costly colonial entanglements. Yet, as Wood powerfully demonstrates, the economic empire of capital has also created a new unlimited militarism.
By contrasting the new imperialism to historical forms such as the Roman and Spanish empire, and by tracing the development of capitalist imperialism back to the English domination of Ireland and on the British Empire in America and India, Wood shows how today’s capitalist empire, a global economy administered by local states, has come tom spawn a new military doctrine of war without end, in purpose or time.
By contrasting the new imperialism to historical forms such as the Roman and Spanish empire, and by tracing the development of capitalist imperialism back to the English domination of Ireland and on the British Empire in America and India, Wood shows how today’s capitalist empire, a global economy administered by local states, has come tom spawn a new military doctrine of war without end, in purpose or time.
184 pages, Hardcover
First published June 17, 2003
16 people are currently reading
1052 people want to read
About the author
Ellen Meiksins Wood
36 books208 followersEllen Meiksins Wood FRSC (April 12, 1942 – January 14, 2016) was an American-Canadian Marxist historian and scholar. From 1967 to 1996, she taught political science at Glendon College, York University in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
With Robert Brenner, Ellen Meiksins Wood articulated the foundations of Political Marxism, a strand of Marxist theory that places history at the centre of its analysis. It provoked a turn away from structuralisms and teleology towards historical specificity as contested process and lived praxis.
Meiksins Wood's many books and articles, were sometimes written in collaboration with her husband, Neal Wood (1922–2003). Her work has been translated into many languages, including Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, German, Romanian, Turkish, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese. Of these, The Retreat from Class received the Isaac Deutscher Memorial Prize in 1988.
Wood served on the editorial committee of the British journal New Left Review between 1984 and 1993. In 1996, she was inducted into the Royal Society of Canada, a marker of distinguished scholarship. From 1997 to 2000, Wood was an editor, along with Harry Magdoff and Paul Sweezy, of Monthly Review, the socialist magazine.
With Robert Brenner, Ellen Meiksins Wood articulated the foundations of Political Marxism, a strand of Marxist theory that places history at the centre of its analysis. It provoked a turn away from structuralisms and teleology towards historical specificity as contested process and lived praxis.
Meiksins Wood's many books and articles, were sometimes written in collaboration with her husband, Neal Wood (1922–2003). Her work has been translated into many languages, including Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French, German, Romanian, Turkish, Chinese, Korean, and Japanese. Of these, The Retreat from Class received the Isaac Deutscher Memorial Prize in 1988.
Wood served on the editorial committee of the British journal New Left Review between 1984 and 1993. In 1996, she was inducted into the Royal Society of Canada, a marker of distinguished scholarship. From 1997 to 2000, Wood was an editor, along with Harry Magdoff and Paul Sweezy, of Monthly Review, the socialist magazine.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
August 7, 2020
A stunningly straightforward and clearly written history of the many types of empire, all leading to the one we are currently stuck within - the Global Empire of Capital and the surplus imperialism and militarism that comes with that. While I appreciated and learned much from the historical chapters, what I really valued from this book is how it made me completely rethink the world we're in and the actions of my country (the US) and others. Published in 2003 in the post 9-11 Bush years, everything she describes has only become more true since then. Many things make more sense to me now in ways I really hadn't completely thought of before. Another one of those works that set off mind explosions and rewires your brain a bit for the better. Also a perfect followup to Wood's Origin of Capitalism.
September 21, 2025
Perhaps (along with The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View) the perfect introduction to Ellen Meiksins Wood.
You can read my appreciation of her work (including this and a number of her other books) here: https://longform.wdclarke.org/capital...
You can read my appreciation of her work (including this and a number of her other books) here: https://longform.wdclarke.org/capital...
September 20, 2025
I need to read everything Woods has ever written. She’s the best
May 7, 2020
Catching up on some overdue reviews...
Empire of Capital is rock-solid and necessary. International politics and the state are undertheorized in the marxist canon, and the aspiring communist oftentimes is forced to choose either between rough 19th-century attempts or liberal theories. Wood has made 3 great contributions towards the furthering of this science:
- The role of the state in the maintenance of tributary modes of production and the development of European capitalism
- The mediation between classes and the state, and the relative autonomy of the latter
- The various forms of 'empire', pre- and post-Lenin, and the accompanying ideological discourse
For instance, she does a terrific job at clearing up the nature of pre-feudal "slave states". Wood argues that in the cases of Greece and Rome, being the most exemplary, the basis was still predominantly peasant-based; or, more concretely, latifundia-based. In other words, Roman power flowed forth not from the state itself (which she describes as pretty weak, all things considered), but land-owning aristocrats whose prime income was generated through essentially feudal means - extra-economic exploitation on the basis of private land ownership. Slavery gradually replaced the Italian peasantry as the latter was drawn in to serve as imperial cannon fodder, but for the empire as a whole, the peasant-latifundia model remained dominant.
This in stark opposition to the Chinese empire (all the way up until 1912), where not private land ownership itself but control of the state and various bureaucracies, which collectively owned the land, were the greatest sources of income. The state actively intervened to quell upcoming private land lords who sought to appropriate "their" peasants' produce, instead of letting the majority go to state taxes. Samir Amin, in his Classe et nation dans l'histoire et la crise contemporaine, argued for a "tributary" MoP instead of the traditional "feudal" and "Asiatic" modes of production, the former being an "unfinished" form of the latter. Schematic reasoning aside, "tributary" does very well describe the nature of these empires, and Roman/Greek private land ownership explains the instability of their respective states. While tributary empires lasted for centuries, the mediterranean land-ownership aristocracies frequently broke up along these faultlines. Thus, in situations where the state itself functions as an extra-economic engine of private enrichment (instead of the "form" that allows private enrichment to occur elsewhere, as is the case in mature capitalism), the state bureaucracy itself forms a class that can govern in opposition to private landowners. On the other hand, the mediterranean states were characterized by their weakness, as exploitation and power rested in the hands of private aristocrats and their personal property who together supported a state, but who were not necessarily the loyal servants of that state.
Another cool thing is her discussion of the development of capitalism. In Capital, Marx could only give a model explanation of its rise in England, where it first came to be. The ascendancy of the rural and industrial bourgeoisies first pushed and eventually melded with the ruling class controlling the state, enacting the Enclosures and the (repeal of the) Corn Laws. However, in the other European capitalisms, the relation state-class was much the opposite: forced by trade with Britain, nations like France and Germany forcefully "bred" capitalism using the machinery of the state, with its corresponding classes following after rather than leading. I can only spell out things briefly here, but the whole chapter is a warning against idealized theories that we would be prudent to take to heart.
Finally, colonialism and imperialism. I'm gonna quote a paragraph in full, as it captures the essence of her thesis:
The book further stresses the weakness of the Spanish royal state in its empire - it was very quickly forced to lease most of its possessions to private land-owners and other states to compensate for its foreign debts. The contemporary American empire, on the other hand, is of quite a different nature. Its role is not to annex or subjugate nations politically (although it of course has frequently done so), but to ensure the free flow of capital. As the US military build-up is vastly overequipped for any realistic victim nation, it must be seen more from the angle of military keynesianism rather than serving a real military need. It doesn't need boots on the ground in every country, because every nation is already plugged into the world market. Financial leverage can be just as persuasive or destructive as an army, in this context.
To summarize, Empire of Capital posits the state as a material force in its own right, instead of a veil for random capitalist backers. Its strength lies in dismantling the "global capitalism" narrative that is sometimes smuggled into marxist discourse by, for instance, Negri & Hardt. Its weakness is the lack of economic analysis - classes and states seem to move voluntarily, as opposed to being driven by economic necessities. To be fixed by Geopolitical Economy: After US Hegemony, Globalization and Empire.
Empire of Capital is rock-solid and necessary. International politics and the state are undertheorized in the marxist canon, and the aspiring communist oftentimes is forced to choose either between rough 19th-century attempts or liberal theories. Wood has made 3 great contributions towards the furthering of this science:
- The role of the state in the maintenance of tributary modes of production and the development of European capitalism
- The mediation between classes and the state, and the relative autonomy of the latter
- The various forms of 'empire', pre- and post-Lenin, and the accompanying ideological discourse
For instance, she does a terrific job at clearing up the nature of pre-feudal "slave states". Wood argues that in the cases of Greece and Rome, being the most exemplary, the basis was still predominantly peasant-based; or, more concretely, latifundia-based. In other words, Roman power flowed forth not from the state itself (which she describes as pretty weak, all things considered), but land-owning aristocrats whose prime income was generated through essentially feudal means - extra-economic exploitation on the basis of private land ownership. Slavery gradually replaced the Italian peasantry as the latter was drawn in to serve as imperial cannon fodder, but for the empire as a whole, the peasant-latifundia model remained dominant.
This in stark opposition to the Chinese empire (all the way up until 1912), where not private land ownership itself but control of the state and various bureaucracies, which collectively owned the land, were the greatest sources of income. The state actively intervened to quell upcoming private land lords who sought to appropriate "their" peasants' produce, instead of letting the majority go to state taxes. Samir Amin, in his Classe et nation dans l'histoire et la crise contemporaine, argued for a "tributary" MoP instead of the traditional "feudal" and "Asiatic" modes of production, the former being an "unfinished" form of the latter. Schematic reasoning aside, "tributary" does very well describe the nature of these empires, and Roman/Greek private land ownership explains the instability of their respective states. While tributary empires lasted for centuries, the mediterranean land-ownership aristocracies frequently broke up along these faultlines. Thus, in situations where the state itself functions as an extra-economic engine of private enrichment (instead of the "form" that allows private enrichment to occur elsewhere, as is the case in mature capitalism), the state bureaucracy itself forms a class that can govern in opposition to private landowners. On the other hand, the mediterranean states were characterized by their weakness, as exploitation and power rested in the hands of private aristocrats and their personal property who together supported a state, but who were not necessarily the loyal servants of that state.
Another cool thing is her discussion of the development of capitalism. In Capital, Marx could only give a model explanation of its rise in England, where it first came to be. The ascendancy of the rural and industrial bourgeoisies first pushed and eventually melded with the ruling class controlling the state, enacting the Enclosures and the (repeal of the) Corn Laws. However, in the other European capitalisms, the relation state-class was much the opposite: forced by trade with Britain, nations like France and Germany forcefully "bred" capitalism using the machinery of the state, with its corresponding classes following after rather than leading. I can only spell out things briefly here, but the whole chapter is a warning against idealized theories that we would be prudent to take to heart.
Finally, colonialism and imperialism. I'm gonna quote a paragraph in full, as it captures the essence of her thesis:
Spain, while building a centralized monarchy at home and an extended empire in Europe, would create the largest overseas empire the world had ever seen. It did so by means of precisely such a public/private partnership. Its medieval reconquest of European lands from the Moors, and its spread into Africa and the Canaries, provided a model for further expansion. This was a model based less on the great bureaucratic kingdoms of the past than on feudal parcellization. It is certainly true that Spanish monarchs, especially Ferdinand and Isabella, sought to protect their own royal powers and to prevent the emergence of a hereditary feudal aristocracy in the colonies; and they created a state bureaucracy unlike anything that had hitherto been seen in Europe. But they presided over Spain’s massive imperial expansion into the Americas by farming out the tasks of empire to private conquerors in pursuit of private wealth. (38)
The book further stresses the weakness of the Spanish royal state in its empire - it was very quickly forced to lease most of its possessions to private land-owners and other states to compensate for its foreign debts. The contemporary American empire, on the other hand, is of quite a different nature. Its role is not to annex or subjugate nations politically (although it of course has frequently done so), but to ensure the free flow of capital. As the US military build-up is vastly overequipped for any realistic victim nation, it must be seen more from the angle of military keynesianism rather than serving a real military need. It doesn't need boots on the ground in every country, because every nation is already plugged into the world market. Financial leverage can be just as persuasive or destructive as an army, in this context.
To summarize, Empire of Capital posits the state as a material force in its own right, instead of a veil for random capitalist backers. Its strength lies in dismantling the "global capitalism" narrative that is sometimes smuggled into marxist discourse by, for instance, Negri & Hardt. Its weakness is the lack of economic analysis - classes and states seem to move voluntarily, as opposed to being driven by economic necessities. To be fixed by Geopolitical Economy: After US Hegemony, Globalization and Empire.
December 28, 2023
Kapitalizmin sömürge biçimleriyle kurduğu ilişkiyi anlatan bir kitap. Hacmiyle ve değindiği konularla bunu çepeçevre anlattığını söyleyemem. Emperyalizm, küreselleşme veya imparatorlukları anlamak için daha farklı başvuru kaynaklarına yönelmeli okur. Wood kısa bir özetten sonra, sömürge ve sermaye biçimlerine odaklanıyor. İmparatorlukların geçirdiği değişimle kurulan ilişkiler hakkında ise ufuk açıcı oluyor kesinlikle.
İmparatorlukların coğrafi yayılmacılığı farklılaşıyor. Direkt nüfuz edilen alan ve kaynaklar yerine farklı hakimiyet türleri buluyorlar. Artık sömürgecilik, sömürge ile tebaa arasındaki ilişki değil daha karmaşık iktisadi ilişkileri içeriyor. Coğrafi etki alanlarına da ihtiyacı kalmayan yeni sömürgecilik, güçlü güçsüz fark etmeksizin devletlere kendini dayatabiliyor. Kapitalizmin sürdürülebilir olması için politik olarak stabil olmaya ihtiyaç duyduğunu söylüyor yazar. Amerikan emperyalizminin sonsuz savaş doktriniyle biraz çelişen bir tez açıkçası. Ama Wood saygı duyduğum eleştirmenlerden biri. Okumaya devam edeceğim. Diğer kitaplarında tezini daha temelden anlattığını düşünüyorum şimdilik.
İmparatorlukların coğrafi yayılmacılığı farklılaşıyor. Direkt nüfuz edilen alan ve kaynaklar yerine farklı hakimiyet türleri buluyorlar. Artık sömürgecilik, sömürge ile tebaa arasındaki ilişki değil daha karmaşık iktisadi ilişkileri içeriyor. Coğrafi etki alanlarına da ihtiyacı kalmayan yeni sömürgecilik, güçlü güçsüz fark etmeksizin devletlere kendini dayatabiliyor. Kapitalizmin sürdürülebilir olması için politik olarak stabil olmaya ihtiyaç duyduğunu söylüyor yazar. Amerikan emperyalizminin sonsuz savaş doktriniyle biraz çelişen bir tez açıkçası. Ama Wood saygı duyduğum eleştirmenlerden biri. Okumaya devam edeceğim. Diğer kitaplarında tezini daha temelden anlattığını düşünüyorum şimdilik.
December 19, 2021
This book is very readable and thought-provoking, but not carefully argued.
Wood is not an economist, and she is not describing a general theory of how capitalism allows empires to maintain their colonies in a dependent relationship, preventing their development. Strangely, she doesn't even define what counts as an "empire"! It seems like she uses "empire" simply to refer to self-contained economic systems. These economic systems usually extract wealth for the benefit of a country, but might also extract wealth for the benefit of a geographically dispersed ruling class.
Her actual goal is to discuss how these economic "empires" expand their borders and maintain themselves via the use of military force, and thus to uncover the structural role of the USA's military in maintaining the modern "empire" of global capitalism. (Who truly profits from global capitalism - the USA or the global bourgeoisie? She doesn't say...)
She begins with a historical study of how self-contained economic systems use military force either to extract wealth (eg. enclosing the land, enslaving indigenous peoples) or maintain the economic structure's existence (eg. defending trade routes). The goal is to show that the growth of capitalism has coincided with a transition from this "direct" violence to this "structural" violence, as the logic of capitalism extracts wealth by seemingly non-violent means.
This section has some gems, where we see how the idea of a "just war" has evolved to suit whatever wars the empires were already doing, and how legal notions of "property" have similarly evolved as the means of extracting wealth changed. I felt like I had read some of this before in her previous book, "The Origins of Capitalism", though.
She concludes by describing how the modern USA's overwhelming military dominance has the purpose of maintaining the smooth running of global capitalism. In this way, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite more obvious economic incentives like Oil and Fattening the Military-Industrial-Complex, were primarily designed to scare the USA's enemies and to discourage the USA's friends.
This last part fell flat for me. On one hand, the explanation for the USA's military dominance is too obvious, and seems to be simply the official government stance. On the other hand, the explanation for the particular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were too vague. Why did the US go to war then and there, and stay there for as long as it did? Why do other countries need to be reminded of the US's military strength - isn't that obvious?
Wood is not an economist, and she is not describing a general theory of how capitalism allows empires to maintain their colonies in a dependent relationship, preventing their development. Strangely, she doesn't even define what counts as an "empire"! It seems like she uses "empire" simply to refer to self-contained economic systems. These economic systems usually extract wealth for the benefit of a country, but might also extract wealth for the benefit of a geographically dispersed ruling class.
Her actual goal is to discuss how these economic "empires" expand their borders and maintain themselves via the use of military force, and thus to uncover the structural role of the USA's military in maintaining the modern "empire" of global capitalism. (Who truly profits from global capitalism - the USA or the global bourgeoisie? She doesn't say...)
She begins with a historical study of how self-contained economic systems use military force either to extract wealth (eg. enclosing the land, enslaving indigenous peoples) or maintain the economic structure's existence (eg. defending trade routes). The goal is to show that the growth of capitalism has coincided with a transition from this "direct" violence to this "structural" violence, as the logic of capitalism extracts wealth by seemingly non-violent means.
This section has some gems, where we see how the idea of a "just war" has evolved to suit whatever wars the empires were already doing, and how legal notions of "property" have similarly evolved as the means of extracting wealth changed. I felt like I had read some of this before in her previous book, "The Origins of Capitalism", though.
She concludes by describing how the modern USA's overwhelming military dominance has the purpose of maintaining the smooth running of global capitalism. In this way, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite more obvious economic incentives like Oil and Fattening the Military-Industrial-Complex, were primarily designed to scare the USA's enemies and to discourage the USA's friends.
This last part fell flat for me. On one hand, the explanation for the USA's military dominance is too obvious, and seems to be simply the official government stance. On the other hand, the explanation for the particular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were too vague. Why did the US go to war then and there, and stay there for as long as it did? Why do other countries need to be reminded of the US's military strength - isn't that obvious?
July 25, 2020
Çeviride yer yer düşük cümleler anlamayı zorlaştırıyor. Cümle yapıları da hızlı okuma için çok uygun değil. Onun dışında gayet anlaşılır bir dille yazılmış.
kitabın 15 yıllık olması bazı bilgilerinin güncelliğini kaybetmesine yol açsa da bence geçerliliği halen var. Sol görüşlü bir kitap. Kapitalizmin artıları ve eksilerini karşılaştırmıyor. Doğrudan kapitalizmin modern emperyalizm ile olan ilişkisini açıklamaya girişiyor.
Kısa bir giriş yaptıktan sonra emperyalizm ve kapitalizm tarihini inceliyor son olarak ta modern dünyada emperyalizmin kapitalizmi nasıl kullandığına geçiyor.
Kapitalizmin çelişkileri sık sık konu ediliyor. Kapitalizmin gelişmesi için rekabet olmalı. Ama kapitalist için rekabet kârın düşmesi demek. Rakiplerini yok etmesi durumunda pazarlar da yok olacağından mallarını satamaz. Bu yüzden durumu dengelemek zorunda. Kapitalist ülkenin kapitalist rakip ülkeye ihtiyacı var. Rekabette o ülkeyi yenmeli ama fazla yenmemeli.
Her ne kadar bunun siyasi teorisinin henüz (2006 yılında) olmadığını söylese de kendisi durumu kabaca açıklamaya çalışıyor. Dünyayı küresel bir imparatorluk olarak görüyor. Bu imparatorluğun başında ulus devletler sistemi, onun başında ise ABD var. Emperyalizm gücünü askeri olarak değil iktisadi olarak dayatıyor ama kapitalizm her zaman iktisadi olmayan güçlere sırtını dayamak zorunda. Bu iktisadi olmayan güç Amerikanın devasa askeri gücü.
ABD yeni "sonsuz savaş doktrini" ile belirsiz hedeflerle bile askeri operasyonlar yapıyor. Amaç belli hedeflere ulaşmak değil, güç gösterisi yapmak. Güçlenen ve potansiyel rakip olan ülkeler (müttefikler dahil) ABD'nin askeri gücüne kafa tutmayı hayal bile etmemeli.
Kitap bazı konulara açıklık getirmekte yetersiz. Ulus ülkeleri sistemi tam olarak nasıl çalışıyor?Hegemon ülkenin neden mahalli yönetimlere ihtiyacı var? Küreselleşmenin tek taraflı işlediği ve yalnızca hegemon ülkelerin işine gelecek şekilde olduğundan bahsedilmiş ama bu nasıl gerçekleşiyor. ABD'nin çiftçilerine sübvansiyon sağlamasının söylenmesi dışında bu konulara ne derinlenmesine inilmiş ne de bu durumlara kanıt gösterilmiş.
kitabın 15 yıllık olması bazı bilgilerinin güncelliğini kaybetmesine yol açsa da bence geçerliliği halen var. Sol görüşlü bir kitap. Kapitalizmin artıları ve eksilerini karşılaştırmıyor. Doğrudan kapitalizmin modern emperyalizm ile olan ilişkisini açıklamaya girişiyor.
Kısa bir giriş yaptıktan sonra emperyalizm ve kapitalizm tarihini inceliyor son olarak ta modern dünyada emperyalizmin kapitalizmi nasıl kullandığına geçiyor.
Kapitalizmin çelişkileri sık sık konu ediliyor. Kapitalizmin gelişmesi için rekabet olmalı. Ama kapitalist için rekabet kârın düşmesi demek. Rakiplerini yok etmesi durumunda pazarlar da yok olacağından mallarını satamaz. Bu yüzden durumu dengelemek zorunda. Kapitalist ülkenin kapitalist rakip ülkeye ihtiyacı var. Rekabette o ülkeyi yenmeli ama fazla yenmemeli.
Her ne kadar bunun siyasi teorisinin henüz (2006 yılında) olmadığını söylese de kendisi durumu kabaca açıklamaya çalışıyor. Dünyayı küresel bir imparatorluk olarak görüyor. Bu imparatorluğun başında ulus devletler sistemi, onun başında ise ABD var. Emperyalizm gücünü askeri olarak değil iktisadi olarak dayatıyor ama kapitalizm her zaman iktisadi olmayan güçlere sırtını dayamak zorunda. Bu iktisadi olmayan güç Amerikanın devasa askeri gücü.
ABD yeni "sonsuz savaş doktrini" ile belirsiz hedeflerle bile askeri operasyonlar yapıyor. Amaç belli hedeflere ulaşmak değil, güç gösterisi yapmak. Güçlenen ve potansiyel rakip olan ülkeler (müttefikler dahil) ABD'nin askeri gücüne kafa tutmayı hayal bile etmemeli.
Kitap bazı konulara açıklık getirmekte yetersiz. Ulus ülkeleri sistemi tam olarak nasıl çalışıyor?Hegemon ülkenin neden mahalli yönetimlere ihtiyacı var? Küreselleşmenin tek taraflı işlediği ve yalnızca hegemon ülkelerin işine gelecek şekilde olduğundan bahsedilmiş ama bu nasıl gerçekleşiyor. ABD'nin çiftçilerine sübvansiyon sağlamasının söylenmesi dışında bu konulara ne derinlenmesine inilmiş ne de bu durumlara kanıt gösterilmiş.
February 19, 2021
Wood examines modern capitalism and the argument as to whether the nation state is needed or disappearing with economic globalization. She has a clear viewpoint unilaterally critical of the Bush administration which is when this book was written. Made her an unreliable narrator for me, if there is such a thing in non-fiction, as I didn’t know what details were glossed over or what history may have been omitted in order for her to lead readers to the same conclusions she holds.
That said, I still found this to be a valuable outline of the history of imperialism and a history of world economy. A great reminder that modern capitalism is actually rather recent and our arrival here was a natural evolution of the economy in its way. The economy and nation-states have always worked in tandem to a greater or lesser extent.
The author points out that capitalism requires a stable political environment to thrive and it suffers in chaos. Therefore a strong nation-state with internal stability in its self-governance, along with a strong military ready to enforce/maintain the status quo on the world stage, will be most advantageous to “capitalist imperialism”. Wood touches on the ongoing tension of capitalism to increase profits with ever cheaper labor while still making sure laborers have enough money to spend in order to keep the capitalist economy going.
I don’t have issues with capitalism or with maintaining a military as a tool for creating stability for economic purposes. There is no ideal human, materialistic method of governance. (Nor does Wood advocate for an alternative in this book even when clearly disliking the current state of affairs.) I think capitalism, even capital imperialism which relies on a strong military and nation-state, is the best humans can do right now.
That said, I still found this to be a valuable outline of the history of imperialism and a history of world economy. A great reminder that modern capitalism is actually rather recent and our arrival here was a natural evolution of the economy in its way. The economy and nation-states have always worked in tandem to a greater or lesser extent.
The author points out that capitalism requires a stable political environment to thrive and it suffers in chaos. Therefore a strong nation-state with internal stability in its self-governance, along with a strong military ready to enforce/maintain the status quo on the world stage, will be most advantageous to “capitalist imperialism”. Wood touches on the ongoing tension of capitalism to increase profits with ever cheaper labor while still making sure laborers have enough money to spend in order to keep the capitalist economy going.
I don’t have issues with capitalism or with maintaining a military as a tool for creating stability for economic purposes. There is no ideal human, materialistic method of governance. (Nor does Wood advocate for an alternative in this book even when clearly disliking the current state of affairs.) I think capitalism, even capital imperialism which relies on a strong military and nation-state, is the best humans can do right now.
March 28, 2021
More like a 3.5/5. A nice analysis of various forms of imperialism over the years. The historical parts were especially great. However, the analysis of modern globalization felt repetitive, lacking and unsubstantiated. It put forwards a hypothesis ( that globalization requires nation states more than ever) but never systematically justifies it or builds a proper theory.
July 27, 2017
Another great work by Wood. Part economic history, part contemporary political economy. An important text on globalization and capitalist imperialism.
October 3, 2014
How to define the current order of the world, characterised by competing sovereign states, fast cross-border flows of trade and investments, and the overwhelming military dominance of one nation-state committed to an open-ended warfare without any restrictions in space and time? This is the empire of capital, designed to universalise the economic imperatives of capitalism throughout the world. With the United States as the central power of this "new imperialism", the world is being ordered to serve the needs of capital. To the propertyless class, this means selling their labour power in the markets. To producers, it means the need for constant improvement of competitiveness and productivity.
Wood presents a thought-provoking interpretation of the nature of the contemporary US hegemony in light of a selection of earlier empires from the Arab Muslim Empire to Roman Empire and from Italian city-states to the British Empire, distinguishing the current capitalist imperialism from the earlier forms of imperialism based on direct political and military coercion and the extraction of profit through simple expropriation or trade. While her need to classify empires into different categories feels like a rather needless and contrived exercise at times, Wood's historical analysis of the operation of past empires offers many illuminating analogies with the current era of transnational corporations, finance and global governance.
Wood's analysis is short and pithy, but the book's convincingness suffers from a needless repetition of its basic arguments, as well as from Wood's Marxist tendency to attribute capitalism with historical agency and a universal, transhistorical logic of operation. Rather than defining capitalism as a culturally-specific and evolving practice of human agency which necessarily transforms in conjuction with political, economic and cultural changes, Wood rigidly sticks with a less-satisfying transhistorical conceptualisation. Offering historical events functionalist explanations, in which economic and political decisions are taken because of the requirements or inner contradictions of capital, is the obvious consequence of such a framework. Balancing such interpretation with the recognition of certain national or imperial interests, which at times may override the "pure" economic imperatives, serves only to confuse the overall argument.
Despite the weaknesses, the book is recommendable, not only for the easy accessibility of its historical narrative, but particularly so for Wood's forceful grounding of the current war on terror to the US-led project of global economic integration.
Wood presents a thought-provoking interpretation of the nature of the contemporary US hegemony in light of a selection of earlier empires from the Arab Muslim Empire to Roman Empire and from Italian city-states to the British Empire, distinguishing the current capitalist imperialism from the earlier forms of imperialism based on direct political and military coercion and the extraction of profit through simple expropriation or trade. While her need to classify empires into different categories feels like a rather needless and contrived exercise at times, Wood's historical analysis of the operation of past empires offers many illuminating analogies with the current era of transnational corporations, finance and global governance.
Wood's analysis is short and pithy, but the book's convincingness suffers from a needless repetition of its basic arguments, as well as from Wood's Marxist tendency to attribute capitalism with historical agency and a universal, transhistorical logic of operation. Rather than defining capitalism as a culturally-specific and evolving practice of human agency which necessarily transforms in conjuction with political, economic and cultural changes, Wood rigidly sticks with a less-satisfying transhistorical conceptualisation. Offering historical events functionalist explanations, in which economic and political decisions are taken because of the requirements or inner contradictions of capital, is the obvious consequence of such a framework. Balancing such interpretation with the recognition of certain national or imperial interests, which at times may override the "pure" economic imperatives, serves only to confuse the overall argument.
Despite the weaknesses, the book is recommendable, not only for the easy accessibility of its historical narrative, but particularly so for Wood's forceful grounding of the current war on terror to the US-led project of global economic integration.
October 2, 2014
In Empire of Capital, Ellen Meiskins Wood writes a thoroughly researched and well-argued case about a new form of empire that is based in capitalist theory. Her argument is based on political economy theory, which is rooted in the idea of rational choice scholarship. Wood conducts a qualitative analysis, which takes a historical perspective to prove her thesis. This historical perspective is useful in that it gives the reader a comparative analysis of different empires, at different times in history.
Empire of Capital’s, thesis is fascinating in that the author’s foundational argument is that capitalism has changed the way in which modern empires are organized. Gone are the days when an empire was built through land conquests, modern empires are structured around markets and industry. Yet, she acknowledges the complex relationship that nation states play as a coercive arm that enforces property rights through capitalism. In laying out her argument, the author starts with an analysis of Athens, Rome and China. She discusses how their empires were structured around military conquest. She then looks at the Spanish empire that was heavily reliant on territorial conquests for extractive rents seeking motives. The next period centers around empires that turned conquest into an economic opportunity. Here Wood looks at the Dutch Empire and the Islamic Caliphates as examples. In the end she discusses America’s current role as an empire and how capitalism inserts a new layer of coercion that works hand in glove with military coercion.
I found this book to provide a stronger argument than most other books that we’ve read in class. The fact the author states that America is an empire, is a good start. While reading about the coercive role of capitalism and the ever-evolving notions of property rights, I couldn’t help think of how Richard Tawney’s book The Acquisitive Society is still relevant. Wood does a great job of exposing the acquisitive nature of capitalist imperialism.
Empire of Capital’s, thesis is fascinating in that the author’s foundational argument is that capitalism has changed the way in which modern empires are organized. Gone are the days when an empire was built through land conquests, modern empires are structured around markets and industry. Yet, she acknowledges the complex relationship that nation states play as a coercive arm that enforces property rights through capitalism. In laying out her argument, the author starts with an analysis of Athens, Rome and China. She discusses how their empires were structured around military conquest. She then looks at the Spanish empire that was heavily reliant on territorial conquests for extractive rents seeking motives. The next period centers around empires that turned conquest into an economic opportunity. Here Wood looks at the Dutch Empire and the Islamic Caliphates as examples. In the end she discusses America’s current role as an empire and how capitalism inserts a new layer of coercion that works hand in glove with military coercion.
I found this book to provide a stronger argument than most other books that we’ve read in class. The fact the author states that America is an empire, is a good start. While reading about the coercive role of capitalism and the ever-evolving notions of property rights, I couldn’t help think of how Richard Tawney’s book The Acquisitive Society is still relevant. Wood does a great job of exposing the acquisitive nature of capitalist imperialism.
August 27, 2015
Great book on global capitalism that compares the connections between capitalism and modern empires. Especially think she makes a great argument about the continuing importance of nation states as a response to those who say they are less important.
December 28, 2017
light, readable overview of the intersection of imperialism and capitalism.
Read
April 5, 2020Meiksins in this short but important book explains how property relations were made and grounded on some historical, legal and philosophical justifications. Besides property relations she also explains the role of politics and economy in the making and spread of capital. Capitalism as a historical system which which is based on "endless accumulation of capital" wants to dominate not only home market but the markets across the world too. Therefore, after taking control of home market it exports both surplus capital and surplus population to the other countries. Thus the imperial phase of capital starts. Settler colonialism is justified by means of religious, scientific, legal or economic doctrines.
Want to read
September 20, 2025HB501 W913 2003 Memorial Library
Due back Dec 30, 2025
Due back Dec 30, 2025
February 3, 2025
I read this book about a month ago but I am still thinking about it. I also recently went through the debates over the book in the Historical Materialism journal from 2007.
I find Wood's analysis of the historical formations of empire helpful, although the periodization can be reductive and overly strict. She has a tendency to present a uniformity in each historical period, but this can be excused as it is a short book. The need to clarify a specific definition of capitalism and its origin is necessary for any useful analysis to be done.
The main thesis of the book is that globalism creates the illusion that the state is in decline in a system of capitalist imperialism, while in fact it is more necessary than ever. I need more information before coming to a conclusion on this. I think that transnational capital is more important in understanding global capitalism today but I also agree with Wood that we should not be fooled by people claiming the state is "withering away" without any real evidence of it. I am writing this the day that Trump has introduced tariffs on his Western allies and the threat of territorial expansion seems to be back on the table. So clearly the nation-state is here for the time being. I just wish Wood could have fleshed out the argument more, the final chapters come off as repetitive, contradictory and lacking evidence.
Wood makes a distinction between economic and extra-economic coercion/exploitation. She is correct to point out that the use of these two strategies fluctuates with the mode of production. Where I lose her argument is when she applies these categories to capitalist imperialism. Wood states that the universalization of capitalist imperatives is a modern phenomenon, defined by the use of mainly economic coercion. She argues that the nation-state is needed to maintain the stability of markets and market dependence. This means that the greatest threat to capitalist domination would be failed states - the collapse of a stable environment for capital. At the same time, Wood acknowledges a new ideology of imperialism declaring total war. This is war without end or a goal. Wood cites the war in Iraq as her example. But the US made Iraq into a failed state. She never seems to reconcile this contradiction between her theory and reality. As sociologist William Robinson puts it, creating a dualist construct makes "things that are dialectically related external to each other".
I think of the destruction of Ukraine and Syria in recent years as other examples of extra-economic force wreaking havoc on the ability of a state to function. Transnational institutions like IMF and World Bank do more to maintain markets and market dependence than the US. There is another contradiction here that I have trouble resolving. I think I need to read some of these theorists of unequal exchange or world systems next.
I find Wood's analysis of the historical formations of empire helpful, although the periodization can be reductive and overly strict. She has a tendency to present a uniformity in each historical period, but this can be excused as it is a short book. The need to clarify a specific definition of capitalism and its origin is necessary for any useful analysis to be done.
The main thesis of the book is that globalism creates the illusion that the state is in decline in a system of capitalist imperialism, while in fact it is more necessary than ever. I need more information before coming to a conclusion on this. I think that transnational capital is more important in understanding global capitalism today but I also agree with Wood that we should not be fooled by people claiming the state is "withering away" without any real evidence of it. I am writing this the day that Trump has introduced tariffs on his Western allies and the threat of territorial expansion seems to be back on the table. So clearly the nation-state is here for the time being. I just wish Wood could have fleshed out the argument more, the final chapters come off as repetitive, contradictory and lacking evidence.
Wood makes a distinction between economic and extra-economic coercion/exploitation. She is correct to point out that the use of these two strategies fluctuates with the mode of production. Where I lose her argument is when she applies these categories to capitalist imperialism. Wood states that the universalization of capitalist imperatives is a modern phenomenon, defined by the use of mainly economic coercion. She argues that the nation-state is needed to maintain the stability of markets and market dependence. This means that the greatest threat to capitalist domination would be failed states - the collapse of a stable environment for capital. At the same time, Wood acknowledges a new ideology of imperialism declaring total war. This is war without end or a goal. Wood cites the war in Iraq as her example. But the US made Iraq into a failed state. She never seems to reconcile this contradiction between her theory and reality. As sociologist William Robinson puts it, creating a dualist construct makes "things that are dialectically related external to each other".
I think of the destruction of Ukraine and Syria in recent years as other examples of extra-economic force wreaking havoc on the ability of a state to function. Transnational institutions like IMF and World Bank do more to maintain markets and market dependence than the US. There is another contradiction here that I have trouble resolving. I think I need to read some of these theorists of unequal exchange or world systems next.
Read
December 25, 2022*Empire of Capital* by Ellen Meiksins Wood is not a good book - it seeks to explain the "new imperialism" of USA, but 2/3 of the book is about analysing previous forms of imperialism, and its arguments are not insightful. For Wood what is defining about capitalism is that it is reliant on economic imperatives and not extra-economic coercion; this is then extend that until after WW2 there was no completely "capitalist" imperialism, but instead either extractive-tributary imperialism or commercial imperialism based on trade posts and military unifying disparate territories. Furthermore, it is stated - utterly baffingly - that WW1 was grounded in extra-economic compeition and as such not really a case of "capitalist" competition. When it comes to the present, it does not have much to say what the "new" or "capitalist" imperialism really *is* - it states it's a lot of things, and that it helps uphold capitalism. It is defined as one whose domination is by "manipulating" mechanisms of capitalism such as trade, foreign aid, etc. and that it seeks to uphold the economic imperatives of capitalism with deterrence over extra-economic coercion, but then also Wood states that in the Middle East USA is returning to a pre-capitalist form of capitalism. The only insightful comments is on globalisation as not an abolition of nation-states, but its continuation and perpetuation.
November 27, 2023
Dare I say I wish this was longer and more fleshed out, but that's not really Ellen Meiksins Wood's style. She gets straight to the point. Wood argues the hallmark of contemporary capitalist imperialism -- led by the American empire, which she argues is the first and only truly capitalist global empire in history -- is that it dominates through economic imperatives and avoids direct colonial entanglements as much as possible. Instead of operating through traditional colonial rule, the will of capital is imposed through the "laws" of the market, laws which are managed and organized by localized nation-states. The American empire in effect rules over a system of nation-states working at the behest of global capital. The principal function of 1) The disproportionately massive and expensive US Military and; 2) Military "alliances" like NATO is for the United States to maintain hegemony over its "friends" and ensure that no other state will aspire to global or even regional dominance. In order to endlessly maintain its military supremacy, the American empire has spawned a military doctrine of perpetual war.
August 30, 2022
4.8/5
Wood's commentary is precise and understandable. It's easy for me to make the connection between imperialism and capitalistic expansion, and how capitalism requires extra-economic forces to maintain a "predictable" speculatory climate that allows for systems of debt and wealth accumulation to thrive. But, as Wood points out, violence often betrays the speculatory necessities of capitalism, and capitalism is therefore unstable without increasing amounts of violence and exploitation of the mass proletariat.
Wood's capitalist contradictions are very insightful into how capitalism doesn't make sense on paper. It especially comments well on how the state is essentially forced to inflict violence in the favor of the capitalist elite. Violence feels like an inherent part of capitalism through Wood's lens, and that makes all the difference when advocating for a socialist alternative.
Wood's commentary is precise and understandable. It's easy for me to make the connection between imperialism and capitalistic expansion, and how capitalism requires extra-economic forces to maintain a "predictable" speculatory climate that allows for systems of debt and wealth accumulation to thrive. But, as Wood points out, violence often betrays the speculatory necessities of capitalism, and capitalism is therefore unstable without increasing amounts of violence and exploitation of the mass proletariat.
Wood's capitalist contradictions are very insightful into how capitalism doesn't make sense on paper. It especially comments well on how the state is essentially forced to inflict violence in the favor of the capitalist elite. Violence feels like an inherent part of capitalism through Wood's lens, and that makes all the difference when advocating for a socialist alternative.
November 17, 2024
A solid review of past systems of imperialism and how capitalist imperialism differs, forcing market imperatives and the free flowing of capital to the entirety of the world. Since it is through these actions that imperialism operates today, it may seem invisible outside of the extra-economic shows of force that the global North participates in from time to time. With this current age of imperialism, with the US being the dominant imperial nation, deregulation and debt restructuring are the primary means of keeping poorer countries as the suppliers of cheap labor and of adequate investment opportunities. For this to be accomplished the IMF, World Bank, WTO and even NATO all have to, and are, essentially be under the control of the US.
January 3, 2024
Essentially a classification of various Western empires as property, commercial, or capitalist in motivation, while developing the above framework for understanding empire. The first 2/3 of the book was less than inspiring, including a full-paragraph explanation of comparative advantage and a one-sentence explanation of the Roman Empire's fall. The last two chapters are more interesting and applicable to modern geopolitics. Overall, the book could have been 1/2 the length without losing intellectual content.
February 13, 2019
3 1/4 stars
August 22, 2023
I really liked it.
April 7, 2024
Nice typology of modes of imperialism and development of capitalist empire and it's imperatives. Brief on details, but a good jumping off only
Read
July 27, 2011Concise, readable and persuasive analysis tracing the evolution of imperalist projects through pre- and early capitalist forms through to today's globalised 'Empire of Capital' sustained, she argues, by the US-led permanent 'state of war' without limit in space and time. To the barricades!
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews