Banca de QUALIFICAÇÃO: LUIZA RIBEIRO DE SOUSA GOMES PEREIRA

Uma banca de QUALIFICAÇÃO de MESTRADO foi cadastrada pelo programa.
STUDENT : LUIZA RIBEIRO DE SOUSA GOMES PEREIRA
DATE: 21/08/2026
TIME: 17:00
LOCAL: CPDA
TITLE:

The contradiction between the international and the national from the perspective of Bukharin and Von Braunmühl

KEY WORDS:

Imperialism, capitalism, international, national

PAGES: 45
BIG AREA: Ciências Humanas
AREA: Ciência Política
SUBÁREA: Teoria Política
SPECIALTY: Teoria Política Contemporânea
SUMMARY:

an understanding of the global system as an integrated whole,
since it demystifies the entire process of capital accumulation and situates it within
a dynamic involving "pre-capitalist" countries. In fully developing his magnum opus,
*Capital*, Marx concludes that there is "an intertwining of all peoples in the network
of the world market and, consequently, the international character of the capitalist regime" (Marx,

2017, 832). Thus, these formulations elucidate the foundations of the historical process
that unfolded with the formation of colonies linked to the subordination of their domestic
production to the demands of the external market.
According to Garcia (2019), Marx identified constitutive transformations of the modern
world—such as the global expansion of trade and the cosmopolitan nature of the bourgeoisie—
occurring simultaneously with the political and economic unification of European national
territories and the formation of nation-states, replacing the fragmentation of feudal
power. Consequently, the tension between the global and national dimensions—later
associated with the era of "globalization"—was already present in the *Manifesto of the Communist Party*
(1848), the pioneering work written by Marx and Engels prior to the first volume of *Capital*.
Furthermore, Furno (2022) points out that the *Communist Manifesto* presents the
foundations for understanding the phenomenon of imperialism. According to the author, the
German intellectuals outline three aspects demonstrating the seeds of imperialism within the
Marxist analysis of capitalism: 1) the deployment of the "heavy artillery" of major powers
in international trade through the ability to lower the final price of goods in order to
capture the market and overcome free competition—that is, to achieve better
conditions for expanded reproduction, the mechanism of low prices was the primary
method employed by developed countries; 2) the expansion of the capitalist mode of
production on a global scale; 3) the advance of capitalism into other nations,
primarily through the shrinking of distances enabled by technical innovations
in transportation, which also created better conditions for the export of capital
(Furno, 2022).
Thus, it becomes evident that the German intellectual was able to define the
expansive and internationalizing tendency of capital even before witnessing it in action
(Osório, 2018, 2019b; Gouvêa, 2016; Furno, 2022). In this sense, the Marxian analysis
is essential for understanding the movement of capital, which persisted through the
development of exploitative relations worldwide—relations that can shift in tandem
with the trajectory of the development of productive forces and social relations of
production within a territory.
The flourishing of the seeds planted by Marxian theory was reflected in the
subsequent theoretical effort to develop the theory of imperialism, a process that
continues to unfold today. Since the initial debates, various Marxist theorists have
sought to formulate ideas regarding imperialism, producing a wide range of
intellectual work over the decades.

To assist in theoretical-methodological systematization, Osório (2018) categorizes
them based on three main debates: 1) Pioneering debate: thought from the late 19th
and early 20th centuries that introduces an economistic perspective, grouping
together the works of Rudolf Hilferding, Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Kautsky, Nikolai
Bukharin, and Vladimir Lenin; 2) Fordist debate:
formulations regarding imperialism produced in the mid-20th century—following the 1929 crisis and
underpinned by Fordism—spanning the period up to 1970 (1945–1970). This includes the monopoly
capital school founded by Baran and Sweezy; Marxist Dependency Theory, founded by
Marini, dos Santos, and Bambirra; and, finally, the world-systems works of Wallerstein and
Arrighi, alongside Samir Amin’s work on unequal exchange; 3) Post-Fordist
debate: the understanding of imperialism from the mid-1970s to the present day. This
encompasses the works of Hardt and Negri, Panitch, Poulantzas, and Harvey, as well as—within
the scope of Derivation Theory—contributions by Miéville on 21st-century international law,
and by Hirsch and von BraunMühl, who discuss, respectively, the materialist state theory
strand and the German world-market approach.
For the purposes of this study, the emphasis will be placed on the Pioneering Debate and the
Post-Fordist Debate, as it is essential to revisit the theoretical-historical context to situate the reader
regarding the subject matter. More concretely, the research seeks to understand the contradiction
between the internationalization and nationalization of the process of capitalist
accumulation—and capitalist interests—regarding imperialism and the world market,
comparing the theses of Nikolai Bukharin with those of Claudia von BraunMühl.
The aim is to answer the following question: how is the contradiction between the
internationalization and nationalization of the accumulation process addressed in the works
of Bukharin compared to those of von BraunMühl, specifically within the debate on imperialism and the world market?

 

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Interna - 2077480 - ANA ELISA SAGGIORO GARCIA
Interno - 1898171 - LUIZ FELIPE BRANDAO OSORIO
Externo à Instituição - RODRIGO FEDERICO PASCUAL