International Political Economy of Labour and Gramsci’s methodology of the subaltern
| Published date | 01 May 2019 |
| Date | 01 May 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1369148118815403 |
| Subject Matter | Original Article |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148118815403
The British Journal of Politics and
International Relations
2019, Vol. 21(2) 462 –480
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1369148118815403
journals.sagepub.com/home/bpi
International Political Economy
of Labour and Gramsci’s
methodology of the subaltern
Jon Las Heras
Abstract
Gramscian International Political Economy scholarship has predominantly focused on studying
capital’s power to subsume labour under different hegemonic projects. Various autonomist
Marxists have recently sought to ‘voice labour’ by proposing a disruption-oriented International
Political Economy. However, this article argues that such an approach mirrors domination-
oriented International Political Economy approaches by overemphasising labour’s disruptive
potentiality and by paying little attention to the historical limitations that labour faces in its own
empowerment. To escape from the unilateralism of these two mutually exclusive perspectives,
Gramsci’s ‘Methodology of the Subaltern’ is reviewed in order to propose a Gramscian or
strategic International Political Economy of Labour. Hence, this article shows that it is possible for
International Political Economy scholars to study uneven capitalist development as the result of the
agency of (dis)organised labour and thereby to better account for the emancipatory potentiality of
working-class strategies in specific contexts.
Keywords
Antonio Gramsci, International Political Economy of Labour, methodology of the subaltern,
working-class formation
Introduction
Critical and neo-Gramscian International Political Economy (IPE) approaches have given
labour a secondary role in the transformation of early 21st century capitalism. For exam-
ple, Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC) formation has been explained as being intrinsi-
cally related to both the expansion of capitalism in space, that is, the globalisation process,
and the overwhelming power of the state in implementing capital’s neoliberal hegemonic
project across Western and developing countries (Bieler and Morton, 2003; Cafruny and
Ryner, 2007; Robinson, 2004) and after the 2008 financial crisis (Bieler and Morton,
2014; Bruff, 2014; Ryner and Cafruny, 2017). This historical process has been uneven
and has resulted in the formation of different TCC fractions that have vested interests in,
Universidad del Pais Vasco, Bilbao, Spain
Corresponding author:
Jon Las Heras, Universidad del Pais Vasco, Elkano Kalea 21, Bilbao 48008, Spain.
Email: jonlasheras@linuxmail.org; jon.lasheras@manchester.ac.uk
815403BPI0010.1177/1369148118815403The British Journal of Politics and International RelationsLas Heras
research-article2018
Original Article
Las Heras 463
for example, their location in the expanded ‘circuit of capital’ (Van der Pijl, 1998), as a
result of their function in producing capitalist hegemony (Sklair and Struna, 2013), or in
their capacity to incorporate new geographies and labour markets into the overall accu-
mulation process (Shields, 2012; Yurchenko, 2012; for a review see Harris, 2014; Jessop
and Sum, 2017; Overbeek, 2000). In Europe, this was possible due to the entrenchment
of both industrial and financial interests in European structures of governance and,
because of the inability of social-democratic governments and European trade unions to
pose an effective challenge to TCC’s hegemonic strategies (Becker et al., 2015; Ryner
and Cafruny, 2017; Van der Pijl et al., 2011).
In contrast to these ‘top-down’ approaches of class formation, this article argues that a
more complex and dynamic theory of working-class formation is both necessary and pos-
sible. In particular, it argues that Gramsci’s methodology of the subaltern can be a useful
starting point for the development of a Labour-oriented IPE that can strategically account
for the limits and possibilities of working-class struggles. Recently, various autonomist
Marxists have sought to counterbalance ‘top-down’ accounts by proposing a ‘disruption-
oriented’ IPE (Bailey et al., 2017; Huke et al., 2015). However, in solely focusing on the
subversive agency of the working class, they have missed the fact that (alienated) labour
is crucial in the reproduction of capitalism and in its governance institutions (Las Heras,
2018a, 2018c). Thus, a theory that is capable of addressing both the limits and potentiali-
ties of working-class struggles in different contexts is very much needed. Only through
such a theory can we understand and account for both the relative success and failure of
specific working-class strategies. The aim of this article is thus threefold: (1) to outline
the drawbacks of one-sided theories in critical and neo-Gramscian IPE, (2) to provide a
sympathetic critique of recent ‘disruption-oriented’ IPE approaches and (3) to outline an
analytical framework that may serve as a foundation for a Gramscian or strategic IPE of
Labour (IPEL).
To do so, I will first review succinctly the critique of autonomist Marxists and IPEL
scholars regarding ‘top-down’ approaches to class formation and capitalist development.
I will then go on to review recent contributions defending a ‘disruption-oriented’ IPE
which emphasise workers’ obstinate, disruptive and creative role in challenging capital’s
domination. In order to escape from the one-sidedness that simplifies labour’s power, I
will review Gramsci’s ‘methodology of the subaltern’. This perspective will be presented
as a ‘vantage point’ to understand uneven capitalist development from the holistic per-
spective of the working class. The aim is to produce an IPE of Labour that gives credence
to workers’ contradictory role in the reproduction and transformation of capitalism.
Finally, I will discuss Gramsci’s framework alongside more recent IPE and industrial
relations contributions to formulate a strategic theory of working-class formation, namely
a strategic IPEL. Three main strategic dimensions of working-class power will be out-
lined: economic, political and ideological. These are derived from a Gramscian approach
to the ‘integral economy’, and are subdivided into various forms of tactical agency or
immediate working-class power that may become more useful to determine specific
forms of class struggle. The pursuit of class strategies and production of class power are
both relative and complex. Context is therefore important in any attempt to account accu-
rately for the structural position and the emancipatory potentiality of overlapping and
often contradictory processes of working-class formation. Rather than a definite-ideal
closed box, the strategic framework that will be outlined below must be understood as an
open process. At an ontological plane, new forms of class action transform existing struc-
tures of domination and, vice versa, the endurance or emergence of power structures
To continue reading
Request your trial