This response essay begins by outlining Geopolitical Economy’s historical interpretation of Marxism. It then engages with Rick Wolf’s suggestions for further discussion of relations between capitalist and noncapitalist parts of the world, addresses the definitions of key terms, and responds to his alternative thesis about the fate of Western working classes. It then argues that Kristjanson-Gural’s concern about the book’s critique of Marxist economics assumes that the critique is considerably milder than it is. It finds that McIntyre’s arguments about U.S. capitalist success do not translate into arguments for U.S hegemony and that his arguments about U.S. capitalism’s “Schumpeterian” victories are ill evidenced. Finally, this response provides more support for Kellogg’s arguments about the limitations of the latest attempt to demonstrate U.S. hegemony while taking up the issue of the origin of uneven and combined development (UCD) and also that of the “imperial” nature of the USSR, both questions of considerable import for any left politics.
