ARTICLES historically specific relationships(Cox,1987:1).A decade and a half after E.P.Thompson's celebrated attack on philosophical Marxism(1978b: 193-401 for example),the specter of Althusserian structural Marxism is raised again,this time in the company of the phantom of Poulantzas (Cox,1981/85:214;Gill,1991b:55).It is an association that even Thompson,in the most polemic passages of The Poverty of Theory,had been too cautious to propose(1978b:196). For open Marxism,agents are bearers of structures.Of course,not all agents bear a similar burden,and not all historical relationships are equally revealing of structures at work.As both Gramsci and Braudel emphasized,some actors occupy a privileged position,which makes their historical practice especially meaningful.For Gramsci,elites are interpreters of structures(Gramsci,1971:335),organizers of society(p.5). Intellectuals come equipped with an 'awareness of [their]own function not only in the economic but also in the social and political fields'(p.5); and political parties are particularly meaningful points of mobilization.3 For Braudel,world capitalism is an elite process: le capitalisme est un phenomene de superstructure,c'est un phe- nomene de minorite....Chaque fois que l'on considere de facon objective ce que j'appelle le capitalisme actif,on est tres surpris par le nombre restreint des personnes qui sont en jeu. (Braudel,1985:93-4) In Braudel's analysis,the essential mechanisms of capital accumulation are located above the murky and hesitant world of peasant markets.The realm of the Fuggers and the Medicis is le domaine par excellence du capitalisme.Sans [eux],celui-ci est impensable;il s'y loge,il y prospere' (Braudel,1979:8). Similarly,open Marxism conceptualizes global accumulation as a practice of the bourgeoisie,and the world economy as a society of capitalists.Kees Van der Pijl defines class formation in the world econ- omy exclusively in bourgeois terms.It is,of course,a process constrained by the exigencies of reproduction within national social formations,but it exists very much above and beyond the realm of social forces(Van der Pijl,1979).Stephen Gill writes of 'political gods at the center of the system'(Gill,1991b:64).Robert Cox,recalling Polanyi's emphasis on haute finance as the social linchpin of the 100 Years'Peace,speaks of bourgeois conquerants,and of 'those who control the big corporations operating on a world scale'(Cox,1987:358).In this spirit,what Braudel called the 'micro-sociologie des elites'(Braudel,1969:71),and what Gill termed the analysis of the process of elite familiarization and fraterniza- tion,mutual education and,broadly speaking,networking'(Gill,1990a: 122),become most revealing.Through transnational networks of interests 108 This content downloaded from 202.120.14.129 on Mon,01 Feb 2016 23:51:55 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsARTICLES historically specific relationships (Cox, 1987: 1). A decade and a half after E.P. Thompson's celebrated attack on philosophical Marxism (1978b: 193-401 for example), the specter of Althusserian structural Marxism is raised again, this time in the company of the phantom of Poulantzas (Cox, 1981/85: 214; Gill, 1991b: 55). It is an association that even Thompson, in the most polemic passages of The Poverty of Theory, had been too cautious to propose (1978b: 196). For open Marxism, agents are bearers of structures. Of course, not all agents bear a similar burden, and not all historical relationships are equally revealing of structures at work. As both Gramsci and Braudel emphasized, some actors occupy a privileged position, which makes their historical practice especially meaningful. For Gramsci, elites are interpreters of structures (Gramsci, 1971: 335), organizers of society (p. 5). Intellectuals come equipped with an 'awareness of [their] own function not only in the economic but also in the social and political fields' (p. 5); and political parties are particularly meaningful points of mobilization.5 For Braudel, world capitalism is an elite process: le capitalisme est un phenomene de superstructure, c'est un phe￾nomene de minorite.... Chaque fois que l'on considere de facon objective ce que j'appelle le capitalisme actif, on est tres surpris par le nombre restreint des personnes qui sont en jeu. (Braudel, 1985: 93-4) In Braudel's analysis, the essential mechanisms of capital accumulation are located above the murky and hesitant world of peasant markets. The realm of the Fuggers and the Medicis is 'le domaine par excellence du capitalisme. Sans [eux], celui-ci est impensable; il s'y loge, il y prospere' (Braudel, 1979: 8). Similarly, open Marxism conceptualizes global accumulation as a practice of the bourgeoisie, and the world economy as a society of capitalists. Kees Van der Pijl defines class formation in the world econ￾omy exclusively in bourgeois terms. It is, of course, a process constrained by the exigencies of reproduction within national social formations, but it exists very much above and beyond the realm of social forces (Van der Pijl, 1979). Stephen Gill writes of 'political gods at the center of the system' (Gill, 1991b: 64). Robert Cox, recalling Polanyi's emphasis on haute finance as the social linchpin of the 100 Years' Peace, speaks of bourgeois conquerants, and of 'those who control the big corporations operating on a world scale' (Cox, 1987: 358). In this spirit, what Braudel called the 'micro-sociologie des elites' (Braudel, 1969: 71), and what Gill termed the analysis of the 'process of elite familiarization and fraterniza￾tion, mutual education and, broadly speaking, networking' (Gill, 1990a: 122), become most revealing. Through transnational networks of interests 108 This content downloaded from 202.120.14.129 on Mon, 01 Feb 2016 23:51:55 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions