THE AGE OF OPEN MARXISM and explanation of changes in the contemporary global political econ- omy'(Gill,1990a:230),is accurate in this respect. However,the analytical litheness of open Marxism comes at a certain price,in terms of both the material picture it paints,and the politics it counsels.As a framework for the study of the present moment,the writings of open Marxism base their fluid analysis of the transnational construction of neo-liberalism on a problematic understanding of classes and fractions of classes in the world economy.Moreover,open Marxism's theorization of the articulation between accumulation and politics in the world economy is underdeveloped,and leads to an exaggerated view of the coherence of neo-liberalism.The politics of open Marxism,con- strained by assumptions of an organic unity of global elites,and the political cogency of transnational concepts of control,leaves few pos- sibilities for political organization. Neo-liberalism and transnational capital In open Marxism,political multilateralism is an extrapolation of eco- nomic multilateralism(Cox,1991a:13-14),and restructuring is under- stood as the continuation in the world of political strategy of the exigencies of capital,as read and understood by global elites.The neo- liberal concept of control is presented as the global political project of transnationalized money capital (Van der Pijl,1988,1989;Overbeek, 1990).Just as Fordism had organized the subordination of banking and rentier capital to productive capital,neo-liberalism installs the long-term interest of transnational money-capital as the general interest of capital (Carroll,1989).In the same vein,Gill speaks of neo-constitutionalism ('the move towards the construction of legal and constitutional devices to remove or insulate substantially the new economic institutions from popular scrutiny or democratic accountability')as the legal framework of transnationalized fractions of capital(Gill,1992). Fraction-specific analyses on accumulation are as old as Marx's distinc- tions between the Bourbons and the Orleanistes in the French Legislative Assembly(Marx,1977),and as familiar as turn-of-the-century populist assaults on the power of 'international gang[s]of financial ghouls and nations-scuttlers'(Bottomley,1926).In the first instance,they always present a problem of historical investigation (Burnham,1991;Clarke, 1978).Fractions of capital-what Adam Smith called the 'different branches of the general stock of capital'(Smith,1924:250-93)-do not exist in general,and their analysis always needs to take concrete histor- ical junctures into account.In particular,it must distinguish between cliques of capital,united by a conjuncturally contingent support for particular policies(monetarism,for example);a fraction of capital,whose common material interests are incorporated in a multilayered strategy on 111 This content downloaded from 202.120.14.129 on Mon,01 Feb 2016 23:51:55 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsTHE AGE OF OPEN MARXISM and explanation of changes in the contemporary global political econ￾omy' (Gill, 1990a: 230), is accurate in this respect. However, the analytical litheness of open Marxism comes at a certain price, in terms of both the material picture it paints, and the politics it counsels. As a framework for the study of the present moment, the writings of open Marxism base their fluid analysis of the transnational construction of neo-liberalism on a problematic understanding of classes and fractions of classes in the world economy. Moreover, open Marxism's theorization of the articulation between accumulation and politics in the world economy is underdeveloped, and leads to an exaggerated view of the coherence of neo-liberalism. The politics of open Marxism, con￾strained by assumptions of an organic unity of global elites, and the political cogency of transnational concepts of control, leaves few pos￾sibilities for political organization. Neo-liberalism and transnational capital In open Marxism, political multilateralism is an extrapolation of eco￾nomic multilateralism (Cox, 1991a: 13-14), and restructuring is under￾stood as the continuation in the world of political strategy of the exigencies of capital, as read and understood by global elites. The neo￾liberal concept of control is presented as the global political project of transnationalized money capital (Van der Pijl, 1988, 1989; Overbeek, 1990). Just as Fordism had organized the subordination of banking and rentier capital to productive capital, neo-liberalism installs the long-term interest of transnational money-capital as the general interest of capital (Carroll, 1989). In the same vein, Gill speaks of neo-constitutionalism ('the move towards the construction of legal and constitutional devices to remove or insulate substantially the new economic institutions from popular scrutiny or democratic accountability') as the legal framework of transnationalized fractions of capital (Gill, 1992). Fraction-specific analyses on accumulation are as old as Marx's distinc￾tions between the Bourbons and the Orl6anistes in the French Legislative Assembly (Marx, 1977), and as familiar as turn-of-the-century populist assaults on the power of 'international gang[s] of financial ghouls and nations-scuttlers' (Bottomley, 1926). In the first instance, they always present a problem of historical investigation (Burnham, 1991; Clarke, 1978). Fractions of capital - what Adam Smith called the 'different branches of the general stock of capital' (Smith, 1924: 250-93) - do not exist in general, and their analysis always needs to take concrete histor￾ical junctures into account. In particular, it must distinguish between cliques of capital, united by a conjuncturally contingent support for particular policies (monetarism, for example); a fraction of capital, whose common material interests are incorporated in a multilayered strategy on 111 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