You should read the references to Meiksins-Wood along with the rest of the critique.

Briefly, Ellen Meiksins Wood claims that America is a “capitalist empire.” This claim is stated as if it is self evident. It is not self-evident. The Marxist notion of capitalist imperialism is based on the accumulation of “capital” by “national” capitalists, denominated in “labour values”. Each of these categories is problematic to put it mildly. Unless Meiksins-Wood clarifies what they mean and put them in concrete historical context, it is impossible to refute her contentions.

But Meiksins-Wood does not bother herself with facts. More seriously, Meiksins-Wood, along with many other contemporary Marxists (such as David Harvey, Leo Panitch and Hardt and Negri), does not dare to question the sacrosanct categories on which her claim is based.

In this empirical / theoretical void, where facts do not matter and categories cannot be questioned, “America” can be an “empire” (or not an empire, depending on your fancy).

You are missing the point.

This is not a semantic comment.

To “discover” means to “invent/create”.

Human beings do not simply “discover” their world. Keynes did not simply “discover” macroeconomics, aggregate demand and the multiplier; Marx did not simply “discover” the rate of surplus value or the organic composition of capital; Smith did not simply “discover” the invisible hand and supply and demand; Newton did not simply “discover” gravity; and Einstein did not simply “discover” relativity. They INVENTED/DISCOVERED them.

No one can step into the stree street and simply “observe” stagflation. Stagflation is an articulated category with very complex intellectual roots and a long social history. It involves a concept of price, quantities, aggregation, weighing, rates of growth, etc. etc, etc. The same holds for mergers. You cannot “see” the value of a merger with the “naked eye.” You need the spectacles of complex accounting methods, methods that are themselves ideologically-loaded human inventions.

For this reason, you cannot simply “discover” the relationship between mergers and stagflation. To “discover” stagflation you need to simultaneously invent a theory that will enable you to think about these two categories/processes, why they may be related, and how they fit into the broader processes of accumulation.

In this sense, we certainly invented the intertwined logic of stagflation/merger.

The argument about oil/armament and the Middle East is merely part of a broader theory of differential accumulation and its historical regimes. This is the overarching dynamic architecture through which we understand broad processes of capitalist development. Some historical processes are consciously and actively promoted, some are not, and some involve a mixture of the two. Regarding the significance of a Republic/Democratic president, make up your own mind.

Read the section on “Determinism and Autonomy” (pp. 56-59)

Cecilia Paine was “rediscovered” by chance. From the viewpoint of scientific inquiry, the “social sciences” are in bad shape, to put it mildly. Try to write a critique of neoclassical economics in the Berglas School of Economics.

Why won’t you investigate these questions yourself? Seriously.