Two-logic framework
As Branko Milanovic has recently remarked, there are some famous books whose ideas have been so absorbed into social sciences that the books themselves are no longer read. He was speaking about Karl Polyani’s Great Transformation. But the same can be said about other books, such as Giovanni Arrighi’s The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins of Our Times (1994).
In this book, Arrighi examines the historical development of global capitalism and the cyclical rise and decline of hegemonic powers. He introduces the “two logics” framework as a way to understand the dual but intertwined forces that drive the behavior of states and capitalists within the world-system. This two-logic framework has become a standard reference point for the analysis of modern hegemonic relations (see, for example, Claudio Katz’s recent La crisis del sistema imperial). But what does Arrighi mean by this?
Arrighi argues that global hegemonies operate according to:
- The logic of capital: This logic is primarily economic and focuses on the pursuit of profit and capital accumulation. It reflects the interests of capitalists and corporations who aim to maximize returns through trade, investment, and market expansion.
- The logic of power: This logic is primarily geopolitical and concerns the state’s pursuit of power, security, and influence. It reflects the interests of state actors who prioritize political control, military strength, and strategic dominance.
These logics are not always aligned and can sometimes come into conflict, as states pursue power and security in ways that may disrupt global economic activities, while capitalists seek open markets and stable conditions for profit-making. Thus, the US economic interests in maintaining open markets sometimes clash with its geopolitical interests, leading to conflicts that may disrupt global trade (as seen in sanctions or military interventions). At the same time, China’s geopolitical ambitions, including securing regional dominance, often require state-driven strategies, such as building alliances or military capabilities, that may not align directly with the interests of global capital.
This conceptualization helps to explain the cyclical nature of hegemonic transitions in global capitalism, where economic and political dynamics are interrelated but distinct. It is particularly relevant to understanding imperialism, as hegemonic states navigate both economic and geopolitical pressures in maintaining their global dominance.
The “two logics” framework becomes especially useful in analyzing contemporary geopolitical tensions, such as the conflict between the West on one side, and China and Russia on the other. It explains, for example, why the current US-China rivalry has escalated beyond trade and investment disputes into broader strategic and military tensions, underscoring the complexity of imperial competition in the 21st century.
This framework allows for a more nuanced understanding of how geopolitical and economic interests converge, collide, and shape global developments. When applied to the current tensions involving the West, China, and Russia, this concept illustrates the intricate interplay between state power, economic forces, and imperial dynamics.
Logic of Power: Geopolitical Tensions
At the heart of the geopolitical conflict is the struggle for global dominance. Russia and China both seek to challenge Western hegemony, while the U.S. and its allies aim to maintain their influence. This struggle can be seen as the manifestation of the logic of power, where state actors prioritize geopolitical control over economic concerns.
Claudio Katz (2023) offers valuable insights into Russia’s evolving role. Katz describes Russia as a “non-hegemonic empire in gestation,” asserting that while Russia does not fit neatly into the imperialist structure dominated by the US, it also harbors imperial ambitions, particularly in its post-Soviet sphere of influence. Katz argues that Russia is attempting to carve out an independent geopolitical path, which explains its confrontational stance toward NATO expansion and its assertive role in Ukraine and other neighboring states.
Boris Kagarlitsky further expands on this in Empire of the Periphery and From Empires to Imperialism, where he characterizes Russia as a “peripheral empire.” According to Kagarlitsky, Russia is caught between the imperial core and the periphery, combining elements of peripheral dependency with imperial ambitions. The annexation of Crimea and support for separatist movements in Ukraine highlight Russia’s efforts to maintain control over its regional sphere, driven by its geopolitical need to buffer against NATO encroachment.
The geopolitical rise of China can be viewed through Katz’s (2023), where he argues that China is not simply a semi-peripheral state, as often suggested, but a potential global center of capitalism. Katz highlights China’s ability to forge new geopolitical alliances, particularly in Latin America and Africa, and its attempt to present itself as an alternative to U.S. imperialism. By promoting regional cooperation through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China is asserting itself not just as an economic power but as a geopolitical force capable of challenging Western dominance.
Both Russia and China are working to redefine the global order, particularly as U.S. hegemony wanes. From the logic of power, the alliance between these two nations can be seen as a counter-hegemonic bloc, resisting the Western imperial system.
Logic of Capital: Economic Rivalry and Dependency
While the logic of power focuses on geopolitical dominance, the logic of capital emphasizes the economic motivations and structures underlying the conflict. Here, economic competition between the West and the Sino-Russian bloc becomes crucial to understanding the conflict.
From the perspective of the logic of capital, China’s global economic expansion represents a major challenge to Western capitalism. In Capitalism in the Twenty-First Century, Carchedi and Roberts argue that China’s economic rise, driven by state-directed capital accumulation and its massive surplus extraction from both domestic and foreign investments, presents a serious threat to the Western capitalist system. China’s global investments, particularly in infrastructure and strategic industries through the BRI, are shifting the centers of capital accumulation away from traditional imperialist powers toward China.
While Carchedi and Roberts stop short of labeling China an imperialist power, they point to the economic asymmetries China creates in its trade relationships, particularly with peripheral economies. China’s ability to extract surplus value from its trading partners, much like Western imperialist powers, suggests a reorientation of global capital flows that is undermining Western dominance. Katz (2023) also notes that China’s unequal trade relations with Latin American countries allow it to extract surplus value, although he argues that associational relations could potentially mitigate this dynamic.
For Russia, its economic realignment with China can be understood through Kagarlitsky’s notion of the “peripheral empire.” Isolated by Western sanctions, Russia has increasingly turned to China for trade and investment, signaling an economic reorientation. However, as Kagarlitsky suggests, this relationship is not one of equals. Russia, while geopolitically strong, finds itself economically dependent on China, aligning itself within a new hierarchical structure dominated by China’s superior economic power. Russia’s pivot eastward thus exemplifies the logic of capital, where economic necessity drives geopolitical alliances.
Ukraine: The Battleground of Capital and Power
The situation in Ukraine epitomizes the intersection of both logics. From an economic perspective, Ukraine has long been a site of interest for both Western capital and Russian economic strategy. Its strategic importance as a transit hub for Russian gas to Europe highlights the economic dimension of the conflict. The West’s efforts to integrate Ukraine into neoliberal economic structures through IMF reforms and EU association agreements represent the logic of capital — the desire to open up new markets for Western investment and capital accumulation. Volodymyr Ishchenko’s (2024) analysis in Towards the Abyss describes how the capitalist elites in Ukraine have used the country’s strategic position to play both sides, aligning with the West while maintaining ties with Russia when it suits their interests. The West’s imposition of economic sanctions against Russia after its annexation of Crimea and its involvement in Ukraine reflects an attempt to apply the logic of capital to weaken Russia economically. These sanctions aim to disrupt Russian financial networks, limit capital access, and deter Western corporations from engaging with Russian markets.
However, Ukraine is also a geopolitical battleground, where the logic of power plays out as NATO and the US seek to weaken Russian influence. Geopolitically, Ukraine serves as a buffer zone between Russia and NATO. For Russia, maintaining political control or significant influence over Ukraine is essential for its security, especially given NATO’s eastward expansion since the end of the Cold War. The post-Soviet vicious circle Ishchenko (2024) describes is reflective of how internal capitalist elites manipulate the two logics — using economic opportunities to secure their own power, while navigating the geopolitical landscape to their advantage.
From a power logic perspective, Ukraine becomes a battleground where the struggle between Western powers and Russia over influence and control plays out. This underscores that the conflict is not just about Ukraine’s sovereignty but also a larger confrontation over the structure of the post-Cold War world order.
Long-term implications for global order
Arrighi’s concept of the two logics helps us understand the broader global implications of this conflict. The ongoing rivalry between the West and the Sino-Russian bloc is not simply a matter of economic competition or geopolitical positioning but a complex interplay of both.
The Ukraine conflict highlights a potential shift in global power relations, particularly as Russia turns toward China for economic partnerships and political support. This reorientation toward the East signals that Russia may be looking to escape Western hegemony and realign its geopolitical and economic interests within a different global order, possibly led by China. This reflects how the two logics interact on a global scale — Russia, squeezed out of the Western economic system, seeks an alternative through geopolitical alignment with other rising powers.
The conflict between the U.S.-led West and the Russia-China alliance may suggest a shift toward global multipolarity (despite some claims that a multipolar world is a myth and today’s world is anywhere close to multipolar). As the U.S. struggles to maintain its hegemonic position in both economic and geopolitical terms, China and Russia are emerging as significant challengers. This vision of a multipolar world resonates with Giovanni Arrighi’s ideas, who, in The Long Twentieth Century, discussed the cyclical nature of hegemonic transitions in the world system.
However, this confrontation could also deepen geopolitical fragmentation, leading to the formation of rigid blocs, reminiscent of the Cold War division between the capitalist and socialist worlds, but now framed as the Global North (Western economies) and Global South (emerging economies, including China and Russia). Arrighi’s framework provides a way to see this not just as a geopolitical struggle for power but also as an economic contest for capital accumulation and resource control. Further fragmentation could lead to minimal contact between these blocs, intensifying geopolitical competition and reducing the space for cooperation on global challenges like climate change, pandemic response, or nuclear non-proliferation. This view is reinforced by the writings of Marxist scholars such as Claudio Katz who warns that the West’s aggressive policies towards Russia and China could lead to new forms of economic dependence in the Global South, where countries may have to choose sides, further deepening the global divide.
As Arrighi suggested, the future of the world-system may hinge on how the two logics of capital and power evolve. If China and Russia can effectively navigate the tensions between power and capital, they may create a new global order where Western hegemony is diminished. However, the contradictions between the two logics — particularly the tension between Russia’s geopolitical ambitions and its economic dependence on China — could also limit their ability to challenge the West effectively.