William I. Robinson, Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, has published a masterful work: Epochal Crisis: The Exhaustion of Global Capitalism (Cambridge University Press, 2025), in which he builds upon the far-reaching research contained in a book I reviewed at length in our newspaper a decade ago. Latin America and Global Capitalism: A Critical Perspective on Globalization (Mexico, Siglo XXI, 2015). Given the uncertain conditions humanity faces in these turbulent times, Robinson’s call to intellectuals to “exercise a preferential option for the majority in global society—intellectuals capable of providing the popular masses with theoretical knowledge as input for struggles to develop alternative social relations and an alternative social logic in the real world”—remains relevant despite the passage of time. (https://www.jornada.com.mx/2016/10 /14/opinion/021a2pol).
The book in question includes an introduction in which the author sets forth his theory regarding the exhaustion of global capitalism, based on a review of the essential principles of Marxist political economy, as well as five chapters that analyze:
- The structural crisis of overaccumulation resulting from the transnationalization of the production process through the organic global integration of capital circuits.
- The crisis of social reproduction, in which millions of people cannot survive due to growing social disintegration.
- The crisis of legitimacy expressed in geopolitical conflicts and the global police state, in which mechanisms of domination are collapsing and dominant groups resort to authoritarianism, dictatorship, and fascism.
- The collapse of the biosphere, manifested in its ecological dimensions, which threaten the very existence of life on the planet.
- A final reflection, with a very significant title: toward the vortex or the maelstrom, due to the profound systemic contradictions, which must be confronted through class struggle, since it is impossible to separate politics from this epochal crisis of capitalism.
I agree with Robinson’s initial dialectical perspective, which is based on the idea that the only constant is change, since everything is in a process of emergence, development, transformation, and, ultimately, the emergence of something qualitatively new—a process in which capitalism is no exception, grounded in three key developments: first, the system has become universal through a process of globalization dating back to the latter part of the 20th century. Second, the system is undergoing a new round of restructuring and transformation based primarily on the increasingly advanced digitization and financialization of the entire global economy and society. And third, the system faces an unprecedented multidimensional crisis, signaling the imminent exhaustion of global capitalism’s capacity for renewal.
Central to the analysis of global capitalism is the use of what the author calls radical political economy as a theoretical tool that gets to the root of problems, identifying the dialectics of change—that which is new and emerging—regardless of whether forms and ideas appear stable and fixed. I fully agree with Robinson’s position that radical social science is based on the identification of contradictions. Global capitalism is driven by its contradictions, and radical political economy does not obscure them but seeks the possible connections between them. In this way, radical political economy does not separate the economy from political, social, cultural, and ideological processes, seeking to avoid three fallacies identified by the author.
The first is not to confuse the underlying essence with the appearance of a phenomenon within a given reality. The second is to avoid viewing contradictions as anomalies, but rather as intrinsic aspects of reality. The third is that, in order to develop an argument, both supporting evidence and counterevidence must be presented, but the facts must be interpreted at all times, taking into account that these interpretations are organized according to theories that are not neutral with respect to the class interests linked to the phenomena that concern us, and considering a key position of Robinson’s, who asserts that the best social science is that which raises as many questions as it attempts to answer, and inspires further exploration, while generating new ideas in the academic and political spheres.
There is no doubt that this work must be published in Spanish, given its intrinsic value for interpreting the ongoing collapse and the anti-capitalist paths to prevent it.
Original text by Gilberto López y Rívas published in La Jornada on May 2th, 2026.
Translation by Schools for Chiapas.