Re: [A-List] Michael Hudson: Super imperialism

["James Daly" <james.irldaly@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks to Michael, Sabri and John for what promises to be a very
important seminar. Could I ask a novice's question? Many sources seem
to have taken up the theme of euro-dollar rivalry as alternative
oil-currencies as a reason for the invasion of Iraq. Some of them
seemed to be alluding to Michael Hudson's thesis. It does seem to
promise an explanation for the staggering difference between the US's
attitude to its own debt and to that of other states. What is the
standing of Michael's thesis among bourgeois academic economists? John
points out that Wallerstein's position is radically different -- are
there many left intellectuals who agree with Hudson? Has he made much
headway among political journalists?

I am a non-economist, but have a philosophical background, so I was
interested when Michael wrote (he later added to it) "If Hudson is
correct, then the funding of the anti-Soviet Afghan opposition was
simply foreign policy. However, if a more conventional Marxist
explanation is correct, then it is incumbent upon those proferring
such an explanation to identify the economic reasons for that
funding".

I thought that philosophically the ("conventional") interpretation of
Marxism as economic (or as technological) determinism with a base/
superstructure forces/ relations paradigm was totally outdated, its
last gasp being Gerry Cohen (* Karl Marx's Theory of History: a
Defence *), who received the coup de grace from Derek Sayer (* The
Violence of Abstraction *). I thought Marxists had long (for as much
as three decades) felt free to say unproblematically that the US was
not in Vietnam for economic reasons, as the French rubber planters
were originally, but for the defence of the capitalist system and the
defeat of communism in the region -- and ultimately globally (losing
the battle, but eventually winning the "war"). Does the first dualism
need to be replaced with a second -- Economy and State? Isn't
imperialism inextricably politicoeconomic/ military?

Michael's additional paragraphs seem to be making the point of the
mutual interdependence of state and economy, but does he think talk of
"the simultaneously cooperative and competitive relationship of
Washington and Wall Street" poses a problem for Marxism?

James Daly

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>
To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: [A-List] Michael Hudson: Super imperialism


> I wrote:
>
> If Hudson is correct, then the funding of the anti-Soviet
> Afghan opposition was simply foreign policy. However, if a more
conventional
> Marxist explanation is correct, then it is incumbent upon those
proferring
> such an explanation to identify the economic reasons for that
funding.
>
> -----
>
> I was called away before I could get to the punchline, although I
was hoping
> someone else might add their own.
>
> While there are always tendencies within states for policies and
agendas to
> develop autonomously, i.e., independently of any specific capital
fraction's
> programme, there are constraints beyond which such developments are
> structurally unsustainable. A good example of this would be Jacques
Delors'
> efforts to institutionalise social democracy within the European
Commission
> and thereby the EU state apparatus. This failed because there was no
social
> base capable of supporting such an effort, given that most labour
> aristocracies were (and still are) firmly embedded within national
> structures/mindsets and, in the case of Britain, still wedded to an
> antiquated social chauvinism that wilfully refuses to recognise the
reality
> of US imperialism as the key influence on a Britain nominally
independent
> (of Europe, as the "debate" is crassly framed in the UK by key
British
> opinion-formers like Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black). Similarly,
Gerhard
> Schröder's failure to construct a more robust defence of German
independence
> against neo-liberalism is as much a reflection of the failure of the
German
> left to exert sufficient pressure to enable the opportunist Schröder
to take
> a more progressive nationalist line. Instead he has begun, finally,
to
> capitulate to the demands of the formidable forces arrayed against
him, and
> which will hound him out of office very likely within the next year.
>
> Re US imperialism and the quasi-autonomy of the state, can the US
state
> follow policies indefinitely without the support of key fractions of
US
> capital? This is the implication of Hudson's argument and it is one
that I
> have difficulty supporting. Sure there is a gigantic
military-industrial
> complex that must be fed, and, more generally, an ever greater
behemoth
> state apparatus; but that behemoth feeds what Hudson correctly calls
(in
> Veblenian fashion) "vested interests" but which are mostly private.
The
> military itself is an exception, although the revolving door between
the
> Pentagon and the private sector is another factor that should be
considered.
> As is an aspect of privatisation highlighted by Chalmers Johnson in
> "Blowback", where he discusses the increasing use of private
security
> contractors by the Pentagon in the name of circumventing Freedom of
> Information legislation thereby enabling greater secrecy of
operations in
> the name of commercial confidentiality, and representing the further
> expansion of the sphere of capital.
>
> Capitalist fractions, with a few minor exceptions, could be expected
to
> support a general opposition to social systems predicated on the
eradication
> of capitalist social relations, like the Soviet one. Supporting the
Afghan
> rebels was a part of that policy, and promised to roll back Soviet
influence
> whilst opening up a new frontier of capitalist expansion. The US
state was
> the instrument of this and under the guise of "national security"
> quasi-autonomously developed the strategies geared to achieving this
end --
> but if sufficiently influential fractions of capital had been able
to profit
> from dealing with the Soviet Union, how long would such a policy
have
> lasted? Sure, the American ideology is important and is another
aspect of
> the superstructure developing a life of its own, within constraints.
But
> sooner or later these constraints assert themselves and, at bottom,
we are
> back to the interests of capital.
>
> So far, in reading this very interesting and informative book, I
concur with
> Hudson's indictment of the US as imperialist and applaud his
analysis of the
> financial means by which its hegemony has evolved over the last
century;
> however, the Weberian approach of Leonard Seabrooke is nearer the
truth in
> its identification of the simultaneously cooperative and competitive
> relationship of Washington and Wall Street. However, Seabrooke gets
plenty
> else wrong and is useful largely for empirical data rather than
> theoretically-grounded exposition.
>
> Michael Keaney
>
>
>
>