Panitch replies to LNP3

[Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>]

[I am only the messenger on this.]

Reply-To: "Leo Panitch" <leo.panitch@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Leo Panitch" <leo.panitch@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "doug henwood" <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Fw: Rejected posting to PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 15:21:09 -0400

Do me a favour and post this?

Return-Path: <leo.panitch@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from 209.226.175.187 by SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU (SMTPL release
1.0h) with TCP; Sat, 31 May 2003 11:00:28 -0700
Received: from 6SM5Y01 ([64.229.225.139]) by tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.05.32 201-253-122-126-132-20030307) with SMTP
          id <20030531180051.IZZH9809.tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net@6SM5Y01>;
          Sat, 31 May 2003 14:00:51 -0400
Message-ID: <00a101c3279e$9f0b74b0$35d2fea9@6SM5Y01>
Reply-To: "Leo Panitch" <leo.panitch@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Leo Panitch" <leo.panitch@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "debate: SA discussion list " <debate@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
       <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
       <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
       "Louis Proyect" <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <agfrank@xxxxxxx>,
       <jfoster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <14c901c32735$005c8840$73c021c4@Patrick>
<5.1.0.14.0.20030531123753.0279cec0@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Foster-Panitch debate on the relevance of "imperialism"
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 14:01:11 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165

Dear Louis,
Whatever else you may be excused for have gotten wrong in your
allegations here regarding my view of imperialism on the basis of
a radio interview, rather than asking me to send you the draft of
the actual essay that the interviewer clearly implied was
available (since he made clear he had read it) and that will be
forthcoming in the next issue of the Socialist Register, what I
find especially astonishing is your background bio - which
reflects yet again your false attributions to me (and to Colin
yet
again - despite earlier correspondence and your complete neglect
of everything he has written over the past 25 years - and
especially the past decade). My position is the exact opposite of
what you say - all my work makes absolutely clear my unwavering
position on
the centrality of the working class to the revolutionary
project - in direct contrast to the Wallerstein position; and as
for Hardt and Negri,  this was explicitly set out against them in
my
and Gindin's 10,000 word review essay on their book in Historical
Materialism 10, published last summer. Apart from this, I
scarcely know what to point you to in my other work,
particularly since this position is so central to all of it, but
if you would have read more than the title of my 1986 book
Working Class Politics in Crisis (the crisis in the title
pertains to the
institutional politics that has so far offset revolutionary
potential in the working class) this would have been obvious from
every chapter in it, beginning especially with the first one. And
if you, or
any of the people you sent your note to, were to read my Renewing
Socialism book with Westview in 2001 (which brings together many
of my SR essays since 1989), especially the first and last
chapter (but it is there in every chapter really), you can't but
see how silly is the claim you have just made regarding my view
of the working class.
Oh well, I foregave you for attributing to me support for the
American
war on Afghanistan (and I appreciated your later apology when it
was
pointed out to you by others how outspoken I had been against
it). And I should be grateful, I guess, for your not attributing
to me support for American imperialism in Iraq now. So I'll
forgive you for this latest clunker too, I guess.
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Proyect" <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "debate: SA discussion list " <debate@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <agfrank@xxxxxxx>; <jfoster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<leo.panitch@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 12:50 PM
Subject: Foster-Panitch debate on the relevance of "imperialism"


>  I want to urge comrades, even those without high-speed Internet
access, to
>  listen to the debate between Leo Panitch and John Bellamy
Foster that was
>  originally aired on Living Room Radio, a Pacifica station in
California and
>  that is archived at: http://www.livingroomradio.org/. It raises
some very
>  interesting questions that I want to take up, especially Leo
Panitch's
>  problem with the usefulness of the traditional Marxist
understanding of
>  imperialism. But first a word or two about the principals.
>
>  Panitch edits "Socialist Register", a yearly journal that was
launched by
>  the late Ralph Miliband and John Saville in 1964. Panitch's
co-editor is
>  Colin Leys, a fellow professor at York University in Canada,
where the
>  journal is published, and with whom I have had a series of
exchanges about
>  dependency theory and other issues alluded to in the
Panitch-Foster debate.
>  Leys, who is a specialist in African development, started out
as a
>  dependency theorist but became convinced somewhere along the
line that
>  independent capitalist development was possible in Africa. This
led him to
>  make some rather startlingly optimistic projections about the
Kenyan
>  bourgeoisie that John Enyang, a Marxmail subscriber who grew up
in Kenya,
>  dismissed with references to the discouraging economic data of
his homeland
>  and to the writings of Franz Fanon.
>
>  Although Panitch appears to come from a more classical Marxist
outlook than
>  many other figures on the academic left, he shares with
Immanuel
>  Wallerstein and Hardt-Negri the belief that proletarian
revolution is an
>  outmoded concept. Since he is also in favor of socialism, this
has lent his
>  writings a certain disjointed quality. It is almost like
reading a manual
>  about how to raise a family without finding a word about sexual
intercourse.
>  Foster is the editor of Monthly Review, a journal that has
tried to
>  maintain the viability of the theory of imperialism and which
recently
>  convened a conference in Vermont titled Imperialism Today
>  (http://www.monthlyreview.org/tribute.htm). It was timed to
coincide with
>  the publication of Harry Magdoff's "Imperialism Without
Colonies", a
>  collection of articles that have appeared in the journal over
the years.
>  Foster's reply to Panitch incorporated a lot of the
observations that were
>  made a recent MR article titled "Imperial America and War" and
that is
>  online. As will be obvious from my following remarks, I am in
agreement
>  with Foster but have some additional comments that might help
to clarify
>  the issues.
>
>  To begin with, Panitch says that the term imperialsim is
inadequately
>  theorized today. It is analogized with ancient Rome, but
presented without
>  any grounding in historical determinacy or political economy.
According to
>  Panitch, the term began to fall out of favor with Marxists
around 1970 for
>  these reasons. Of course, this would have been news to people
like myself
>  back then who had about as much familiarity with Socialist
Register or
>  Science and Society as they had with the man in the moon.
Whenever I got
>  into a extended conversation with some undergraduate about the
causes of
>  the Vietnam war, I always brought up the subject of
imperialism. Little did
>  I suspect that there were well-intentioned left intellectuals
out there
>  questioning the usefulness of the term.
>
>  One of them was John Willoughby, who wrote an article in the
1995 Science
>  and Society special issue on Lenin titled "Evaluating the
Leninist Theory
>  of Imperialism". To put it bluntly, there is nothing that
Panitch said in
>  his debate with Foster that wasn't already said by Willoughby.
The main
>  problem with the Marxist understanding of imperialism,
according to
>  Panitch, is that it is prone to economic reductionism. Although
>  Willoughby's remarks are focused on Lenin, they jibe with
Panitch's
>  complaint. Willoughby writes:
>
>  "We cannot deduce imperial domination from capital export or
capitalist
>  rivalry from the logic of uneven development without additional
arguments
>  connecting the evolution of national social formations to the
world
>  accumulation process. And this, in turn, means that the roots
of
>  metropolitan territorial domination are still obscure. We have
neither a
>  general explanation of capitalist imperialism, nor an
accounting of its
>  heterogeneous character. This is a fundamental failing. No
theory of
>  imperialism can be complete without a compelling explanation of
the varying
>  forms of metropolitan capitalist state domination. And this
requires that
>  attention be paid to the formation of varying political
structures
>  throughout the world economy, an attention that is diverted by
the
>  reductionist theories of capitalist imperialism and, in Lenin's
case, the
>  actual definition of imperialism itself."
>
>  Most importantly, for both Panitch and Willoughby, this
reductionism could
>  not explain why most capital flows remain with the advanced
capitalist
>  world today. If imperialism is characterized by the export of
capital, then
>  one might conclude that Great Britain is more of a victim of
imperialism
>  than Tanzania since there is more direct American investment in
the former
>  than the latter. Panitch says that imperialism might have been
a useful
>  concept in the Victorian era when North-South ties were
decisive but not
>  when you find a preponderance of commercial and military
interpenetration
>  in the G8 nations through various trade agreements, bilateral
investments
>  and partnerships in NATO. Prior to 1945, it made sense to speak
of
>  inter-imperialist rivalries but it does not today. What you
have instead is
>  a US hegemony that has effectively turned other major
capitalist powers
>  into something resembling Canada. This is not exactly what
Lenin was facing
>  at the outbreak of WWI.
>
>  What is entirely missing from Panitch's analysis is the role of
the USSR
>  and the colonial revolution in effecting this rapprochement
between the USA
>  and other imperialist powers. It was necessary for their joint
survival to
>  create a united front that would stave off socialist revolution
both in
>  Europe and in the South. In hypothetical but not far-fetched
terms, try to
>  imagine what the world would have looked like in 1955 if Hitler
had
>  successfully overthrown Bolshevism and created a client state
in
>  Russia--ie., eventually what the west achieved. Next, a German
nationalist
>  party that was more "reasonable" and willing to co-exist with
the allies
>  overthrows Hitler. It easily could have brought the war to an
end and left
>  in its place a status quo not too much different than that
which followed
>  the end of the First World War, maybe this time one that put
its former
>  enemies in a weakened state. Under these circumstances, would
>  inter-imperialist rivalries eventually have manifested
themselves? You can
>  be sure of this.
>
>  Instead, we saw an entirely different alignment of forces. All
of
>  capitalist Europe and Japan united with the USA to prevail over
the USSR
>  and the colonial revolution. The Cold War was essentially an
imperialist
>  crusade to eliminate the institutional foundations of
collectivized
>  property relations and to prevent the rise of other Soviet type
states. If
>  you total up the number of lives lost in this
counter-revolutionary long
>  war, it probably compares with those lost during either World
War.
>  Alongside this imperialist assault, you also had one directed
against a
>  series of nationalist-minded or populist states that came into
existence
>  largely as a result of the space provided by Cold War
rivalries. This
>  includes Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Allende's Chile, the former
Angolan colonies,
>  Nehru's India, and others too numerous to mention. They all
became subject
>  to a combination of economic and military pressures from the
North that
>  eventually led to their replacement by more pliant regimes
and/or adoption
>  of neo-liberal policies. If one chooses not to describe this
ongoing attack
>  as "imperialist", then choose another word that is more
appropriate--just
>  as long as we understand the underlying process that can be
easily
>  demonstrated through the kind of "political economy" and
"historical
>  determination" that Panitch calls for.
>
>  Turning finally to the question of whether the presence of IBM
plants in
>  Great Britain rather than Tanzania is supposed to prove
anything or not.
>  This is a specious line of reasoning that reminds me of one I
have heard
>  about whether the workers in the advanced capitalist countries
are more
>  "exploited" than those in the Third World. Based on a schematic
reading of
>  the chapters on the production of surplus value in V. 1 of
Capital, some
>  Marxists argue that a worker in a highly mechanized factory in
the USA is
>  more exploited than a Guatemalan coffee-picker because they
produce a
>  higher proportion of surplus value relative to their wage. What
this fails
>  to take into account is the overall ability of the worker to
reproduce
>  their own existence, which is not only a function of the wage
but the
>  material conditions of society as a whole. If your wage cannot
pay for
>  adequate medical care, the amount of surplus value you produce
is
>  irrelevant. To paraphrase Keynes, you will be dead-- but in the
short run.
>  There is no greater form of exploitation than early death
because of
>  inadequate food, shelter or medical care.
>
>  By the same token, if the USA fails to invest in Burkina Faso
or Paraguay
>  at the same rate as it does in Canada or Great Britain, it does
not mean
>  that these countries are not victims of imperialism. In nearly
every case,
>  including these two nations of the South, an alternative
development path
>  is forestalled because the imperialist North cannot tolerate
any exceptions
>  to its rule. Even tiny Grenada was overthrown because the New
Jewel
>  Movement had decided that the resources of society should have
been
>  channeled to the poor. That Grenada today lacks foreign
investment is not a
>  sign that imperialism is not operative. Rather it is a sign
that there is
>  no material incentive to invest. Ultimately, capitalism is not
about
>  development. It is about profit. If there is profit building
IBM plants in
>  Great Britain, the capitalist will invest. If there is no
profit in Burkina
>  Faso or Paraguay, it will neglect them.
>
>  With the declining availability of profitable spheres of
investment, we are
>  faced with growing stagnation or what Andre Gunder Frank called
the
>  "development of underdevelopment" throughout the 3rd world. It
would appear
>  that no matter what people like John Willoughby and others said
after 1970,
>  Andre (who is in hospital now and who our thoughts are with)
appears more
>  relevant than ever today.
>
>  (Jim Blaut's reply to John Willoughby can be read at:
>  http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/Blaut/imperialism.htm)