Re: Feedback from Leo Panitch, plus my reply

[michael <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would not like to us get too bogged down in personal issues.  There was a
problem with the Livingroom web site that provided the interview.  Both
Yoshie and I had trouble downloading it.  Sasha merely announced that they
problem had been fixed and said that Leo wanted to see the Socialist future,
which I did not take to be meant to say critique of Lou's original analysis.

I find it interesting how theoretical stances translate into political
strategies.  I take a personal interest in this matter since I think that I
have shown that Bill Warren's reading of Marx on imperialism was off the
mark.

Listening to the interview by itself, I have difficulty in translating what
Leo said to all the connections that Lou makes.  Maybe I'm missing
something, but he seemed to be arguing against a simple, mechanistic,
economistic interpretation of imperialism.  John did an excellent job,
without displaying any of the negative characteristics that Leo decried.

I had the impression that the version of imperialism that Leo expressed was
indeed relatively simplistic, accepting US hegemony, without and eye to the
various contradictions that the US will face in the future -- a point on
which John seemed very strong.

Although I differed with Leo in the debate, I could not see him as "the
enemy."  As I mentioned, I thought that some of his approach was a bit
superficial, even while he was calling for a more nuanced interpretation of
imperialism.

--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901