Foster Panitch debate

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 2003-06-05 13:08 -0700, Michael wrote:

> 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.

Yes I largely had the same impression. I also had difficulties pausing the
broadcast but I am new to WindowsMedia.com??

My impressions. Valuable reference for the range of the issues debated.
Extraordinarily pleasant laid back style. Is this the price for being able
to get a hearing for marxist ideas, in the USA at present? There was no
hint that either of them would be able to impose the dicatorship of the
proletariat in the future.

I would have expected both of them to go more quickly to the economic
fundamentals that imperialism is now (the consequences of) the monopoly
stage of capitalism.

Panitch I suppose we have to hear, was concerned about what he said was a
reductionist economic marxist interpretation of imperialism in the 60's and
that we need a much finer sociological and historical net. My view is that
is a problem of whether you wholeheartedly accept contradiction and
dialectics.

He also seemed to be criticising echoes of a mistaken marxist idea of
imperialism by emphasising that the strongest ties are with other
capitalist countries. That is what you would expect if imperialism is the
monopoly stage of capitalism, and is not about amassing colonies.

To their credit Panitch from Canada was emphasising how much Canadian
capitalists are integrated with USA capitalists. While Foster, from the USA
was emphasising the potential ruthlessness of inter-capitalist
inter-imperialist rivalry, with the Project for the New American Century
etc making it clear that allies are potential rivals. The project is about
extending and strengthening US hegemony for at least another 25 years.

He argued that inter-imperialist rivalry is potentially "explosive". But
like Panitch he did not argue it would lead to war in the way Lenin
insisted at the beginning of the last century. They did not specify that
there is both unity and contradiction between different imperialist powers,
and between different sections of capital and capital as a whole.

Neither addressed the question that through these contradictions a world
government and legal system is coming into being.

Generally I felt that Foster had a better grasp of the overall concrete
detail, and the wider abstract processes, and the dialectical relationship
between the two. Neither of them wished to rely on inter-imperialist
rivalry. Both seemed fully committed to the maximum popuar struggle against
imperialism. I could not see any fundamental antagonistic contradictions of
principle between them.

Chris Burford
London