Steve Ellner is an Associate Managing Editor of Latin American Perspectives and a retired professor of the Universidad de Oriente in Venezuela. In the first part of our interview, Green Left’s Federico Fuentes spoke to Ellner about his views on the need to prioritise the struggle against US imperialism and the challenges this poses for international solidarity. Read part 2 here.
* * *
You argue the left needs to prioritise the struggle against US imperialism. Why is this the case?
The basic contradiction of capitalism is at the point of production, the contradiction between the interests of the working class and those of capitalists. That is fundamental to Marxism.
But any analysis at the world level of the relations between nations has to place US imperialism (including NATO) at the centre.
In my articles, I question the thesis on the left that there is a convergence of China and the US as imperialist powers.
The debate regarding China often centres on how one defines imperialism. How do you define imperialism? Is US imperialism the only imperialism that exists?
John Bellamy Foster points out that [Vladimir] Lenin explained imperialism as “multifaceted”. I would add that it has two basic heads: the political-military element and the economic one. On that basis, Foster questions the validity of two opposite interpretations of imperialism.
One tendency is to equate imperialism with the political domination of the US empire, backed of course by military power, which was the view put forward by Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin. They overestimated Washington’s political ability to preserve order and stability in accordance with US economic interests.
At the other extreme are left theorists [such as William Robinson] who focus on the dominance of global capital and minimise the importance of the nation-state. They view progressive governments in Latin America as incapable of defying global capital, and Washington as the custodians of transnational capital, rather than as a defender of a range of interests, including US geopolitical and economic interests.
In the long run, of course, economics and geopolitics are intricately linked, if not inseparable. Robinson and others address geopolitics, but they do not assign it the weight it deserves. In effect, transnational capital subsumes other key factors.
If geopolitics is not relegated to a superficial superstructure but considered a basic element of imperialism, then China cannot be thrown in the same category as US imperialism.
How can you place the US, with its 750 overseas military bases, in the same general category as China, which has one?
Washington’s military deployment throughout the world, its use of sanctions and its justification for interventionism on the basis of R2P [right to protect] or “humanitarian interventionism” have no equivalent in Beijing’s relations with the rest of the world and the South in particular.
How do you reconcile your position on the need to prioritise US imperialism with the US’ declining global influence and China’s concurrent rise?
Marxists agree that everything is in flux, and that is the case with US world hegemony.
But [Karl] Marx and [Friedrich] Engels also polemicised against the utopian socialists of their day, whose futuristic visions blinded them to the reality of the present. In essence, Marx and Engels said you cannot impose the future on the present.
Thus from a Marxist perspective there are two components: the dialectics which analyses the transformations embodied in the present that cast light on the future; and the importance of timing, which means there is a right time and place for everything.
With regard to US influence, sure it is in decline. But the US is hardly a paper tiger. The Gaza conflict symbolises this reality.
The US and its proxy, Israel, have not achieved a military victory in Gaza in spite of the billions of dollars invested in the conflict. You might draw the conclusion that Gaza is more evidence of US decline, just like Vietnam and Afghanistan. But look at all the destruction in human lives, personal traumas and property.
There is no need to go into detail about how US power in its military expression, as well as its regime change capacity and use of economic blackmail, have such a potent and destructive impact. There is no qualitative comparison with other superpowers, the Ukrainian conflict notwithstanding.
And it is misleading to say “the Chinese are almost there” and will soon be just as imperialist as the US. This may eventually happen, but it is not a foregone conclusion.
There can be a problem though when prioritising US imperialism leads to a kind of “lesser evil” politics in which genuine democratic and worker struggles are opposed on the basis that they weaken the struggle against US imperialism. Is there ever a case when geopolitics should trump solidarity and the rights of others in struggle?
No. One does not negate the other. But the issue you raise can be viewed from a broader perspective.
The organised left in the Global North is divided in three categories. Some leftist activists form part of the anti-imperialist movement; others, who identify as orthodox Marxists, prioritise the working class; and others are social movement activists involved in struggles around racism, immigration, reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ issues, etc.
The banners of all three reinforce one another, as intersectionality brings together different oppressed groups. At the same time, there are discrepancies and tensions between these activists. This is natural and inevitable.
If the post-Marxists and post-modernists are correct about one thing, it is that social and political movements for change in contemporary society are more complex, at least on the surface, than was the case 100 years ago. That said, there is much room for debate to determine priorities and strategies.
In my recent articles, I take issue with anti-Pink Tide writers who see worker and social movement mobilisations as practically the only driver of progressive change, while leaving anti-imperialist governments largely out of the picture.
But my articles also call into question the validity of an exclusively geopolitical focus. We are not quite in a situation like World War II, when Communists promoted a no-strike policy for the labour movement.
The exclusively geopolitical focus falls short in many situations. For instance, it may justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, without considering political options available to Russia as a response to NATO expansion and threats.
Also, the logic behind the exclusively geopolitical focus is to place [former Iraqi leader] Saddam Hussein in the same anti-imperialist category as Chávez, since both were subject to Washington's regime-change schemes, without considering domestic factors that clearly differentiated the two.
My main point is on the need to be realistic. Much open discussion is needed and should be welcomed. But we are not going to arrive at a blueprint or even a synthesis because societal contradictions are just too profound. We can, however, aim for common denominators based on common assumptions.
One of those assumptions is that anti-US imperialism has to be prioritised, though of course not as the only priority.
[Abridged from a longer interview at links.org.au.]