John Bellamy Foster

Category: Other Major Scholarly Journal Articles

Journal Articles (Other Major Scholarly)

  • The New Age of Imperialism

    The New Age of Imperialism

    “The New Age of Imperialism,” Monthly Review vol. 55, no. 3 (July 2003), pp. 1-14. DOI: 10.14452/MR-055-03-2003-07_1

    Imperialism is meant to serve the needs of a ruling class much more than a nation. It has nothing to do with democracy. Perhaps for that reason it has often been characterized as a parasitic phenomenon-even by critics as astute as John Hobson in his 1902 classic, Imperialism: A Study. And (rom there it is unfortunately all too easy to slide into the crude notion that imperialist expansion is simply a product of powerful groups of individuals who have hijacked a nation’s foreign policy to serve their own narrow ends.

    Translations:
    • Portuguese translation in Fragmetos de Cultura in Goiânia (Brazil), vol. 13, no. 6 (Nov-December 2003), pp. 1235-53.
    • Spanish translation in Marx Ahora (Havana, Cuba), no. 17 (November 2004)
    • Turkish translation in Cosmo Politik, vol. 6 (Fall 2003), pp. 12-22.
    • Russian translation on www.left.ru

     

  • The ‘Left-Wing’ Media?

    The ‘Left-Wing’ Media?

    “The ‘Left-Wing’ Media?,” (coauthored with Robert W. McChesney, McChesney listed as first author), Monthly Review, vol. 55, no. 2 (June 2003), pp. 1-16. DOI: 10.14452/MR-055-02-2003-06_1

    If we learn nothing else from the war on Iraq and its subsequent occupation, it is that the U.S. ruling class has learned to make ideological warfare as important to its operations as military and economic warfare. A crucial component of this ideological war has been the campaign against “left-wing media bias,” with the objective of reducing or eliminating the prospect that mainstream U.S. journalism might be at all critical toward elite interests or the system set up to serve those interests. In 2001 and 2002, no less than three books purporting to demonstrate the media’s leftward tilt rested high atop the bestseller list. Such charges have already influenced media content, pushing journalists to be less critical of right-wing politics. The result has been to reinforce the corporate and rightist bias already built into the media system.

    Reprints:
    • Reprinted in abridged from in Karl Finsterbusch, ed., Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Social Issues, 13th edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005), pp. 29-37.
    • Republished in expanded and revised form in Robert W. McChesney, The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the 21st Century. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2004, pp. 98-137.

     

  • Imperial America and War

    Imperial America and War

    “Imperial America and War,” Monthly Review vol. 55, no. 1 (May 2003), pp. 1-10. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14452/MR-055-01-2003-05_1

    On November 11, 2000, Richard Haass—a member of the National Security Council and special assistant to the president under the elder Bush, soon to be appointed director of policy planning in the State Department of newly elected President George W. Bush—delivered a paper in Atlanta entitled “Imperial America.” For the United States to succeed at its objective of global preeminence, he declared, it would be necessary for Americans to “re-conceive their role from a traditional nation-state to an imperial power.” Haass eschewed the term “imperialist” in describing America’s role, preferring “imperial,” since the former connoted “exploitation, normally for commercial ends,” and “territorial control.”

    Reprints:
    • Reprinted in Pratyush Chandra, Anuradha Ghosh and Ravi Kumar, The Politics of Imperialism and Counterstrategies. Delhi: Aakar Books, 2004, pp. 25-36.
    Translations:
    • French translation published in À L’ Encontre, no.12 (2003), pp. 35-39;
    • Spanish translation published in Monthly Review—Selecciones en castellano, no. 1 (May 2004).
    • Russian translation on www.left.ru.
    • German translation in AG Friedenforschung, http://www.unikassel.de/fb5/frieden/regionen/USA/foster.html.

     

  • What Recovery?

    What Recovery?

    “What Recovery?,” (coauthored with Harry Magdoff and Robert W. McChesney, listed as “by the editors” Monthly Review vol. 54, no. 11 (April 2003), pp. 1-16. DOI: 10.14452/MR-054-11-2003-04_1

    Only a few years ago it was widely suggested that the capitalist economy had entered a new economic era. The rapid economic growth experienced during the brief period of the late 1990s, we were told, would become virtually endless, spurred on by rising productivity led by high technology and the New Economy. The circumstances that now confront us following the bursting of the speculative bubble could not be more different. The country is once again mired in economic stagnation. In the present “recovery”—if indeed we can call it that—new jobs remain few and far between. Of the four sources of demand that create economic activity—personal consumption, business investment, government spending, and net exports—it is mainly consumption, backed by increasing debt, that is currently keeping the economy from slipping deeper into stagnation. Indeed, many business leaders and economists fear the return of recession—referred to as the likelihood of a “double dip.” Behind this fear lies excess capacity in almost every industry, the absence of new growth stimuli, slow growth or recession in most of the rest of the world, and the aftereffects of the bursting of the speculative stock market bubble. All of this suggests that there is more at stake than the traditional business cycle. At the very least, there is reason to expect the continuation of the tendency of stagnation.

     

  • The Commercial Tidal Wave

    The Commercial Tidal Wave

    “The Commercial Tidal Wave,” (coauthored with Robert W. McChesney, McChesney listed as first author), Monthly Review vol. 54, no. 10 (March 2003), pp. 1-16. DOI: 10.14452/MR-054-10-2003-03_1

    For a long time now it has been widely understood within economics that under the capitalism of giant firms, corporations no longer compete primarily through price competition. They engage instead in what economists call “monopolistic competition.” This consists chiefly of attempts to create monopoly positions for a particular brand, making it possible for corporations to charge more for the branded product while also expanding their market share. Competition is most intense in what Thorstein Veblen called the “production of salable appearances,” involving advertising, frequent model changes, branding of products, and the like. Once this logic takes over in twentieth and now twenty-first century capitalism it is seemingly unstoppable. All human needs, relationships and fears, the deepest recesses of the human psyche, become mere means for the expansion of the commodity universe under the force of modem marketing. With the rise to prominence of modem marketing, commercialism—the translation of human relations into commodity relations—although a phenomenon intrinsic to capitalism, has expanded exponentially.

    Reprints:
    • Republished in expanded and revised form in Robert W. McChesney, The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the 21st Century. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2004, pp. 138-74.

     

  • A Planetary Defeat

    A Planetary Defeat

    “A Planetary Defeat: The Failure of Global Environmental Reform,” Monthly Review, vol. 54, no. 8 (January 2003), pp.1-9. DOI: 10.14452/MR-054-08-2003-01_1

    The first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992 generated hopes that the world would at long last address its global ecological problems and introduce a process of sustainable development. Now, with a second summit being held ten years later in Johannesburg, that dream has to a large extent faded. Even the principal supporters of this process have made it clear that they do not expect much to be achieved as a result of the Johannesburg summit, which is likely to go down in history as an absolute failure. We need to ask ourselves why.

    Translations:
    • Persian translation in Paul M. Sweezy, et. al., Capitalism and the Environment (Tehran: Digar Publishing House, 2008).

     

  • The Rediscovery of Imperialism

    The Rediscovery of Imperialism

    “The Rediscovery of Imperialism: Introduction” to Harry Madoff, Essays on Imperialism and Globalization,” Monthly Review vol. 54, no. 6 (November 2002), pp. 1-16. DOI: 10.14452/MR-054-06-2002-10_1

    The concept of “imperialism” was considered outside the acceptable range of political discourse within the ruling circles of the capitalist world for most of the twentieth century. Reference to “imperialism” during the Vietnam War, no matter how realistic, was almost always a sign that the writer was on the left side of the political spectrum. In a 1971 foreword to the U.S. edition of Pierre Jalée’s Imperialism in the Seventies Harry Magdoff noted, “As a rule, polite academic scholars prefer not to use the term ‘imperialism.’ They find it distasteful and unscientific.”

    Translations:
    • Turkish translation in Cosmo Politik, no. 6 (Winter 2002), pp. 16-25.
    • Spanish translation at Correntroig, July 6, 2008. Translation by Fernando Lizárraga.

     

  • Marx’s Ecology in Historical Perspective

    “Marx’s Ecology in Historical Perspective,” [PDF] International Socialism, no. 97 (Autumn 2002), pp. 71-86.

    ‘For the early Marx the only nature relevant to the understanding of history is human nature … Marx wisely left nature (other than human nature) alone.’ These words are from George Lichtheim’s influential book Marxism: An Historical and Critical Study, first published in 1961. [1]

    Though he was not a Marxist, Lichtheim’s view here did not differ from the general outlook of Western Marxism at the time he was writing. Yet this same outlook would be regarded by most socialists today as laughable. After decades of explorations of Marx’s contributions to ecological discussions and publication of his scientific-technical notebooks, it is no longer a question of whether Marx addressed nature, and did so throughout his life, but whether he can be said to have developed an understanding of the nature-society dialectic that constitutes a crucial starting point for understanding the ecological crisis of capitalist society.

    Reprints:
    • Reprint in Bertell Ollman and Kevin B. Anderson, ed., Karl Marx (Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Group, 2012), 609-21.
    • Part of the International Library of Essays in Classical Sociology series, edited by David Chalcraft.
    Translations:
    • Greek translation in Marxist Thought, December 2001
    • Chinese translation by Guo Jianren in Marxist Philosophical Research (China), Wuhan University, 2002
    • Malay translation by Muhammed Salleh in Suara Sosialisme (October 2002) http://arts.anu.edu.au/suara/foster1.rtf. Malay translation (2002) in Malayan edition of International Socialism.
  • Capitalism and Ecology

    Capitalism and Ecology

    “Capitalism and Ecology: The Nature of the Contradiction,” Monthly Review vol. 54, no. 4 (September 2002), pp. 6-16. DOI: 10.14452/MR-054-04-2002-08_2

    The social relation of capital, as we all know, is a contradictory one. These contradictions, though stemming from capitalism’s internal laws of motion, extend out to phenomena that are usually conceived as external to the system, threatening the integrity of the entire biosphere and everything within it as a result of capital’s relentless expansion. How to understand capitalism’s ecological contradictions has therefore become a subject of heated debate among socialists. Two crucial issues in this debate are: (1) must ecological crisis lead to economic crisis under capitalism?, and (2) to what extent is there an ecological contradiction at the heart of capitalist society?

     

  • Monopoly Capital and the New Globalization

    Monopoly Capital and the New Globalization

    “Monopoly Capital and the New Globalization,” Monthly Review, vol 53, no. 8 (January 2002), pp. 1-7. DOI: 10.14452/MR-053-08-2002-01_1

    We live at a time when capitalism has become more extreme, and is more than ever presenting itself as a force of nature, which demands such extremes. Globalization—the spread of the self-regulating market to every niche and cranny of the globe—is portrayed by its mainly establishment proponents as a process that is unfolding from everywhere at once with no center and no discernible power structure. As the New York Times claimed in its July 7, 2001 issue, repeating now fashionable notions, today’s global reality is one of “a fluid, infinitely expanding and highly organized system that encompasses the world’s entire population,” but which lacks any privileged positions or “place of power.”

    Reprints:
    • Also appeared as a chapter in Doug Dowd, Understanding Capitalism (London: Pluto Press, 2002).
    • Spanish edition, Entender el Capitalismo (Barcelona: Bellaterra, 2003). 
    Translations:
    • Chinese translation by Xgui Chen in Foreign Theory Dynamics, 6 (2003).