i've seen this come up with panitch in the past: he seems convinced that this idea that open markets creates stability is a real thing, by combining it with a class analysis and globalization. then he gets this idea of a global capitalist class that's all in kahoots with itself. he's not the first leftist i've seen buy into this. it's actually a cross-spectrum status quo at this point, to the extreme that you're likely to get ridiculed if you argue otherwise. but that's a type of enforcement of something that is really just propaganda. what's underlying his argument is buying into this "open markets equal peace and prosperity" thing, even if he's glossing over it with left-wing language.

hudson (who is a little naive, in general) is closer to the right idea in pointing out the globalization is not really globalization but american hegemony. there's a capitalist class in russia, and one in china, and another in india. but the american globalization policy is not to work with them so much as it's to move in. that actually creates a power struggle. in reality, open markets fuel international struggles by pitting one ruling class against another. that's the contradiction of neo-liberalism that hudson gets, and panitch is upholding, and the root crux of their disagreement. it follows that the capitalist classes in russia and china don't have the motives that panitch is suggesting.

and, hudson is consequently making good sense when he argues that this is about circumventing american capitalism, but misses the corollary - to compete and eventually replace it. now, apologists will instantly write this off as impossible. but, the containment strategies exist for a reason. the combined economic power of almost all of asia - and potentially most of africa and south america - is a significant threat to american power, especially if it can pull the germans in. and, if the new system generates enough success, it could very well do that. it's worth remembering that when it comes to unshakable allies, america has none. the closest are canada, britain and israel - but adherence to american dictates depends solely on the projection of american power.

will the third world see a difference? they might get some nicer rates in the short term, as the new system competes with the old one for influence. but, of course, it's not some coincidence that china is looking to fund a development bank in africa. it's colonialism - same old same old. it will give the brics countries more leverage in a wide range of contexts; it will very likely also spark some proxy wars.

but, the idea that globalization has led to a monolithic system of centralized global capital is called the "new world order conspiracy theory", and is john birch society propaganda. the idea that open markets lead to peace and stability is neo-liberal propaganda. the fact is that competition over resources between sovereign states that are hostile to each other continues as it always has, and has no apparent end point in sight.