Questo commento (che condivido in pieno) riguarda anche gli ultimi messaggi su RK sull'impero americano.
Louis Proyect wrote: > Empire and the Capitalists (http://fbc.binghamton.edu/113en.htm) > by Immanuel Wallerstein > > WALLERSTEIN: > In short, [Stephen] Roach is arguing that the macho militarism > swagger of the Bush regime, the dream of the U.S. hawks to remake the > world in their image, is not merely undoable, but distinctly negative > from the point of view of large U.S. investors, the audience for whom > Roach writes, the customers of Morgan Stanley. Roach is of course > absolutely right, and it is noteworthy that this is not being said by > some left-wing academic, but by an insider of big capital. > > COMMENT: > Roach represents a distaff view within Wall Street and the foreign > policy establishment. You get the same sort of hand-wringing from > George Soros, who spoke at a Paris conference organized to explore > Wallerstein's thought that was sponsored by Le Monde, the Paribas > Foundation among others. (The Paribas Foundation was set up by BNP, > one the most powerful investment banks in France and--like > Soros--given to pangs of conscience about screwing the rest of the > world.) > > What Roach, Soros, Krugman, Stiglitz and Jeffrey Sachs all represent > is the nagging doubt of the bourgeoisie about whether the current > expansionist drive is sustainable. In other words, it is the > expression of mainstream Democratic Party thinking. It tends to crop > up on the eve of some imperialist adventure and subside after the > unruly natives are subdued. > > Contrary to Wallerstein's spin on Roach's remarks, the "macho > militarism swagger" is not something that Bush initiated. It is > simply the latest installment in a foreign policy around which is > there is a substantial consensus. Clinton's war against Yugoslavia > involved virtually all the same themes, including "human rights" > rhetoric and large-scale Goebbels-esque propaganda-lies. The war in > Afghanistan was simply a more ambitious version of the "war on > terror" that had led to the bombing of Sudan's only pharmaceutical > factory and other violent attacks by the Clinton administration that > were barely noticed by the liberal establishment. > > WALLERSTEIN: > Seen in longer historical perspective, what we are seeing here is the > 500-year-old tension in the modern world-system between those who > wish to protect the interests of the capitalist strata by ensuring a > well-functioning world-economy, with a hegemonic but non-imperial > power to guarantee its political underpinnings, and those who wish to > transform the world-system into a world-empire. We had three major > attempts in the history of the modern world-system to do this: > Charles V/Ferdinand II in the sixteenth century, Napoleon in the > beginning of the nineteenth century, and Hitler in the middle of the > twentieth century. All were magnificently successful - until they > fell flat on their faces, when faced by opposition organized by the > powers that ultimately became hegemonic - the United Provinces, the > United Kingdom, and the United States. > > COMMENT: > Odd. I had the distinct impression that the United Kingdom ran a > world-empire. At least that's what NYY professor and imperialist > ideologue Niall Ferguson believes and promotes. Does Wallerstein > think that Winston Churchill was less of an architect of world-empire > than Adolph Hitler? The people of India, China, Burma, and most of > Africa might have quibbled with that assessment not too long ago. > > WALLERSTEIN: > Hegemony is not about macho militarism. Hegemony is about economic > efficiency, making possible the creation of a world order on terms > that will guarantee a smoothly-running world-system in which the > hegemonic power becomes the locus of a disproportionate share of > capital accumulation. The United States was in that situation from > 1945 to circa 1970. But it's been losing that advantage ever since. > And when the U.S. hawks and the Bush regime decided to try to reverse > decline by going the world-imperial path, they shot the United > States, and U.S.-based large capitalists, in the foot > - if not immediately, in a very short future. This is what Roach is > warning about, and complaining about. > > COMMENT: > There is a fundamental confusion here. No advice from Roach, nor > Soros, nor Stiglitz can change the precarious situation world > capitalism finds itself in today. Despite my sharp disagreements with > Robert Brenner over the origins of capitalism and his inexplicable > endorsement of the right of the USA to fund a counter-revolutionary > movement in Cuba, his 1998 New Left Review article seems more astute > than ever. With the rise of the German and Japanese economies in the > 1960s, the USA has been forced to respond by driving down wages at > home and stepping up attacks on the 3rd world. All this falls under > the rubric of 'neoliberalism'. Despite the crocodile tears of a > Joseph Stiglitz, there is NO ALTERNATIVE within the capitalist > system. The logic that drives this is the need to accumulate capital. > Since attacks on wage labor in the pursuit of profit introduce other > potentially sharper contradictions, reformist illusions about a > global Marshall Plan, etc. will crop up. On my employer's website, > you can find a press release about Professor Jeffrey Sach's proposal > to end "extreme poverty" by 2015. > > http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/03/05/millennium_project_2015.html > > The one measure that is capable of accomplishing such a goal is the > very one these liberal do-gooders will never support, namely > proletarian revolution. > > WALLERSTEIN: > But doesn't the Bush regime give these capitalists everything they > want - for example, enormous tax rebates? But do they really want > them? Not Warren Buffett, not George Soros, not Bill Gates (speaking > through his father). They want a stable capitalist system, and Bush > is not giving them that. Sooner or later, they will translate their > discontent into action. They may already be doing this. This doesn't > mean they will succeed. Bush may get reelected in 2004. He may push > his political and economic madness further. He may seek to make his > changes irreversible. > > COMMENT: > It does not matter what Buffett, Gates or Soros want. To paraphrase > Wallerstein: not John Kerry, not Dennis Kucinich, not George W. Bush > are capable of providing a "stable capitalist system". We are in a > period of deepening crisis, imperialist war > and--ultimately--revolutionary war. If you can't stand the heat, then > get out of the kitchen. > > WALLERSTEIN: > But in a capitalist system, there is also the market. The market is > not all-powerful, but it is not helpless either. When the dollar > collapses, and it will collapse, everything will change > geopolitically. For a collapsed dollar is far more significant than > an Al-Qaeda attack on the Twin Towers. The U.S. has clearly survived > the latter. But it will be a vastly different U.S. once the dollar > collapses. The U.S. will no longer be able to live far beyond its > means, to consume at the rest of the world's expense. Americans may > begin to feel what countries in the Third World feel when faced by > IMF-imposed structural readjustment - a sharp downward thrust of > their standard of living. > > The near bankruptcy of the state governments across the United States > even today is a foreshadowing of what is to come. And history will > note that, faced with a bad underlying economic situation in the > United States, the Bush regime did everything possible to make it far > worse. > > COMMENTARY: > A typical Wallerstein declaration from Mount Olympus. Not a single > strategic recommendation, let alone an engagement with politics. I > guess when we are dealing with 500 year long waves, such imperatives > must appear mundane if not an outright nuisance. ___________________________________________ rekombinant .network http://rekombinant.org http://rekombinant.org/media-activism http://urbantv.it
