No one is rallying around the hegemon, if they are rallying, they are
trying to protect their own interests. Hegemony implies two things: 1)
to rule through a *combination* of coercion and consent (ala Gramsci.
Even Max Weber acknowledged that "all domination involves an element of
consent" )and 2) to "legitimate" this rule by creating a situation which
benefits all but, at the same time, confers the most benefits on the
hegemon (that's why you wish to be the hegemon - but it should also be
noted that in all situations of hegemony, eventually the "costs" to the
hegemon exceed the "benefits", as we are presently seeing in the case of
the US)
Like it or not, the global financial system is still based on the dollar
and the centrality of US and British financial institutions. The dollar
is still the main reserve currency and no one can, in terms of their own
best interests, allow this "system" to collapse. Wallerstein et.al have
been predicting the "end" of the system since the late 1970s and for a
variety of reasons - when one didn't "pan" out, another reason was
quickly seized on. What these people have failed to understand is the
incredible flexibility and creativity of the system. Remember, while
Marx was critical of capitalism he also praised it as the first system
to be devoted exclusively to the accumulation of wealth and while he
never, to my knowledge, used the term, Marx would have certainly agreed
with Schumpeter on the centrality of innovation.
So, what we have been seeing are act of innovation - innovation, as
Schumpeter repeatedly points out does not simply result in new products
but also "new ways of doing things" which produce irreversible changes
- on a totally new scale necessitated by the global scale of the
crisis. Of course, innovation is a process, not a single act and not
all innovation is successful so it is not possible to speculate about
the outcome. Nonetheless, I can predict (with some certainty) that this
crisis will be weathered and while there may be changes in the world
economy, perhaps a growing competition for hegemony over the next 50
years and the rise of a new hegemon, there will not be any fundamental
transformation in the nature of the world economy.
CHAD
Doyle Saylor wrote:
Greetings Economists,
On Feb 20, 2009, at 1:55 PM, Gernot Koehler wrote:
According to world systems theory (a la Wallerstein et al.), a
transnational crisis like the present one should result in a complete
unraveling and falliing-apart of the global political economy.
However, the opposite appears to be happening. The G20 governments
(in other words, the executive committees of the global elite /
bourgeoisie) are rallying behind their hegemon.
Doyle;
It seems to me premature to say this. What sort of international
cooperation does this amount to? The obvious point is that the
'hegemon' has a power structure that is shifting and the end of this
is by no means revealed. Certain sorts of questions remain difficult
to sort out.
Mostly saying this sounds to me as whistling past the graveyard. In
other words it seems likely one could not say this much past now
before it sounds like trying to staunch fear by appeal to delusions.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
