>in thinking only of us domination, which I do not think is something
>we should forget, I think we are in danger of thinking that us
>hegemony is eternal or at least thinking of the us as the constant
>hegemonic feature of capitalism.
Not me. I've been looking for signs of an end to U.S. hegemony for as long as I can remember. Every time one seems to pop up, it fades a few years later. There was the war in Vietnam, which looked like a loss at the time, but, given the immense suffering and death rained on Indochinese and subsequent historical developments, it really marked the end of and era revolutionary wars of national independence. Yes there was the Nicaraguan revo a few years later, but the U.S. successfully destroyed that one. There was the end of apartheid in SA, but the World Bank pretty much ruined that one.
There was also the rise of Japan in the 1980s; that looked like the certain end of U.S. hegemony. But now Japan has sunk into economic torpor and political irrelevance. More recently there was Europhoria, but now only Dennis Redmond seems to believe that one. In the current war, the EU has been almost entirely subordinated to the U.S. If the EU really were rising to challenge U.S. hegemony, the White House and Pentagon wouldn't be (literally) calling the shots. Maybe after the hot war is over, the EU may develop its own autonomous imperial muscle - especially if the U.S. economic bubble bursts - but I sure don't see it yet. Balibar may be right about the imaginative/symbolic construction of Europe, but it ain't happening in the realm of the real yet.
Doug