From: "Cyrus Bina" <binac at mrs.umn.edu> Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 19:14:34 -0600
Dear Doug,
Hope all is well with you. I appreciate putting my piece on your lbo-talk. Copyright is not a first-order question at all. The main point is conversation and clarification. The issue of war and American lost hegemony is now more apparent than the first Persian Gulf War (1990-91). The question of building the so-called collision was flimsy then, but it is farce now. The question of NATO was in the undercurrent then, but it is in the open now.
What kind of "inter-state" system (I mean in a sense of global polity) in place now? In a structured and accepted sense of the term? None. What kind of system (I mean in a fully fledged sense that involves the economy, polity, and the entire global social relations) is tendentially demanded in historical sense? A system with no hegemony on the part of any one nation-state. Why? Because of the evolution of social relations leading to hegemony of "social capital."
In order to see this evolution one has to simply look at the past (international) system of Pax Britannica and its physical access to things (direct system of plunder and direct administration) via classical (naked) colonialism. This system was imploded prior to world War I (1914-1918) and, after a period of chaos and confusion, another bloody war (WWII, 1939-1945), replaced by a US-dominated "inter-state system, called the Pax Americana. It should be realized that after the DEATH of Pax Britannica in the early 20th century, there was still quarrel over the nationalization of oil in Iran (1951) and a character(Winston Churchill) dragged himself from the graveyard of 19th century in order to stand against a 20th century elected premier (Mohammad Mossadegh) in order to preserve British colonial interests in Iran. As you can see, the Pax Britannica died yet its stinking corpse has to be endured and berried by Gandhi and Mossadegh several decades later. This new system, in many respects, was opposite of what naked colonialism was all about: it mission was the spread of social relations of CAPITAL and its rhetoric was "democracy." It wanted to re-create the world after its own image. It re-created the world all right but in its view of itself in words, and in its own fractured image in deeds. Yet, historically, the Pax Americana has changed the world in a irreversible manner. It spread the social relations of CAPITAL unevenly to all four corners of the world. One of the vehicles of these undertakings was the imposition of land reform programs in many of the "Third World" countries under its hegemony.
Speaking of hegemony, US hegemony was the result of the hegemony of the Pax Americana, like the hegemony of England (this little island!) was depended upon the hegemony of the Empire itself. It would be a mistake to identify the United State with the Pax Americana itself. Now, one of the significant differences between these two "empires" is in direct versus indirect conduct of their affairs. When I speak of conduction the affairs, one should attribute to voluntarism. This goes back to the characteristics of these two historical systems. Why the naked force of colonialism could not be effective? Because it was no longer historically acceptable. Why the "middle ground" system of Pax Americana went out business (roughly between mid- to late 1970s)? Because of the unintended forces of globalization (I do not mean corporate globalization). With the system gone, speaking of hegemony is rubbish. When one speaks of "American Power," one also needs to know its limits. I haven't read Chomsky's text, therefore, I do not wish to make any comment about him at the moment.
With all good wishes,
Cyrus (Thursday night, February 20, 2003)
Cyrus Bina, P.D. Professor of Economics and Management University of Minnesota Morris, MN 56267 Phone: (320) 589-6193 Fax: (320) 589-6117 E-mail: binac at mrs.umn.edu