[lbo-talk] Re: Apre's L'Empire

Brad Mayer bradley.mayer at sun.com
Fri Jul 11 13:58:47 PDT 2003


Toll is not _so_ simple-minded as to hinge the whole argument on this one fact. He also asserts that US industrial production has weakened to the point where the US won't be able to field a ground force to hold such an Eurasian "Empire". He relates this to the trade deficit by claiming that the US must guarantee this "predatory-begger" seignorage over the worlds' consumables (whose dumping into Iraq is being currently engineered by Bremer, BTW) through active militarism. But this will fail since the US lacks the industrial base, and this explains the penchant for "attacking the weak". I suppose Airbus' recent overtaking of Boeing in airliner sales would be a bit of recent anecdotal evidence.

He also adds that the US has never actually fought a foe "a sa mesure", unlike the Romans, Russians or (hint, hint) the French. A retort for the flag-waving Bordeaux-dumpers from a genuine "cheese-eating surrender monkey" that should hit the mark! American cowards! Fight the wars that the French did, then come back and lecture us :-)

So Todd has at least two central ideas:

- US economic inbalance, dependency and industrial weaknss; - Military weakness, especially on the ground;

to which he adds a third:

- US ideological "retreat from universalism", which I think is quite dubious for an number of reasons, but it can be dispensed with anyway. The first two are good enough for the doom of the would-be "Empire".

Romans the Americans _are not_.

For sure, Todd is a Eurocentric chauvinist who counsels that the EU should just basically ignore the US "theatrics" and bloc with a "returning", "nonthreatening" Russia. (Humorous aside: proper French spelling for Putin is 'Poutain', since the literal means something very naughty in French). He blithely assumes Japan will act like the EU in distancing itself from the US, a mistake in my view.

But, regardless of where Todd is coming from, he's one of the few who, like me, says that all this "Empire" talk is bunk, including Negri's (very different) version.

As against Todd. I explain it in terms of capitalism and the point where we are at in its historical life cycle (late). We've been in a post-Empire epoch since the postwar decolonization, and anybody who thinks that clock can be turned back is crazy. Imperialism still remains, though, ever striving for but never attaining Empire.

Speaking of clocks, Todd also referred to the Chomsky types as "broken clocks that are correct twice a day". Todds' got a point there. 'Old Republican' cranks...

-Brad Mayer ----------------- full at http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EC21Aa03.html

Is this, in fact, the central idea: that the constant need for foreign capital to fund the ever expanding deficit is the Achilles heel?

If so, I'd be interested to read a decscription of the weaknesses of this idea.

DRM



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list