Contemporary hierarchy
>is much more systematic - look at the structure of
> international bodies: WB/IMF dominated by the rich countries, U.S.
> has blocking but not determining vote; NATO, a US-dominated
> institution for keeping Europe in line; the UN Security council,
> with
> 5 veto members. Or international currencies, with the US dollar at
> the center (that position now under threat, but that's a rather
> recent development, and there's still a long way to go). Or in the
> Western Hemisphere, all countries have relations with the US, with
> the US dominating the bilateral relations, but the non-US
> countries
> having little relation with each other. It's a very nice pyramid
> structure, with one stone on top - but a stone that wouldn't be
> there
> if all the others weren't supporting it.
These and other facts themselves need an explanation. The question is why the relationships between the North America, Europe and Japan are not based on "liberty, equality and Bentham." The capitalist system, unlike the pre-capitalist ones, doesn't require direct and immediate use of coercion. Commodity fetishism is usually enough to keep the system going. What is needed in, say, Afghanistan is not appropriate in every situation.
Ulhas