[lbo-talk] the CFR worries about decline

[Carrol Cox]

This whole debate is half a century out of date. The kind of imperial
rivalry that traditional imperialist analysis posited no longer exists
in form that threatens inter-wimperial war. There will be wrangling and
maneuveromg, but the 'big' powers are not playing a game of Who is King
of the Mountain. Distinct national capitalisms exist, and distinct
national capitalist classes, but still there is a good deal of shared
interest among all -- the u.s., Europe, China, Russia, and a few others
-- that being maintaining a "climate for business" in all nations. That
requires endless war and frequent subversions or overthrows of this or
that state that is not doing its duty to international capitalism. That
is the main function of u.s. military strength.

I think the elite are overwstimating the force they need -- but who
knows. As Doug points out, these wars cost money that could be better
spent.

The CFR clearly lacks something to keep it busy I suspect, and hence
this fussing.

Carrol
> 
> >   Militarily it seems equally true [...] that America can't even pacify puny
> > little countries anymore.
> 
> By the way, everyone says this, but when in the past has America ever
> been able to pacify tiny countries at will? You appear to have the Iraq
> and Afghanistan failures (or quasi-failures) in mind. But before 2001,
> where did America ever succeed at doing what we're now failing to do in
> Afghanistan/Iraq - i.e., invade a Third World country, topple its
> regime, and build a brand new state from scratch? The closest parallel I
> can think of is S. Korea in 1945-49 - but when the US withdrew in 1949
> it left that government in far worse shape than Iraq's is in now.
> 
> SA
> 
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk