Re: New Imperialism and beyond

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Of the various reasons given for the likely failure of the "new US
imperialism" the economic analysis is relatively long term and
independent of particular politics:-

>>
Fourthly, as suggested by world-systems analysis, new imperialist
direct rule is too expensive and forceful economic exploitation is an
inefficient form of economic appropriation. Imperialist wars and
excessive military spending in combination with unhealthy
military-Keynesianism -i.e. a policy that utilizes military spending
as a counter-cyclical tool against economic recession- increase the
federal public debt of the United States. When military spending is
combined with taxation policies offering tax-cuts to the rich, whose
increased income is not necessarily channeled into growth- creating
consumption, and to the costly effects of the ageing population, it is
easy to understand that these policies are not economically viable in
the middle and long term. However, it is the middle and long term
negative development of public and private debt that is believed to
expose the US economy to a major corrective adjustment. Moreover, this
is in line with the more general downward trend of the US position in
the world-economy, as suggested by the WSA. <<<

As for the rest of the world being able to punish the USA, I am
sceptical that this would be done openly, whatever schadenfreude there
may be over USA's problems.

I think the objective reason for this is that late finance capitalism
is too interdependent to promote national blocs. The subjective reason
is that all these government officials are conscientious opportunists
by conviction and methodology.

In terms of the dollar losing its place and all the benefits of being
accepted as world money, I would have thought the most likely path of
least resistance would be some sort of accounting device based on a
basket of currencies, and a formula for issuing IMF special drawing
rights.

Chris Burford

----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Proyect" <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 3:50 PM
Subject: [PEN-L] New Imperialism and beyond


> (This article contains some interesting insights, but lapses into
> reformist illusions about "old Europe" and multilateralism in the
> conclusion.)
>
> New Imperialism and beyond. Why the New Imperialism will fail and
unseat
> the Bush Administration?
> Petri Minkkinen
>
> After the shock of S-11-2001 terrorist attacks the administration of
> George W. Bush launched a full scale global military operation
> supposedly to deter and root out international terrorism. Peoples
around
> the world were shaken by the scale and arrogance of the attacks and
by
> the equally arrogant nature of the counter-attack of the Bush
> administration. Immediately after the terror attacks many began to
pose
> irritating questions and observations on the nature of attacks[1].
It
> seemed obvious that things were not necessarily as self-evident as
> supposed by the mainstream media and political pundits. It also
became
> evident that a terror operation of this magnitude required a level
of
> skill, resources and planning no ordinary terrorist organization
could
> have possessed. Therefore some kind of backing by a state level
actor
> was evidently involved.
>
> Two possibilities emerged out of this presupposition: either the act
was
> backed and/or ordered by an 'unfriendly' state supporting terrorist
> activities, or the US government itself was or some 'friendly'
states
> were involved in one way or another. The Bush administration acted
on
> the mixed state-terrorist organization assumption: the attacks were
> executed by a dangerous and skillful terrorist
organization -al-Qaida
> run and financed by Osama bin Laden- and one or several states
hostile
> to US interests supported the terrorists. There is also another
> possibility: Bush administration or its ideologues preaching for the
US
> global supremacy knew about these attacks and did not act
accordingly to
> stop them. A more damaging, dangerous and demoralizing version of
this
> alternative -or subversive, if you wish- line of thought is that the
> government, its ideological backers, some 'friendly' state or some
other
> actors connected to them were more directly involved with these
cruel
> acts. Be it as it may, this is the central question related to the
> attacks and the world political events following them.
>
> The article at hand does not try to resolve this still unanswered
> question. Interesting as it is, the arguments presented here are
> independent of this crucial question. They rest upon the assumption
that
> irrespective of the Bush administrations relationship to the attacks
> proper, the New Right ideologues of The Project for the New American
> Century (PNAC)[2] and its predecessors had planned for a heavy
> militarization program and for the maintenance and enhancement of US
> world supremacy -militarily, if necessary- well before the sad
events of
> S-11-2001. Interestingly enough, in a report published a year before
the
> attacks the PNAC makes itself a suspect. PNAC demanded a massive
> rearmament program for the US militarily 'weakened' by the Clinton
> administration. However, they expected that "the process of
> transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to
be
> a long one, absent some (sic) catastrophic and catalyzing
event -like a
> new Pearl Harbor"[3]. The purpose of this global exercise is to
inhibit
> the rise of any competing state or group of states capable of
> challenging the US global hegemony. According to the century-old
> geopolitical doctrines -adopted and updated by various key players
in
> the US foreign policy establishment and inside the PNAC- the control
of
> Eurasia or certain Central Asian countries would be essential for
that
> purpose. Direct or indirect control, for example, of the oil
resources
> would give the US ruling classes a possibility to exert control over
the
> future development of the European Union, Russia and China, not to
> mention the Islamic countries of that area inhabited by "some
stirred-up
> Moslems"[4]. This control allied with a military presence in the
region
> would also allow the US to defend Israel, use the enduring
> Israel-Palestine conflict as a test site for the latest military
> technology and control the future development of the Middle-East and
> Eastern Mediterranean in general. Intellectual grounds for the
direct or
> indirect control of the area in question was prepared during the
1990's
> by varying actors, such as the pro-imperialist PNAC or pro-hegemony
> scholars like Samuel "Clash of Civilizations" Huntington and
Zbigniew
> "Trilateral Commission" Brzezinski who hold a more cooperative and
more
> pro-transnational capitalism stance[5].
>
> full: http://www.hapress.com/haol.php?a=n04a07
>
> --
> Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
>