Dear Jerry,
You asked: Where do imperialist and 'imperialized' nations fit into this
picture? To answer this question, one first has to define the 'imperialist
system.' My focus, of course, is on the Pax Americana (1945 - 1975?). In
this inter-state system US (and its Western allies stand against the
dominated nations, such as Iran, the Philippines, Nicaragua, etc.). The
latter group of nations are as important as the former. It's like the
dialectical concept of 'master/slave.'
As for the rhetorical assertion of 'New World Order' by Bush senior, as we
all know, the pronouncement intended to express the wishful thought of
another (perhaps more powerful!) 'American Century.' My piece in Arab
Studies Quarterly, 1993 and 1995 would reflect on the issues surrounding the
Persian Gulf War of 1990. The new world order, in fact, was the demise of
Pax Americana and the US push to get its hegemony back! Again another
wishful thinking. As for the post-Pax Americana world, it is a world of
undivided hegemony of 'social capital,' in which no nation may have
'hegemony.' My piece in Challenge 1994 and my chapter in D. Gupta's book:
Political Economy of Globalization, Gluwer Academic Press, 1997 would
provide the meaning of 'globalization' that I believe is relevant to our
era, and thus has specific implication for US behavior and foreign policy.
Best wishes,
Cyrus
----- Original Message -----
From: "gerald_a_levy" <gerald_a_levy@msn.com>
To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 6:57 AM
Subject: [OPE-L:6869] hegemony and 'globalization'
> Re Cyrus's [6862]:
>
> > However, I tend to
> > believe that one has to treat the whole question of hegemony and
> > effectiveness of socioeconomic institutions in a holistic manner and in
a
> > manner of continuity and (structural) change. United States, as we know
> it,
> > was a part of a system (and era) that is long gone. We have inevitably
> > entered into an era, that for the lack of better terms, is called: 'era
of
> > globalization.' For serious political economists and radical
socialists,
> > this means a world submerged within the social relations of capital.
> > Capital, as a social relation, has already gone beyond the traditional
> > distinctions of 'the First, 'Second,' and 'Third World.' I am not
> claiming
> > that there is no distinction among these three entities, but to deny
that
> > there is any fundamental theoretical difference, other than the notion
of
> > uneven development among them.
>
> Where do imperialist and 'imperialized' nations fit into this picture?
>
> > In this context, one has to look to the
> > social relations as the ultimate hegemony. Or, in the era of
> > 'globalization,' capital ('social capital' in Marx's sense not
Becker's!!)
> > has a global hegemony. This has some bearing on US position and
behavior
> in
> > a similar fashion as the implosion of the Pax Americana one did.
>
> On your general point re the US, I agree (I think, i.e. if I understand
> you correctly.) I think there has been a tendency for many radicals
> in recent decades to push the concept of hegemony and to tend to
> de-emphasize inter-imperialist rivalries and other national and
> economic rivalries. You might recall that at the time of the Gulf War,
> during Bush I, many radicals pushed the idea that the world
> had entered a new period -- the 'New World Order'. Yet, the so-
> called 'New World Order' was very short-lived indeed. Thus, the
> alliances developed at the time of the Gulf War quickly broke down
> in the period that immediately followed -- and with that both Bush's
> dreams of a NWO and many radicals expectations of a fundamentally
> new NWO period quickly vanished.
>
> In solidarity, Jerry
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:08 EDT