< < <
Date Index > > > |
Re: the coming Big Chill? by Threehegemons 14 February 2002 02:26 UTC |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |
<It would be the old world-system theory prediction was Moscow/Berlin/Paris vs. Washington/Tokyo/Beijing with the British on the bubble. Will it shake out this way?> Possibly--maybe I'm just hopelessly optimistic, but I think all of the core states intensely want to avoid war with each other. Just as the transition from British to American hegemony skipped a period in which new contenders sought to take over the old center of accumulation (as the French and Spanish fought over the Italian city-states, and as the French and British fought over the Dutch Republic) so this phase may see the avoidance of a war of core states against each other. Instead, there'll be intensified competition over how to solve the perceived problems of the periphery--particularly as those become (a la 9/11) problems of the core. To put it another way--the practice of peripheralizing war which has had some success over the last two hundred years is showing signs of unravelling. Hegemonic wannabees--and social movements--will put out (albeit not in some idealized Habermasian public sphere) different proposals for how to get out of the mess. I think the limits of the 'war on terrorism' approach are already clear to both many of us and to many world elites. In this context, its worth considering the disoriented tone of this year's WEF. Quite a contrast from the seventies, when this forum had a strategic proposal--neoliberalism. To paraphrase Bob Dylan, there's no failure like success, and this success has begun to exhaust itself. Transnational fora like the WEF and the WSF will play an important role in defining directions in the hegemonic struggle, which is likely to focus even more this time than in the past on ideas rather than force. In some ways its tempting to write off the Dementia of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice as right wing Republican nonsense, but its notable that Gore--although not Clinton--has embraced the aggression against Iraq. I would interpret that to mean that the pressures of various publics' opinions in the US are strong enough to marginalize the usual spectrum of opinion. Obviously, this is very bad news for the people of Iraq, but I suspect it will also hobble US leadership (which is not the same as its ability to exert force). Steven Sherman
< < <
Date Index > > > |
World Systems Network List Archives at CSF | Subscribe to World Systems Network |
< < <
Thread Index > > > |