Re: Comments on a Wallerstein article

  dead url, temporay archive of last 100 posts to proyect's marxmail...
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2003w21/msg00024.htm
--- Begin Message --- To: "debate: SA discussion list " 
<debate@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, pen- 
l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mikedjyates@xxxxxxx
Subject: Comments on a Wallerstein article
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 11:40:12 -0400

Empire and the Capitalists (http://fbc.binghamton.edu/113en.htm)
by Immanuel Wallerstein
WALLERSTEIN:
In short, [Stephen] Roach is arguing that the macho militarism swagger of 
the Bush regime, the dream of the U.S. hawks to remake the world in their 
image, is not merely undoable, but distinctly negative from the point of 
view of large U.S. investors, the audience for whom Roach writes, the 
customers of Morgan Stanley. Roach is of course absolutely right, and it is 
noteworthy that this is not being said by some left-wing academic, but by 
an insider of big capital.
COMMENT:
Roach represents a distaff view within Wall Street and the foreign policy 
establishment. You get the same sort of hand-wringing from George Soros, 
who spoke at a Paris conference organized to explore Wallerstein's thought 
that was sponsored by Le Monde, the Paribas Foundation among others. (The 
Paribas Foundation was set up by BNP, one the most powerful investment 
banks in France and--like Soros--given to pangs of conscience about 
screwing the rest of the world.)
What Roach, Soros, Krugman, Stiglitz and Jeffrey Sachs all represent is the 
nagging doubt of the bourgeoisie about whether the current expansionist 
drive is sustainable. In other words, it is the expression of mainstream 
Democratic Party thinking. It tends to crop up on the eve of some 
imperialist adventure and subside after the unruly natives are subdued.
Contrary to Wallerstein's spin on Roach's remarks, the "macho militarism 
swagger" is not something that Bush initiated. It is simply the latest 
installment in a foreign policy around which is there is a substantial 
consensus. Clinton's war against Yugoslavia involved virtually all the same 
themes, including "human rights" rhetoric and large-scale Goebbels-esque 
propaganda-lies. The war in Afghanistan was simply a more ambitious version 
of the "war on terror" that had led to the bombing of Sudan's only 
pharmaceutical factory and other violent attacks by the Clinton 
administration that were barely noticed by the liberal establishment.
WALLERSTEIN:
Seen in longer historical perspective, what we are seeing here is the 500- 
year-old tension in the modern world-system between those who wish to 
protect the interests of the capitalist strata by ensuring a well- 
functioning world-economy, with a hegemonic but non-imperial power to 
guarantee its political underpinnings, and those who wish to transform the 
world-system into a world-empire. We had three major attempts in the 
history of the modern world-system to do this: Charles V/Ferdinand II in 
the sixteenth century, Napoleon in the beginning of the nineteenth century, 
and Hitler in the middle of the twentieth century. All were magnificently 
successful - until they fell flat on their faces, when faced by opposition 
organized by the powers that ultimately became hegemonic - the United 
Provinces, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
COMMENT:
Odd. I had the distinct impression that the United Kingdom ran a world- 
empire. At least that's what NYY professor and imperialist ideologue Niall 
Ferguson believes and promotes. Does Wallerstein think that Winston 
Churchill was less of an architect of world-empire than Adolph Hitler? The 
people of India, China, Burma, and most of Africa might have quibbled with 
that assessment not too long ago.
WALLERSTEIN:
Hegemony is not about macho militarism. Hegemony is about economic 
efficiency, making possible the creation of a world order on terms that 
will guarantee a smoothly-running world-system in which the hegemonic power 
becomes the locus of a disproportionate share of capital accumulation. The 
United States was in that situation from 1945 to circa 1970. But it's been 
losing that advantage ever since. And when the U.S. hawks and the Bush 
regime decided to try to reverse decline by going the world-imperial path, 
they shot the United States, and U.S.-based large capitalists, in the foot - 
if not immediately, in a very short future. This is what Roach is warning 
about, and complaining about.
COMMENT:
There is a fundamental confusion here. No advice from Roach, nor Soros, nor 
Stiglitz can change the precarious situation world capitalism finds itself 
in today. Despite my sharp disagreements with Robert Brenner over the 
origins of capitalism and his inexplicable endorsement of the right of the 
USA to fund a counter-revolutionary movement in Cuba, his 1998 New Left 
Review article seems more astute than ever. With the rise of the German and 
Japanese economies in the 1960s, the USA has been forced to respond by 
driving down wages at home and stepping up attacks on the 3rd world. All 
this falls under the rubric of 'neoliberalism'. Despite the crocodile tears 
of a Joseph Stiglitz, there is NO ALTERNATIVE within the capitalist system. 
The logic that drives this is the need to accumulate capital. Since attacks 
on wage labor in the pursuit of profit introduce other potentially sharper 
contradictions, reformist illusions about a global Marshall Plan, etc. will 
crop up. On my employer's website, you can find a press release about 
Professor Jeffrey Sach's proposal to end "extreme poverty" by 2015.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/03/05/millennium_project_2015.html
The one measure that is capable of accomplishing such a goal is the very 
one these liberal do-gooders will never support, namely proletarian 
revolution.
WALLERSTEIN:
But doesn't the Bush regime give these capitalists everything they want - 
for example, enormous tax rebates? But do they really want them? Not Warren 
Buffett, not George Soros, not Bill Gates (speaking through his father). 
They want a stable capitalist system, and Bush is not giving them that. 
Sooner or later, they will translate their discontent into action. They may 
already be doing this. This doesn't mean they will succeed. Bush may get 
reelected in 2004. He may push his political and economic madness further. 
He may seek to make his changes irreversible.
COMMENT:
It does not matter what Buffett, Gates or Soros want. To paraphrase 
Wallerstein: not John Kerry, not Dennis Kucinich, not George W. Bush are 
capable of providing a "stable capitalist system". We are in a period of 
deepening crisis, imperialist war and--ultimately--revolutionary war. If 
you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen.
WALLERSTEIN:
But in a capitalist system, there is also the market. The market is not 
all-powerful, but it is not helpless either. When the dollar collapses, and 
it will collapse, everything will change geopolitically. For a collapsed 
dollar is far more significant than an Al-Qaeda attack on the Twin Towers. 
The U.S. has clearly survived the latter. But it will be a vastly different 
U.S. once the dollar collapses. The U.S. will no longer be able to live far 
beyond its means, to consume at the rest of the world's expense. Americans 
may begin to feel what countries in the Third World feel when faced by IMF- 
imposed structural readjustment - a sharp downward thrust of their standard 
of living.
The near bankruptcy of the state governments across the United States even 
today is a foreshadowing of what is to come. And history will note that, 
faced with a bad underlying economic situation in the United States, the 
Bush regime did everything possible to make it far worse.
COMMENTARY:
A typical Wallerstein declaration from Mount Olympus. Not a single 
strategic recommendation, let alone an engagement with politics. I guess 
when we are dealing with 500 year long waves, such imperatives must appear 
mundane if not an outright nuisance.