Re: Comments on a Wallerstein article

        Louis Proyect is certainly correct in pointing out that U.S.
imperialism and militarism did not begin with the administration of George
W. Bush.  William J. ("Bomber") Clinton compiled an enviably virile record
of unleashing American armed force against various small countries,
and who can forget George I, who took Panama and beat the hell out of
Iraq?  And before that, there was a certain Ronald Reagan who seized
Grenada and illegally funded fascist armies in Central America, and, oh
yes, Vietnam, and in fact what about 1898 when President McKinley
conquered the Spanish Empire, or 1848 when President Polk subjugated 2/5
of Mexico with the stalwart assistance of General (later President) Zachary
Taylor?  And there were all those many brave "Indian fighters" who helped
reduce the indigenous American population by 95% in the course of a
few centuries.  And so many other he-men I haven't even mentioned, like
General (later President) George Washington, General (later President)
Andrew Jackson, General (later President) William Henry Harrison, General
(later President) U.S. Grant, Colonel (later President) Theodore
Roosevelt, and General (later President) Dwight Eisenhower.

        As for the British Empire, Proyect is again correct in
representing it as a vast imperium spanning the planet and subjecting
hundreds of millions of Africans, Asians, Australasians, West Indians, and
many others to its sway.

        The problem is that he ignores the most important punctuation mark
in world-systems analysis, the hyphen.  When Wallerstein and many others
use the term "world-empire," they are not referring to an empire with
possessions all over the world.  They are referring to a polity that
literally incorporates a whole world-system (another hyphen!).  Some of
the states under the thumb of the imperial superpower may exercise limited
autonomy at the pleasure of the empire.  They could pay tribute or
otherwise sing for their supper.  There might also be a few states only
nominally under the control of the empire, if at all, within the system.
But world-empire was the name of the game throughout much of premodern
world history throughout the world.  From Sargon of Akkadia through Cyrus
the Great and Asoka and Shihuang of Qin and the Caesars and the Abbasids
and the Moguls and Moctezuma, the impulse to unite a whole ecumene under a
single sovereign power was seemingly irresistible.  The emperors exacted a
high price for their services, but sometimes they provided peace and
security for long periods of time and even presided over cultural "golden
ages."

        The point, of course, is that no such world-empire existed in the
15th Century in Western Europe when it began its long climb to global
ascendancy.  This facilitated the rise of modern capitalism.  It also
provided the space in which the many national actors in the modern
world-system could accumulate "empires"--but not "world-empires"
threatening the stability and equilibrium of the system as a whole.  The
establishment in the 17th to 19th Centuries of overseas "empires" by
Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, France, Britain, Belgium, and Germany
did not seriously threaten the balance of power in the European-based
world-system, nor did the accession of the United States to the roster of
official imperial powers in 1898.

        In my reading of modern European history, as in Wallerstein's,
only three European countries made a concerted attempt to overturn that
balance of power and establish a system-wide political empire, a true
"world-empire."  The first was the Hapsburg Empire under Charles V in the
16th Century, when Spain and most of the German/Italian world acknowledged
a single sovereign.  The second was Napoleonic France in the first 15
years of the 19th Century (although I think Napoleon was significantly
prefigured by the overweening ambitions of the Bourbon monarchy from the
days of Louis XIV onward).  The third was Hitler's Third Reich (although I
think he was significantly prefigured by the overweening ambitions of the
Hohenzollern monarchy in the era of Kaiser Wilhelm II).  These imperial
powers came close to achieving their goals, but were always defeated by
raising up more enemies than they could handle.

        In this whole story, England (later the United Kingdom) did not
ever seek global political domination.  That is the difference between the
immense British Empire and the futile schemes of a Bonaparte or a Hitler.
Britain fought the Napoleonic Wars and Britain fought the two World Wars
to restore, not to topple, the European balance of power.  It was quite
comfortable with a Europe of many sovereign nations, especially since its
capitalists prospered for so many years in a world market not subject to
the regulations and restrictions of a world-imperial superpower.

        What seems to be happening now is not a resurgence of macho
militarism in the United States, which has always exhibited all the worst
symptoms of this disease of the male gender (with ample support from its
womankind), but an overt attempt to rush into the power vacuum left by the
collapse of the Soviet Union and establish the United States as both the
sole superpower and the sole ultimate arbiter of world politics.  I
hesitate to describe this new hyper-machismo as the quest for a true
world-empire in Wallerstein's sense of the term, but it comes pretty
close.  If the United States, with a few pliant satellites (such as the
U.K., Spain, Poland, and Australia!), can pretty much tell the U.N. what
to do, invade and occupy any country at will, bomb anybody it pleases, and
dictate the meaning of democracy (that is, you cannot choose socialism,
the rule of Islamic law, or any government that opposes American foreign
policy, even if all of you want such damnable things), then we are
perilously near to world-empire, Oval Office-style.  And I do not care to
hear any speculation, at this stage, about a mighty European Union or a
hypothetical Sino-Japanese juggernaut that might some day soon checkmate
American ambitions.  The overwhelming military power of the United States,
its fast-growing population (as opposed to the steadily declining
populations of Europe and Japan), and its still virtually hegemonic
economy consign all such speculation, at this time, to the category of
wishful thinking based on largely mechanical readings of earlier cycles of
rise-and-fall.  Some day, sure!  But not for a while.  Perhaps not for a
damned long while.

        As for the rest of Louis Proyect's commentary, I am sympathetic.
Of course the billionaires are divided.  Wallerstein is to be commended
for pointing out how many are deeply and legitimately troubled by the way
the policies of the Bush zealots endanger capitalism itself, but they may
not make any difference at all in what Washington decides.  The
capitalists go their way and, as Proyect reminds us, the only alternative
is working-class revolution.  I wish that Wallerstein and all
world-systems folks would devote at least as much time and energy to
discussing and urging the implementation of strategies of resistance and
revolution as they do to analysis of how the system has worked and works
today.  Any fool, well, any wise fool, can see that the system is
irremediably broken.

        But I think we do have to understand, with Wallerstein, that the
rules of the global encounter of nations and economies have changed since
1989.  We live in an era when it has become possible for enormously
intelligent (if malevolent) people to dream again of world-empire, with a
hyphen.  Their figurehead is a C student.  He says, "I know what I
believe, and I believe that what I believe is right."  Forget him.  These
people behind the scene govern the world's sole superpower.  Through their
stooge and others of his contemptible ilk, they will stand for re-election
in 2004.

        Do what you can.

        Warren



On Wed, 28 May 2003, Michael Pugliese wrote:

>    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.
>
>
>
>