RE: Transnational interests & China

Wed, 9 Apr 1997 10:19:48 -0400 (EDT)
Andrew Wayne Austin (


Your make a very compelling argument. However, I disagree with the
conclusions you draw because I disagree with your model of the world. I do
not believe that a confrontation with China is necessary for the
consummation of a global system; the global system is already here. I
believe that confrontation with China is a remote possibility only because
anything is a possibility. What we are currently seeing, now that the
transnationalization of production is nearly complete, is the
institutionalization and formalization of a global superstructure. China
is part of the global production system, already deeply integrated. In my
view, you are operating in an inappropriate nation-state centrism that
ignores the objective reality of a global economy with a global division
of labor and a transnational political practice, which includes civil
society and political society. We are seeing a qualitatively new level of
world-historical development; after U.S. hegemony passes there will likely
be no more hegemons. Rather we will see a global capitalist state.

Couple of other things. I don't think DLJ makes the argument you attribute
to him. His argument is not that sophisticated. And I am not sure you have
correctly interpreted Huntington's latest argument, either. Huntington is
not arguing that culture clashes are an ideational covering for deeper
power struggles, rather Huntington is arguing that civilizations will
clash because of a cultural and moral incommensurability. His thesis, on
these grounds, is absurd and idealist. In my view, DLJ's arguments are
more in the vein of this sort of pseudoscientific claptrap than anything
remotely approximating objective reality.

Andrew Austin