4/09/97, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote:
>You make a very compelling argument.
Please spare me the feint praise. Are you and DLJ some kind of
self-appointed good-cop/bad-cop team conniving to stifle certain themes on
this list? And is the absurd two-party debate about evangelicals an
attempt to swamp the list generally with massive trivia?
>I do not believe that a confrontation with China is necessary for the
>consummation of a global system
As I noted: engagement will be given fair play, we can all see the
extent to which China has "reformed" thus far, and China is certainly
exploiting its export opportunities in the global economy - no argument on
these points.
But China has a deep dissatisfaction with the limitations to be
placed on its role in the globalist scheme and has given fair warning that
it does not desire to conform. It continues to exhibit an independent
nationalist agenda and this has been noted with alarm by US strategic
planners, as was detailed in Foreign Affairs. The similarity with the
pre-WW-II situation must be acknowledged, and I've made a reasonable case -
at least deserving of note in any refutation - that the US, as G7 enforcer,
is making concrete preparations to compel Chinese compliance with
globalization if that becomes necessary.
>China is part of the global production system, already deeply integrated.
As much could have been said about Germany and Japan pre WW II -
they participated extensively in that day's system, but that didn't mean
they had given up their desire to radically alter that system when they
achieved the capability of doing so.
>you are operating in an inappropriate nation-state centrism that
>ignores the objective reality of a global economy
Not at all. I've written extensively on the coming New World Order
and pointed out the likely demise of nation-state centrism and sovereignty
generally. But the global system is far from fully implemented. Besides
considerable internal consolidation yet to be achieved,tThere are still
nationalist-spirit states which haven't bought in, and China is the premier
example. China - if tightly bound with what it considers its perpipheral
states - could constitute a formidable counter-island to the globalist
system, and both China and the US/G7 are aware of that fact - just as with
Japan and the Co Prosperity Sphere.
>after U.S. hegemony passes there will likely
>be no more hegemons. Rather we will see a global capitalist state
A global capitalist state - certainly. But it will include
enforcement, just as the Roman Empire included enforcement. US hegemony is
already a fiction - it is no longer US hegemony, but corporate hegemony,
enforced by proxy by a US-based, but not primarily a US-serving, military
machine. Hegemony - but not traditional US hegemony - will persist.
>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.
That was exactly my point. He is in fact intentionally discounting
the deeper power struggles - that's the precise propaganda mission of his
thesis: to distract from power realities and fabricate an emotional context
that is more suitable to creating public support for military
confrontation. The establishment's embracing of his thesis reflects its
propaganda utility, not profundity in his analysis - which you seem to
agree it totally lacks.
-rkm