Re: more productive discussions

Sun, 13 Apr 1997 06:00:48 -0400
David Lloyd-Jones (

From: Bruce R. McFarling <>

>On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Richard K. Moore wrote:
>> Example: "U.S. hegemony is not yet a fiction". Your mere statement is
>> supposed to stand as a refutation of my argument. This is not
>> this is a case of "Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. ...". My
>> was that even though obvious US hegemony is prominently displayed before
>> in the daily news, it is a fiction because it is not really _US_
>> but elite _corporatist_ hegemony we are seeing, with a corporate-dominate
>> US serving as a corporatist agent. Hegemony isn't a fiction - the "US
>> Interests" part is.
>> ...
> etc.
> It might clarify the discussion if there was a specification of
>the definition of hegemony being used by the participants. According to
>the definition I have recently seen (a preeminent position in the
>international economy in production *and* distribution *and* finance), it
>seems fairly clear that the US position in the 1950's and into the 60's
>was hegemonic, and the US position today is not. On other definitions,
>results might vary.

_A_ preeminent position? If there can be more than one then American and
European and Japanese hegemony seems pretty likely for the forseeable
future. If "A" and "preeminent"are mutually contradictory, then it's
shurely the States for a while yet, innit?

I think the problem is that "hegemony" is one of those two-bit words that
is supposed to summon up visions of CIA men in their summer suits having a
cool pina colada just at the edge of the range of the screams from the
torture chambers. This has happened often enough, God help us, but the
real roots of hegemony lie more in factors like Thomas Edison, the Marshall
Plan, and America's generous contributions to the UN, IMF and such.

Preeminence is created or won, not imposed.