10/11/97, Adam K. Webb wrote:
> My question to you, in light of this: _if_ Chinese
>development continues (a very big if), is it not most plausible that China
>can assume the role of global bully relatively smoothly, much as the
>transfer from Britain to the USA occurred in the 1940s?
I can't imagine such a scenario. Can you? Britain simply didn't keep up
its military dominance - it was eclipsed by at least the US, Japan, and
Germany. The US is taking care not to lose its dominance - is in fact
bleeding its population dry to maintain hegemony.
>What I do not
>quite understand is why you assume 1) that the Chinese elite is hostile to
>the world-system as a world-system, and does not wish simply to flourish
>within it,
I'm simply going by what the Chinese elite themselves have stated - that
they see China's "rightful role" as being an Asian hegemon. This is flatly
contradictory to stated "US interests".
>and 2) that the interests NATO protects would not be prepared
>to replace telephoning Washington in English with videophoning Beijing in
>Mandarin whenever the unwashed brown masses misbehave.
Are you serious? The US/NATO axis is serving very well as agent of
international capitalism - why would it allow its position to be usurped?
>> If it starts in the periphery, why wouldn't it be successfully suppressed
>> through standard neocolonial measures?
>Once Southern revolutionary
>consciousness reaches that level, nothing can ever be the same again. The
>harsher the TNC response, the greater their future vulnerability, and they
>will realise that. This dynamic could go through a couple of
>revolt-repression cycles before Goliath collapses, but Goliath _will_
>collapse.
US/Euro imperialism has been refined over centuries and is operating today
more efficiently and effectively than ever before. The trends are contrary
to your scenario.
>> And why would "enlightened national governments" necessarily involve
>> "compromise and capitulation"? Why can that be avoided on a world scale
>> but not on a national scale?
>Once capitalist restoration occurs in any polity, it will tend to spread
>to others.
This is a point to be considered in the "risk" column of a nation-state
approach, just as "susceptible to all-at-once subversion" is a point in the
"risk" column of a world-government approach. Neither point is sufficient
in itself to totally rule out either approach
>If restoration has a certain uniform probability of occurring,
>having a greater number of polities will increase the chance that at least
>a few of them will begin the process sooner rather than later
An interesting line of argument, but I suggest it be discussed in a context
where the full spectrum of options is "on the table".
>I find it wholly implausible that core populations would ever support
>revolutionary socialism even within a national context after the
>capitalist indoctrination of the last century.
Perhaps you're right, but I believe it is less implausible than any other
scenario leading to revolutionary change. I believe we all agree that
overcoming capitalist domination will by no means be easy - I'm simply
arguing that sound strategizing requires that all options be considered
fully and none be rejected outright at the start.
>Expecting
>Northern populations to submit to "an end to neocolonialism" without
>Southern militia patrolling their streets is probably even less credible
>than asking the top 10% of the US population to cheer pitchfork-wielding
>masses marching on the New York Stock Exchange.
What? Most of the northern population doesn't believe neocolonialism even
exists. They consider that a "conspiracy theory".
>Why do many who favour
>revolution so persistently decline to make a hard and realistic assessment
>of the side that most of the Northern citizenry will choose?
I don't know anyone personally who favors domination and exploitation of
the periphery. They accede to it because they are told it isn't happening,
not because they favor it in principle.
rkm