List,
I think one of the big problems with Moore's argument is his claim that
there is an elite who "ultimately control the overall direction of global
events. I think this is simplistic. And here's why. If this elite had
ultimate control then why couldn't they prevent regional crises, such as
the deterioration of Asian financial markets? Because they can't prevent
it. Even their interventions have not worked. Where is this "ultimate
control"? It simply isn't there. The argument isn't plausible given
situations like Asia. Moore is stuck with saying that the elite who
control the overall direction of global events caused the Asian crisis for
some sort of beneficial reason to elites. Rather, I think it is that there
are elites who have some capacity to steer events and shape certain
outcomes, but that generally global development is objective and emergent.
Rather than doing the necessary historical analysis, Moore opts for
simplistic conspiracy theory.
Several detailed examples of the complexity of elite steering can be found
in Bill Robinson's Promoting Polyarchy (1996). What he found in all cases
was that US and transnational elites in subverting popular movements had
to rely on organic movements that emerged rather than creating a faux
popular movement. The US would support the dictator until such time that
it was apparent that popular forces had built enough momentum to topple
the regime, *then* the US switched their support from the regime to the
movement and began co-opting leaders and so forth. The US's role was
*shaping* the outcome, but elite control is too strong language even in
the national context. The idea that an elite could control the overall
direction of the global system is far and away more problematic.
The goal of global elites is to secure peace so that the injection of
transnational capital is profitable to the global capitalist class. For
example, extending NATO is not about fostering conflict, but rather it is
about securing a zone for the operation of transnational capital. Elites
sometimes foster conflicts for the purpose of destabilization. But the
question here is the soundness of Moore's argument that this is an
on-going strategy at the global level. Moore has never presented any
evidence to support this claim. Moore has a bad tendency to explain global
conflicts as the result of elite machinations rather than the product of
complex historical forces.
Moore's arguments are deeply contradictory. He argues that capitalism has
"outlived its utility as a primary economic organizational paradigm." But
in previous posts he advances a corporatist model still predictated on
capital logic. Indeed, he goes on in his last post to talk in glittering
terms about entrepreneurs, prosperity, etc.. Entrepreneurs, he argues,
should be permitted to "reap rewards," for example. Moore, it seems, has
not grasped the fundamental contradiction in capitalism. The logic of
Moore's arguments on this list are fundamentally flawed, in my view,
because they crash on the shores of some of the most obvious antinomies. I
recommend, for example, he read M. O'Connor's Is Capitalism Sustainable?
to get an idea about some of these problems he ignores.
Andy
PS--By the way, if a "revolution" does not disrupt societal systems then
it is not a revolution. If it does not redesign governments it is not a
revolution.