[Peace-discuss] Fw: Wallerstein on the new empire

[Lisa Chason]

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> > "Empire and the Capitalists"
> > By Immanuel Wallerstein
> > Commentary No. 113
> > May 15, 2003
> >
> > No doubt, George W. Bush thinks he is in the forefront of those
> sustaining
> > the world capitalist system. No doubt, a large part of the world left
> > thinks that too. But do the great capitalists think so? That is far
> less
> > clear. A major warning signal has been launched by Morgan Stanley, one
> of
> > the world's leading financial investor firms, in their Global Economic
> > Forum. Stephen Roach writes there that a "US-centric world" is
> > unsustainable for the world-economy and bad in particular for the
> United
> > States. He specifically takes on Robert Kagan, a leading neo-con
> > intellectual, who has been arguing that American hegemony can only
> > increase, particularly vis-a-vis Europe. Roach could not agree less.
> He
> > sees the present world situation as one of "profound asymmetries" in
> the
> > world-system, one that cannot last.
> >
> > What is Roach's argument? The world has been in a "great disinflation
> > [marvelous euphemism] from 1982 to 2002" - a salutary appraisal so
> > different from the usual crowing about the strength of the U.S.
> economic
> > position in the world-economy. "And now the unwinding of a new
> > disequilibrium is at hand - the rebalancing of a U.S.-centric world."
> Why?
> > First of all because of the "ever-widening disparities in the world's
> > external accounts." He says that "as the United States squanders its
> > already depleted national saving" and "as the rest of the world
> remains on
> > a subpar consumption path," the situation can only get worse.
> >
> > Finally, the conclusion: "Can a saving-short US economy continue to
> finance
> > an ever-widening expansion of its military superiority? My answer is a
> > resounding 'no.'" What will therefore happen? The "prices of
> > dollar-denominated assets compared to those of non-dollar-denominated
> > assets" must fall, and fall drastically soon. Roach estimates: "a 20%
> drop
> > in real exchange rates and nearly double that in nominal terms, higher
> real
> > interest rates, reduced growth in domestic demand, and faster growth
> > overseas." He ends his piece by saying that "the world is not
> functioning
> > as a global economy" (so much for the globalization theorists) and
> that
> > "for a lopsided global economy, a weaker dollar may well be the only
> way
> > out."
> >
> > In short, Roach is arguing that the macho militarism swagger of the
> Bush
> > regime, the dream of the U.S. hawks to remake the world in their
> image, is
> > not merely undoable, but distinctly negative from the point of view of
> > large U.S. investors, the audience for whom Roach writes, the
> customers of
> > Morgan Stanley. Roach is of course absolutely right, and it is
> noteworthy
> > that this is not being said by some left-wing academic, but by an
> insider
> > of big capital.
> >
> > Seen in longer historical perspective, what we are seeing here is the
> > 500-year-old tension in the modern world-system between those who wish
> to
> > protect the interests of the capitalist strata by ensuring a
> > well-functioning world-economy, with a hegemonic but non-imperial
> power to
> > guarantee its political underpinnings, and those who wish to transform
> the
> > world-system into a world-empire. We had three major attempts in the
> > history of the modern world-system to do this: Charles V/Ferdinand II
> in
> > the sixteenth century, Napoleon in the beginning of the nineteenth
> century,
> > and Hitler in the middle of the twentieth century. All were
> magnificently
> > successful - until they fell flat on their faces, when faced by
> opposition
> > organized by the powers that ultimately became hegemonic - the United
> > Provinces, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
> >
> > Hegemony is not about macho militarism. Hegemony is about economic
> > efficiency, making possible the creation of a world order on terms
> that
> > will guarantee a smoothly-running world-system in which the hegemonic
> power
> > becomes the locus of a disproportionate share of capital accumulation.
> The
> > United States was in that situation from 1945 to circa 1970. But it's
> been
> > losing that advantage ever since. And when the U.S. hawks and the Bush
> > regime decided to try to reverse decline by going the world-imperial
> path,
> > they shot the United States, and U.S.-based large capitalists, in the
> foot
> > - if not immediately, in a very short future. This is what Roach is
> warning
> > about, and complaining about.
> >
> > But doesn't the Bush regime give these capitalists everything they
> want -
> > for example, enormous tax rebates? But do they really want them? Not
> Warren
> > Buffett, not George Soros, not Bill Gates (speaking through his
> father).
> > They want a stable capitalist system, and Bush is not giving them
> that.
> > Sooner or later, they will translate their discontent into action.
> They
> may
> > already be doing this. This doesn't mean they will succeed. Bush may
> get
> > reelected in 2004. He may push his political and economic madness
> further.
> > He may seek to make his changes irreversible. But in a capitalist
> system,
> > there is also the market. The market is not all-powerful, but it is
> not
> > helpless either. When the dollar collapses, and it will collapse,
> > everything will change geopolitically. For a collapsed dollar is far
> more
> > significant than an Al-Qaeda attack on the Twin Towers. The U.S. has
> > clearly survived the latter. But it will be a vastly different U.S.
> once
> > the dollar collapses. The U.S. will no longer be able to live far
> beyond
> > its means, to consume at the rest of the world's expense. Americans
> may
> > begin to feel what countries in the Third World feel when faced by
> > IMF-imposed structural readjustment - a sharp downward thrust of their
> > standard of living.
> >
> > The near bankruptcy of the state governments across the United States
> even
> > today is a foreshadowing of what is to come. And history will note
> that,
> > faced with a bad underlying economic situation in the United States,
> the
> > Bush regime did everything possible to make it far worse.
> >
> > [Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein. All rights reserved. Permission is
> > granted to download, forward electronically or e-mail to others and to
> post
> > this text on non-commercial community Internet sites, provided the
> essay
> > remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To translate this
> text,
> > publish it in printed and/or other forms, including commercial
> Internet
> > sites and excerpts, contact the author at iwaller at binghamton.edu; fax:
> > 1-607-777-4315.
> >
> > These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be
> reflections
> > on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of
> the
> > immediate headlines but of the long term.]
> >
> >
> >
> >
>