To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Paul Street's Blog » Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Paul Street's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/paulstreet
Bio:         Paul Street is an independent radical-democratic policy researcher, journalist, historian, and speaker based in Iowa City, Iowa, and Chicago, Illinois.&nbs... (More)

All Street Blogs

Recent Street Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books

Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Paul Street at Sep 12, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
Here (below) is an exchange that may or may not interest this blog's readers. It was sparked by the recent Howard Zinn interview on Tomdispatch and ZNet..... A reader wrote as follows: Hey Street: Have you read Howard Zinn's interview with Tomdispatch, "Outer Limits of Empire",posted 9-8-05 on ZNET? I should mention, I am always stirred by what Zinn has to say, and share his wish that the Empire fall. But is the U.S. at the outer limits of its imperial expansion, as Zinn half speculates half wishes? Has the Empire begun its descent? I would very much like to hear your view on this. Here is an excerpt of Zinn's interview for your convenience: "I like to think that the American empire has reached its outer limits with the Middle East. I don't believe it has a future in Latin America. I think it's worn out whatever power it had there and we're seeing the rise of governments that will not play ball with the United States. This may be one of the reasons why the war in Iraq is so important to this administration. Beyond Iraq there's no place to go. So, let's put it this way, I see withdrawal from Iraq whenever it takes place -- and think of this as partly wish and partly belief [he chuckles at himself] -- as the first step in the retrenchment of the American empire. After all we aren't the first country in history to be forced to do this. I'd like to say that this will be because of American domestic opposition, but I suspect mostly it will be because the rest of the world won't accept further American forays into places where we don't belong. In the future, I believe 9/11 may be seen as representing the beginning of the dissolution of the American empire; that is, the very event that immediately crystallized popular support for war, in the long run -- and I don't know how long that will be -- may be seen as the beginning of the weakening and crumbling of the American empire." Best, Reader X Dear Reader X: I think Zinn is correct but its deeper than just running out of space. I've been meaning to write something along these lines. Another left U.S. historian to consult on this by the way is Gabriel Kolko, who has been writing about the limits of U.S. power since at least the 1970s. And don't just consult radical historians like me and them: ask the world-systemic Marxian analysts like Immanual Wallerstein ( a sociologist), David Harvey (a geographer) and Giovanni Arrighi (political-economist). Arrighi's last two essays in New Left Review are about what he calls the ongoing "terminal crisis of US hegemony." The Iraq war, he notes, is a huge and terrible failure for Uncle Sam. It's much worse than Vietnam for U.S. power. The "Vietnam Syndrome" (the reluctance of US population to tolerate large U.S. troop casualities in imperial operations overseas) is alive and well: it was part of why they moved off the difficult mountainous terrain of Afghanistan and into "easy [air] targerts" of Iraq so quickly. The "insurgent" enemy in not-so "easy" Iraq is nothing compared to the "Viet Cong's" revolutionary and nationalist movement (assisted by Red China and USSR) and yet the material stakes --- the awesome strategic prize of Arab oil --- is so much higher. Vietnam's economic relevance was minor compared to Iraq's today. Remember Chomsky's dark argument about how the U.S. actually won Vietnam; I doubt it would be possible to make the same argument about Iraq. It really is an unambiguous defeat and a serious one at that. Unlike Vietnam, the current war is being fought against open opposition from "allied" capitalist states, who no longer feel Cold War pressure to cower under U.S. "Free World" umbrella and are yet further along the path of being co-equal economic competitors and even now superiors. The Iraq operation has created more distance and space. The White House has had to wage this current war without Antonio Gramscian consensus: without soft and agreeable hegemony---without buy-in from its partner states in the "advanced" world. The War on Iraq has been understood by those states as a zero-sum game: something that was designed to work only for American interests and against theirs. Vietnam and the Cold War were different. And America's economic position has declined and is declining dramatically in terms of balance of trade, the lure of the dollar, and the gaping federal deficit, which is covered to an amazing extent by the booming Chinese state. America's economic decline stands in especially stark contrast --- and direct relation --- to the relative rise of not-so Red China as a major economic power in the 21st century. The question is will the American supremacists fade quietly and peacefully? How many will they kill? Militarism is their last ace in the hole they think. They now identify their economic agenda like never before with their preponderance of force. What have they got left but to stem their world-systemic political-economic decline by putting a military jackboot on the Arab oil spigot? (see David Harvey, The New Imperialism) As I recall, Harvey's book (which appeared on the eve of the invasion of Iraq) suggested that Uncle Sam might buy 50 more years of hegemony with a successful campaign in Iraq; Bush has failed in the regard and is accelerating the waning of U.S power. It's not all a safe or happy story by any stretch. On how its not safe, see Chomsky's last big book Hegemony or Survival, which basically argues that great imperial states value the former over the latter, and also his recent warnings (based on urgent elite policy and planning documents) about domestic nuclear terrorism resulting partly from American global overreach and arrogance. The outcomes are unclear and full of peril, which is one of the reasons I counseled to people to vote against "Messianic Militarist" (Ralph Nader's description) Bush, even though I knew he would accelerate the unraveling of U.S. hegemony. He and his protofascist cabal and hard core supporters scared me. They still scare me. Best, Street

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (26)

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Gammon101, Bwong at Sep 21, 2005 22:39 PM
'Recently Chomsky noted that non-violent protest in Iraq forced the elections to get under way as the US and the coalition were dragging it's feet on the issue" I think Chomsky was dead wrong on this one. It is just another "People's power" myth. I doubt that the U.S would have given a flying frik about "peaceful" demand of election if it weren't for the fact that it has lost control over the country and something more dreadful, say a full scale civil war is looming in the horizon. Other people under U.s backed regimes had tried "peacefully" demanding elections and we all know what the results were, indeed to no small part thanks to Chomsky's reports. Chomsky , of all people, ought to know better about the viability of non violence in situations like Iraq.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Gammon101, Bwong at Sep 21, 2005 22:18 PM
"His non-violent leadership helped to bring about solidarity of the people which created the conditions that made England "not too keen on holding on to India anyway. " Do you really think so? The Brits were giving up their colonies wholesale after WWII. I think it was primarily out of economical necessity. The Brits were broke and the cost of maintaining the empire was just too high. Ghandi just showed up at an opportune moment. In the golden days of the Empire he might have been just shot like a dog. I can understand the appeal of Ghandi because it was really a very romantic story. Moreover his popularity in public discourse may have to do with the fact that the powerful like to use Ghandi as a stick to beat the oppressed. For example, our in house Zionist had blamed the Palestinians for not acting like Ghandi on many occassions. Pardon me for being a cynic(but of course I could be wrong)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Mjc7373, Mcorbin at Sep 16, 2005 21:00 PM
I always thought if Gandhi had never lived, no one would believe what he did was possible... and now I see that there is still disbelief even after the fact. There was no way Indians were going to defeat the British militarily, what liberated the country was solidarity. It was the people of India, not Gandhi, who liberated India, but he played a critical role. His non-violent leadership helped to bring about solidarity of the people which created the conditions that made England "not too keen on holding on to India anyway. " The Panthers and Malcolm X made it harder for MLK. Notice how Malcolm X was promptly killed once he renounced violence and moved toward non-violent protest. He and MLK must have really scared someone with that ideology. Recently Chomsky noted that non-violent protest in Iraq forced the elections to get under way as the US and the coalition were dragging it's feet on the issue. Let's not let the many accomplishments of solidarity and non-violent resistance fall into the memory hole, otherwise we succumb to the cynical notion that violence is the only answer. In this day and age, I believe nothing could be further from the truth.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Sep 16, 2005 06:08 AM
"He could not have succeed without the Panthers etc." Perhaps, but I'm not sure. I am sure that they would have accomplished nothing except for Dr. King. I think that a lot of whites were sympathetic and wanted civil rights but were "afraid" of the old stereotypes of rampaging Blacks revenging themselves for their past oppression and raping/corrupting white women, and used their fears to rationalize supporting Jim Crow "until the blacks are ready to have equal rights". I think MLK gave them a figure that broke those stereotypes - and his peaceful marchers did not look threatening. When they could no longer rationalize the actions of the state (like when they used Dogs on peaceful marchers) they got over their fear and did the right thing. The threat of force played a part, but the Black community had poor guerrilla potential. The lack of a large, continugous, "homeland" meant that their supporters would be scattered across the country in isolated communities (aka. the ghettos) which would be forced to fight defensively in seige actions as they were seperately surrounded by the forces of the state. As New Orleans shows today, urban communities are only a few days away from starvation should their food supply be cutoff. A few people can hold out in a building, but cut the supply to everyone in a large area and starvation would start almost immediately. But I could be wrong.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Sullivan, M. at Sep 16, 2005 02:06 AM
Of course people choose revolutions. They arent chosen by the rulers.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Gammon101, Bwong at Sep 16, 2005 00:38 AM
Just to clarify my point. I believe that drastic power transfers can only be brought about through violent means,--or at least a very serious threat of violence.IMO those who want to engineer drastic, dramatic changes(like national independence) while at the same time declare non violence are deluding themselves But this is not to say that this mode of power seizure is always desirable or appropiate.In many cases it is not and frequently lead to very bad outcomes. I don't believe people ever "choose" revolutions with the exception of a few fanatics. Revolutions happen always as a last resort when desperate people run out of better options. PS. I meant Mao was right on AS AN OBSERVER OF HISTORY. Not that he was right morally.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Gammon101, Bwong at Sep 16, 2005 00:08 AM
I think you need to talk about context. I don't think pacificsm alone would work in nationalist struggles and other extreme circumstances. But at least here we do have some democratic institutes and to some degrees we can effect change through civilized channels.Now to what degree these are effective depending on your goals. Most people are not desperate and they do have a lot of stake in the system. "Violent" protests,-usually just childish political grand standing,-actually backfire.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Sullivan, M. at Sep 15, 2005 23:19 PM
I tend to think pacifism is horribly overrated. I tend to think it was the Vietnamese who got the U.S. out of Vietnam as it will be the Iraqis who will get the U.S. out of Iraq. I have become very disillusioned with protest politics. I dont feel like marching in DC a couple times a year does anything. I'm not trying to be a cynic but it just feels like violent resistance works while protest just gets marginalized to the point where it changes nothing, a 3 second ripple on the news at best. Please show me otherwise! There has got to be something between the Weather Underground and carrying a clever sign that is only viewed by those already in agreement politically.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Gammon101, Bwong at Sep 15, 2005 22:14 PM
Perhaps MLK was able to make some progress only because there were more militant(threatening) elements waiting in the wings? Without the threats of Malcolm X and the panthers I doubt the white establishment would have the incentives to deal with King. Correct me if I am wrong. I always think the effectiveness of Ghandi's aproach is way over rated. The Brits were not too keen on holding on to India anyway. They were probably already trying to find a graceful way of exit when Ghandi showed up. Almost all British colonies gained independence shortly after anyway. Many so called "people's power" victories through non violence turned out to be myths. Marcos was toppled because his top generals turned against him, not because of non violent protests by the Philipinos. The generals were plotting a coup months before the protests. They just siezed the opportunity to paint themselves as the champions of the people.Things in the Philipines didn't improve much after the initial euphoria. Same thing in Romania. Not that I am adocating violence. I am interested in understanding historical events. I think the historical record shows that Mao(the arch cynic) was right on the money: power comes from the barrel of a gun. Now how do you keep the power once you've got it in another story. The gun may not be as effective.

Reply this comment

Person

By Sullivan, M. at Sep 15, 2005 20:44 PM
NLK and Gandhi have developed a personality cult on the left. They are always invoked as if on cue and always in a holier than thou violence is metaphysically wrong argument. The only reason the establishment dealt with King was because he was the more conservative than many of the other civil rights or black power organizations. He could not have succeed without the Panthers etc.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Sep 15, 2005 05:03 AM
"Did the civil rights movement control the media? No. They organized, they educated, and they got involved in their communities." I think this bears on my point. Compare the apporach, and success, of MLK to Malcom X or the Black Panters. MLK was smarter in the long term than the more radical activists. He saw that, right or wrong, civil rights was in the hands of white people and that the black community was too small, too fragmented, and not prepared to win a "revolution" based on violence. Regardless of the moral case they had, they had no chance of winning a revolution without the support of a large white population, and they had no chance of getting that support if they proclaimed their hatred of "whitey" or otherwise scared them by marching around with guns. So, the fight for civil rights wasa fight for the hearts and minds of whites. For generations, the comitted racists nutured racism in society by appealing to the fear of the "angry black man" and the "black buck". Malcom X and the Black Panthers looked and acted the stereotypes that whites were afraid of to begin with. The racists could beat them simply by relying on the same old stereotypes and propaganda they had before. MLK, however, was neither. His "third way" - refusing violence and refusing "capitulation" - was what won the day because he gave white people a way to support civil rights without supporting violence, radicalism, or "scary" people.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Organum, Baby at Sep 14, 2005 02:36 AM
How about a network of lokal radio ? Only eco-friendly ads and a participatory economical model injecting work-hours on the risk of low pay-back ? A sound that doesnt attack ears. Ideas for a sustainable world and a living democracy :-)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Sullivan, M. at Sep 14, 2005 01:25 AM
I like your ideas baby, and I largely agree with you. A ZNews channel would be brilliant, but chances are it would be a satellite channel or some such that only radical professors and the like would be able a)know about and b) access/afford. That would be cool. Media is a very powerful tool leftists must utilize.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Organum, Baby at Sep 14, 2005 00:49 AM
Its not about watching TV. Its about creating positive news and being news. Here i guess we agree, and definition is the difference. Women and human right groups got alliances with liberal reporters and the hearts of wievers. ( Media, after all, introduced medcal aid during the Krimean war, vietnam ? ) I would allso point to the fact that comercials are mind-manipulative and since most commercials are targeting youth and the age-expanded "youth" culture, the ability to congregate and reason with , is limited to those that run with the anti-meme created by said industry. It is to underestimate the power and proficience to believ that this anti-meme can reach 50% without participation in mainstream media. Why not a ZNewsChannel ? US leftists must surely have the resources ? O know for a fact you could get good cheap programs from around the world :-)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Sullivan, M. at Sep 14, 2005 00:15 AM
I acknowledge the importance of the media. However,humans are also very experiential. It's amazing how quickly just a touch of activism can both empower and radicalize the previously unpolitical person. Activity with society, organizing with other human beings in real life praxis is the strongest aspect of any political change. Did the womens rights movement control the media? Did the civil rights movement control the media? No. They organized, they educated (which involves media naturally), and they got involved in their communities. Ever since the internet arrived and postmodernity became the latest intellectual fad leftists have been making a cult of the media. We all acknowledge the importance of the media, but it is not the only avenue of resistance, nor is it necessary. Thank goodness that is the case, because the people who own the media are big-time elites who are NOT going to fund or air messages that go against their interests, i.e. financial and political dominance! Organize! Propagandize too, but dont expect to win within the mainstream discourse of the corporate media. It happens in homes, dinner tables, streets. Revolutions dont happen if we all watch TV totally passive weaiting for the experts of whatever stripe to reveal the Holy Path.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Organum, Baby at Sep 14, 2005 00:00 AM
Hmm ! Yes ! I retract my statement with exeption of media as battlefield. Of course real life, but media is a big part real life. From blogs like this to mainstream media. I would like to see a big leftist media-maneuver. It is mediacentric ( sorry for the reductionist part ), mainly because the world is centered on media. Wich news to present in what language and what debth. Loosing the media-battle is loosing the public. The art of propaganda is very real indeed and failing to see so is dangerous. Again your critique ; Ubermeme ? Hits the spot. Still ! "thats how the right has been winning all these years and years." I do notr agree. The right has been winning through controll and superior use of media. Controll through mediacorporations. Superior use by simpler more ,understandable language and baser level of rethoric. Media is the battlefield, as i am sure pentagon would agree. And they might be dumb , but they are not stupid :-)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Sullivan, M. at Sep 13, 2005 21:58 PM
Fighting! Thats the part that helps facists. "It goes against intuition maybe bu not when you know how basic structures and organizations opperate." "I am tempted to say primitive need for action. A security-measure would be to keep to action as peaceful as possible. The media is the battlefield after all." So in other words do not organize until an Olympian level objectivity is reached that will produce the perfect formula for an anti-fascist mobilization? This is dangerous. All organizing is bound to make mistakes. The trick is to learn from them, not to become passive watching the television and waiting for that moment of total clarity-it will never happen. The media is not the battlefield. The battlefield is real life, the media is just part of it. Your argument is reductionist and media-centric, something very common on the left today which borders on idealism. All movements have leaders and councils etcetera, its not primitive, its active. Delegation of duties within a democratic movement is necessary. Waiting for some uber-meme or whatever, thats how the right has been winning all these years and years.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Organum, Baby at Sep 13, 2005 21:16 PM
Hi Sullivan, happen to think r4d20 point is valid. In your words; "Fighting for democracy helps fascists?" Fighting! Thats the part that helps facists. It goes against intuition maybe bu not when you know how basic structures and organizations opperate. German Nazi example. There is no serious historian that will deny the communists their share of the story of Hitlers rize to power. Both external wher comintern was a threat to the west and thus hitler gained support from the USA, and internal, where the greman people were sick of revolutionary attempts and civil war. "This seems to me to be spectator politics at its most detached and messianic. Only human actions matter" prerequisite to action is knowledge of tactics and strategy. The enemies and own. "People loooooove saying that America is on the verge of collapse. Then what? A world without a leader? The return of isolationism? Increased civil strife? Ah, if only America would go away" This is a good example of the primitive need for "LEADER" that emerges in times of turmoil. I am tempted to say primitive need for action. A security-measure would be to keep to action as peaceful as possible. The media is the battlefield after all.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Sullivan, M. at Sep 13, 2005 20:58 PM
Here's a line from Walter Benjamin that I find relevant here: "The tradition of the opressed teaches us that the "state of emergency" in which we live is not the exception but the rule. We must attain a conception of history that is in keeping with this insight. Then we will realize that it is our task to bring about a real state of emergency, and this will improve our position in the struggle against Fascism." -From Illuminations.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Sullivan, M. at Sep 13, 2005 20:37 PM
"the "anti-facists" are being a bit short-sighted and are going to end up unintentionally HELPING the facists." ------------------------------------------ How? This seems counter-intuitive. Fighting for democracy helps fascists? -------------------------------------------- "Their degree of success will depend on the willingness of the people to go along. Paradoxically, this is where success now can hurt us later. The more "over the top" the anti-facists are now, the more likely people will scapegoat them in the event of another attack. On the other hand, as we are seeing in the aftermath of the hurricane, sometimes your opponent will hang himself if given enough rope." ----------------------------------------- This is like saying opponents of Nazism helped to foster its growth, and should have allowed the Nazi party to, along a long enough time line, self destruct. This seems to me to be spectator politics at its most detached and messianic. Only human actions matter, to sit and do nothing is criminal in this scenario.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Sep 13, 2005 04:05 AM
"M. Sullivan the danger of fascism is real: maybe a major economic meltdown and/or dirty bomb away" This is an important point that gets too little attention. I don't disagree with many of the things said here - the rise of proto-facisism in the Republican party bothers me as a Republican. However, I also think that sometimes the "anti-facists" are being a bit short-sighted and are going to end up unintentionally HELPING the facists. It goes with saying that, after the next Terror attack on American soil, the prot-facists will be calling for less liberty and more security. Their degree of success will depend on the willingness of the people to go along. Paradoxically, this is where success now can hurt us later. The more "over the top" the anti-facists are now, the more likely people will scapegoat them in the event of another attack. On the other hand, as we are seeing in the aftermath of the hurricane, sometimes your opponent will hang himself if given enough rope. If I never have the "ball" I can blame all our failures on you. But give me the ball and let me screw up and I will make you look better. "Don't resist when your opponent pushes you; rather, increase your pace in that direction and pull him a little at the same time, or vice versa should he pull you." - http://judoinfo.com/balance.htm

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Street, Paul at Sep 12, 2005 19:49 PM
Keir,I'm sure you are right: "open" is a poor choice of words. It's a more sullen and passive resistance than you would like, reflecting (I would imagine) a sense of persistent European reliance on US to police the dangerous periphery and all sorts of continuing economic connections with - and investments in --- the American conumer-debt economy. See a post-2004 election Sustainer Commentary I did:"Dear Europe: Yes We Are Stupid But You Have your Own Bourgeoisie To Deal With" (it's closer to what you are saying: http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-12/10street.cfm Still, the lack of Europeran enthusiasm for the Iraq operation was pretty pronounced and relfected an accurate understanding of it as a zero-sum intercapitlaist/inter-imperialist affair with no benefit for them. M. Sullivan the danger of fascism is real: maybe a major economic meltdown and/or dirty bomb away. The vileness of what I've been hearing from white Amerikanners after Katrina has been chillingly educational. On "doomsaying:" the system reaching its limits and the peril involved is part of an argument for getting serious about the theory, practice, and modelling of non-capitalist alternatives. The more that can be up and running the safer the transition will be. But waning hegemony does not equal "verge of collpase" YB.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Bok, Yakov at Sep 12, 2005 18:31 PM
People loooooove saying that America is on the verge of collapse. Then what? A world without a leader? The return of isolationism? Increased civil strife? Ah, if only America would go away!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Michael, Bobbo at Sep 12, 2005 08:14 AM
The clouds are gathering, or rather, to use the hackneyed Marxist phrase "the contradictions are sharpening, comrade!" Doomsaying is a time-honoured and often embarassing activity, but I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that current global political regime and the current global economy are unsustainable. They are increasingly fragile, and some crisis, on par with the Depression or perhaps worse, is a predictable consequence. As a member of the middle class, I'm naturally prone to doomsaying - my prospects for the future even if the present conditions continue indefinitely are greatly diminished when compared with my parent's generation.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Sullivan, M. at Sep 12, 2005 05:50 AM
I'm very worried that in response to its failing hegemony and the possible onset of an economic meltdown would bring this regime's authoritarianism out into the extreme. The powers Bush has right now could be used in a greater scale than the racist targetting its currently employed against Muslims and blacks aginst much larger segments of society. I also think it is possible that US war crimes could escalate very high in last ditch attempts to "win" Iraq.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: Declining U.S. Hegemony: A Brief Exchange

By Organum, Baby at Sep 12, 2005 04:27 AM
At times, language can not speak beyond: 1: A: You are bad B: No, you are bad. 2: A: You are bad B: Yes, you are bad. Pasted from the horror-witch powerblog-site as follows: "It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole". "The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects". In the dim light of this dark profecy. Under fog of war: Knowing fog strengthens sound, but prohibits the hold on memory that only writing can give, there is no analysis. Only: 1: A: You are bad B: No, you are bad. 2: A: "You" are bad B: Yes, "you" are bad. Maybe they can meet at the united nations and discuss things peacefully. Lets hope ! After all: "The simple reason why I presume that the official story is probably true is that it seems to me by far the most credible one. I've explained why in earlier posts, and also why the whole matter is very far from high priority for me". Quote DaChum And "Whats an atheist capitalist to do ? " Quote r4d20

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (26)

Loading_border