Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code
hegel
"When philosophy paints its grey in grey then has a shape of life grown old. By philosophy's grey in grey it cannot be rejuvenated but only understood. The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of dusk." -- G.W.F. Hegel, 'Preface', Philosophy of Right.
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Library
Links - weblogs
Links - Political Rationalities
Links - Resources: Philosophy
Public Discussion
Resources
Cafe Philosophy
Philosophy Centres
Links - Resources: Other
Links - Web Connections
Other
www.thought-factory.net
'Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainity and agitation distinquish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones ... All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned.' Marx

understanding Empire #2 « Previous | |Next »
July 19, 2005

I'm picking up on this earlier post because it never really delinerated what was meant by empire, as this was understood by the Washington neo-cons. We had got to the point in the argument where it was held that U.S. power should serve global capitalism, not the reverse. I'm sympathetic to that line of argument and think that it is worth exploring further.

I'm doing this by turning to Don Hammerquist's response to an angry Stan Goff to help me develop this empire=global capitalism line of argument further. I want to see how far Hammerquist gets in helping us to understand empire. At the moment all we have is empire is global capitalism, as that is understood in terms of political economy.

We can pick up on Hammerquist where he is talking about taking the Washington neo-cons seriously. He says:

'...the neocons have many arguments that they can and do state---along with a few that they usually don't. Their publicly advanced positions on the aggressive use of military power ("preemption"), on "nation-building," and on the significance of "transnational threats" and "non-state actors," have contributed to important changes in policies and priorities for the global and national ruling class...The neocons were confronted with a problem. The strategic course they thought was essential promised to be costly and massively unpopular. So they built a case for it that had no necessary connection with the facts and the truth. Certainly they would be happier if the war and occupation were going more smoothly, but we can expect that they will find ways to make use of the difficulties incurred in Iraq to expedite their general strategy. For them, Iraq is only a first step, an episode, a place to begin---and they have begun.'

Okay. That makes sense. They have to have identified big probles togo to war in the Middle East. So what was the problem the neocons confronted?

Hammerquist addresses this by pointing out the high risks the neo cons are playing with:

'The fact is that neocon policies may well jeopardize economic and political stability in the metropolis. They are willing to risk, not only popular living and working conditions in the imperial center, but also the relative power and influence of the specifically U.S. sections of capitalism. This is why it is so problematic to identify neocon strategy with a resurgence of U.S. imperialism. They would risk the "very basis of American global power" to protect and advance what they call "freedom." There are not many audiences in this country that are receptive to this message, not even in the ruling class.'

Okay. Let us grant that. If the neo-con strategy is not a resurgence of US imperialism (old style), then what is it? What is the problem it is addressing?

Hammerquist then asks the right question: "What perceived dangers lead the neocons to such a risk-laden course?"

Hammerquist answers thus:

'I believe that all factions of the global ruling class and almost every existing national state see salafi jihadism, particularly its takfiri strand, as the current "main danger." ...I think there is clear evidence of a consensus on this point, although it is one that has been reached very recently. This consensus is embodied in the general ruling class acceptance of the so-called "war on terror." Notwithstanding the fact that many of its elements might eventually have a broader usefulness, the political/military core of the war on terror is capitalism's response to the jihadist threat.'

What is the threat the jihadist's pose to global capitalism? What is sort of threat could that be, given the response of a "war on terror"? How does Islamic radicalism actually challenge the economic system of global capitalism? Has not a triumphant global capitalist system been able to defeat or absorb its main challengers?So why is capitalism's response, given that european capitalism rejected that military response.

Suprisingly, Hammerquist's answer is given in terms of fascism:

"Fascism grows out of a dual crisis, a crisis of the capitalist order and a crisis of the movements against that order. Our political reality is dominated by two shaken faiths and two failed gods. First, ...the faith that capitalism is the essential structure of modern progress isn't selling well in much of the world. [So is]... the faith that a fundamental emancipatory alternative to capitalism is both necessary and possible and, indeed, is already well under construction. Capitalism will pay a price for the first failure. We will be paying for the second and the reemergence of fascism will be a part of the price in both cases. We had better expect a fascism that won’t fit in the old definitions...it will be a neo-fascism that grows out of and is decisively marked by the social consequences of the new failures of the revolutionary movement."

If Islamic radicalism is the most advanced outpost of neo-fascist politics in an organizational sense of an animating ideology linking with a mass base at a weak spot in the global capitalist structure, then how does the fascism new style (a postmodern fascism?)---Islamic radicalism----challenge the economic system of global capitalism? And how do the neo-cons understand this challenge?

Saying fascism new style does not give us the answer. I do not see how bombs in Bali and London, or the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, challenge the structure of global capitalism. Hammerquist says:

"The radical transnational Islamic movements are based geographically and politically in the "gaps" in global capitalist system. The most important of these movements are popular----I would say in spite of their authoritarian clandestine structure and reactionary social program rather than because of it. They have a political trajectory that increasingly challenges the rules and norms of global capitalism. The neocons, and some other ruling class factions as well, see this as a movement that could overthrow both compradore regimes in Saudi Arabia and Jordan and rotten neocolonial state structures in Egypt and Algeria. They see movements that might gain control of vital resources, intending, not just to redivide the profits but also to withdraw the resources from the global capitalist system. Finally, they see movements capable of moving beyond the Middle East to northern Africa, and Asia, and, through emigration, to Europe.

This is a multi-sided danger to the global capitalist system."


I guess that is a reasonable account how the Washington neo-cons understand the threat to the global economic system. The more cautious voices in the Bush Adminstration have been pushed to one side.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:55 PM | | Comments (1)
Comments

Comments

Folks,
The coments on this post and others have been lost, due to a failed attempt at upgrading the style sheet and templates to 3.14 But we did manage to solve the comment pending error.

Can people remember what they wrote about this post?

If I recall we were beginning to have a bit of a conversation about rights. I would like to keep it going if I may.