[lit-ideas] Comparing Empires and is the U.S. one
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:49:50 -0700
Wikipedia says Carr was a “quasi-Marxist.” Marx preached an historical
determinism which may be where Carr got his, but a lot of the “the
US-is-an-Empire” talk came from that rather than from a showing that the US is
like Rome or the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch or British Empires. It has become
for the modern Marxist/Leftist a pejorative term rather than a quest to
determine what it is precisely that comprises an Empire and whether the U.S.
fits.
Since Marx we’ve had Francis Fukuyama building on Kojeve arguing that Hegel was
right after all (and Marx was wrong). The end of history is Capitalism, or to
use its modern expression, Liberal Democracy, and not Communism. The
Leninistic “Imperialism is the highest form of Capitalism” argument therefore
becomes otiose.
Niall Ferguson, no Marxist, thinks the U.S. is an Empire but hasn’t produced a
definition or an argument to substantiate that idea as far as I know. There is
a sense in which the U.S. performs like the “World’s policeman” on occasion.
And there was the handing off of the “world’s policeman’s baton” from Churchill
to Eisenhower and the U.S. becoming committed in South East Asia somewhat as a
result, but unfortunately not to attempt to rescue France’s chestnuts but to
attempt to keep a domino from falling (in the then believed theory about the
best way to battle Communism).
Wilson, representing a majority view (IMO) supported the “four freedoms” at the
end of WWI and did not approve of the French, British, and Italians desire to
split up the after-WWI-pie but was outsmarted by them. The U.S. as the
last-man-standing in regard to military and economic power after WWII enforced
its prejudice against empires. The breakup of the British, Dutch and French
empires after WWII was to some extent due to this U.S. prejudice. So I end up
shaking my head at Ferguson’s arguments and setting his books aside (although I
did complete a few).
Someone in regard to India pointed out that Britain made an inconsistent empire
in that it promoted the idea of “freedom.” Sooner or later a colony, as in the
case of the 13 & India is going to see that inconsistency and revolt in order
to become like Britain, free. Colonies, at the very least, seem to be one of
the things an Empire needs to have in order to be called an Empire – at least
so it seems to me.
Does the U.S. have troops in Japan and Germany in order to exercise Imperial
demands? That would be a bit hard to demonstrate because following in
Britain’s footsteps it advocates freedom and could not get away with exercising
a force that would counter that. China and others in Asia feared a resurgence
of Japanese militarism; so the U.S. is saying, “look, we shall keep troops
there. We shall make sure that doesn’t happen.” The same situation exists in
Europe. Some still fear a German militaristic resurgence; so the U.S. is there
to assure other European nations that it will not permit that to happen.
If someone wants to argue that the U.S. is currently performing the role of
“World’s policeman” I would not argue with that. Pat Buchanan and others have
argued that we can’t afford to keep doing that, and here we may be entering H.
P. Huntington’s realm. It should be the “core nation” from each “civilization”
that does that and not just one nation for the whole world.
In short there are some interesting things being written about world power and
the future. Earlier Marxist-based ideas have for the most part been set aside
in view of ideas more closely reflecting the modern world. Who today would
argue that there is a historical-necessity at work that will force the world’s
nations to become Communistic? And if someone did, who would pay attention to
him?
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Omar Kusturica
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 11:35 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Comparing Empires
An aside to Lawrence, since he was mentioning Lenin's Imperialism as the
Highest Stage of Capitalism: I have read it and I consider it an excellent
essay, does that make me a Marxist ? I don't see myself as one. I do believe
that Lenin was a very intelligent and educated man, whatever his moral and
political faults were. (The same could not be said about Stalin.)
O.K.
On , Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
_____
Other related posts:
