American Hegemony?

Djinn Raffo brought this up in a now locked thread and thought it worth exploring! (Good thought DR!).

Main Entry: he·ge·mo·ny
Pronunciation: hi-'je-m&-nE, -'ge-; 'he-j&-"mO-nE
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek hEgemonia, from hEgemOn leader, from hEgeisthai to lead -- more at SEEK
Date: 1567
: preponderant influence or authority over others : DOMINATION
- heg·e·mon·ic /"he-j&-'mä-nik, "he-g&-/ adjective

It sound to me like the USA can be described as a Hegemony. It seems to fit the literal definition. Is hegemony bad? I don't think so...but perhaps if you do not belong to the dominant set then you may feel different. It also explains the "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" existance the US finds itself in right now.

Take Korea for example. Why should the USA give two whits if they develop primitive nuclear weapons? They aren't our neighbors, they don't supply anything we want....why? because ti is in the common interest and good for the US to help keep this part of Asia stable. So while reviled by some for interfereing we are praised by others (mostly by people in japan and south Korea who would be threatended by North Korea).

[Djinn Raffo]

Thanks for addressing it MagiK!

I watched Gandhi last night so i'm in a 'Authority tackling' sort of mood hehe.. non-cooperation of course!

the keyword in that definition to me is 'preponderant' which is "Having superior weight, force, importance, or influence."

Being a hegemony, like an empire at least to me, does not have to have be a negative thing. As you said US bases in Asia help to keep the region stable. They also help to keep the Japanese exporting their excellent cars and Steel imports flowing into Japan etc etc.. US and Asian trade interests are involved as well as stability. Perhaps they are one and the same? North Korean trade interests on the other hand are maybe non-existant. This harbours good old anti-Americanism from those North Koreans.

Back to the 'preponderant'.. SUPERIOR weight, force, importance, or influence.

In the case of North Korea. Are American trade interests, which tie to a stable region, more important than the interests of the North Koreans?

My answer would be No. No one nations interests should weigh more than anothers.

But that is a 'should' and perhaps not feasible when you look at the reality of the world we live in.

Are the Americans a magnanimous Hegemony?
I don't think so.

Are they the closest thing to it?
Yes, absolutly.

They have to move further to the right to ensure that the rest of the world can move closer to the left.

[Barry the Sprout]

Well, personally I don't think that it is a US Hegemony at all, I think it is a ruling class Hegemony that has the survival of capitalism in the forefront of its mind. I don't think that any of this is actually based in one nation or draws its power from one nation. Sorry to all the Yanks out there but you aren't that important.

I think the idea that the US is just trying to further its own power is slightly off as a result of this. I think that ultimately what the US wants to do is spread its way of life throughout the world. This means a Hegemony of liberal, democratic, capitalism ultimately. That is what the ruling class of the world have an interest in perpetuating, theres no conspiracy here - just an issue of self interest. And as a result it often seems that it is the US itself that is doing this. Personally I would say that that is far from the truth - the US is the strongest and biggest capitalist power and therefore is often made synonymous with the interests of capitalism as a whole.

Barry, I don't think we are all that important. I think that we are the largest concern in the known universe right now , but we are content to let others play their own games as long as they don't A. Kill or torture their own citizens, b. dont threaten or help others threaten other nation/states, c. they don't screw with our well being and d. our status quo is not jeopardized. Some times it is good to be the big dog on the block and other times it just means that every other pissant wannabe is trying to knock you off the hill. [img]smile.gif[/img] (Oh nice post though, sounded pretty good. Well thought out and reasoned.)

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by MagiK: Barry, I don't think we are all that important. I think that we are the largest concern in the known universe right now , but we are content to let others play their own games as long as they don't A. Kill or torture their own citizens, b. dont threaten or help others threaten other nation/states, c. they don't screw with our well being and d. our status quo is not jeopardized. Some times it is good to be the big dog on the block and other times it just means that every other pissant wannabe is trying to knock you off the hill. [img]smile.gif[/img] (Oh nice post though, sounded pretty good. Well thought out and reasoned.)

It's c. don't screw with your well being that might tip the scales to the Evil side of the fence

Canada is a huge supplier of oil to the USA, number 1.. i think? If Canada decided to jack the price up or place exorbitant tariffs on those oil xports.. what would the USA do? Both C. and D. of your points up there would absolutly be initiated. It would screw with your well being if we decided to take our oil business elsewhere or gouge you with it. And your status quo would be jeoporadized because the consumer would be paying for it at the pumps.

Would USA annex Canada in that scenario? Would your military be activated against Canuckistan in pursuit of defending American Interests?

[ 01-13-2003, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by MagiK: Barry, I don't think we are all that important. I think that we are the largest concern in the known universe right now , but we are content to let others play their own games as long as they don't A. Kill or torture their own citizens, b. dont threaten or help others threaten other nation/states, c. they don't screw with our well being and d. our status quo is not jeopardized. Some times it is good to be the big dog on the block and other times it just means that every other pissant wannabe is trying to knock you off the hill. [img]smile.gif[/img] (Oh nice post though, sounded pretty good. Well thought out and reasoned.)

Djinn Raffo covered a c+d scenario - so I'll take an a+b from the real world: China

China uses torture and executes (kills) more of its own people than any other nation (and IIRC all other nations combined)

China threatens other contries - Taiwan in particular.

But nothing is done about China, because the USA still live in the real world where massive trade is still more important than human rights.

[Night Stalker]

Barry - good post.

Canukistan! LLAO [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

[The Hierophant]

I'd have to agree with Barry, Djinn and Ar-Cunin. The exportation of capitalism does not work toward greater freedom for working-class peoples, it works toward greater opportunities for corporate investment. 'Freedom', in this sense refers to the economic availability of resources for use in corporate production. Where 'freedom' is sold to the masses in the idea of 'being able to live and think how you desire without fear of repression' it is in essence really intended to serve the highest echelons of global investment (ie: the 'ruling class', as Barry put it) with little concern for the freedom or well-being of uneducated workers.

For example, if a revolution occurs which entails the establishment of a non-capitalist government (ie, one not predominantly focussed with the production of raw capital), then the opportunities for international corporate investment in the newly reformed area are checked and limited. In such a case one bears witness to corporate temper tantrums on a global scale in reaction to a block being placed on their ability to generate more revenue for themselves. Investment is about generating fast and vast revenue for a small and select tier of society, and trickling down a few scraps to keep the vital workers fed and alive.

In that sense, American Hegemony (if indeed such a thing exists) is about expanding the enterprise of American business to increase the wealth of American corporate business-owners. If the working class (and there most certainly is such a thing, the world over) simply accepts their fate in this, then the American self-determinist reasoning goes that they get what they deserve for their complacency. If the working class mobilizes and takes measures to check the expansion of corporatism, then they are condemned by the business community as communists and insurrectionaries. In essense, for the working class, the ownership level of capitalist business really is their enemy, as it lives a parasitic existance, reaping the mass-profits of the working classes labour. Something has to be done about this.

[skywalker]

Well, The Hierophant, that IS partly what is going in the current US administration. The survival of Corporate America IS most important. Just take a look at the new tax bill Mr. Bush has brought forth. We are in the midst of another round of Reagan Era Trickle Down Economics. I believe Bush Sr. called it Voodoo Economics (I think).

Mark

[Donut]

Originally posted by MagiK: Barry, I don't think we are all that important. I think that we are the largest concern in the known universe right now , but we are content to let others play their own games as long as they don't A. Kill or torture their own citizens, b. dont threaten or help others threaten other nation/states,

That's not quite true. There have been a number of recent conflicts where governments are killing and torturing their own citizens and there are about 10 international conflicts occuring at the moment.

Robert Mugabe is currently deliberately starving 6 million of his own people in Zimbabwe. In Turkey an estimated 3,000 Kurdish villages have been destroyed, 3 million people displaced and thousands murdered. In Rwanda 1 million people are believed to have been killed since the withdrawal of UN troops. Russia invaded Chechnya. In 1975 Morocco invaded Western Sahara and 150,000 Sahawari refugess are still in exile.

The US has not invaded or intervened in these cases. I'm not saying that they should or could intervene but I don't think you can claim this as your criteria for intervention.

Nation states, in the main, act in their own self-interest. Improving human rights in these countries is just a bonus