Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dennis O'Bell who wrote (33981)	7/9/2002
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

but pieces like that Wallerstein article really irk me no end. Since John got on me for dismissing the piece after reading the header, I realized he had a point. If I was going to insist on him reading some of the columnists I considered important, I could, at least, read the ones he considered important. I wish I could say, after reading it, that my opinion had changed. It has not. The comments made by you and others hold up. I am always irritated with someone who uses " global hegemony", or "hegemony" a lot. I associate it with a pejorative attitude when used toward the USA. That, and a attempt to be pretentious. You also come across it a lot if you research "left wing" versions of our Foreign Policy, or the Anti-CFR, "Bilderburgers," "Bohemian Grove," conspiracy stuff. However, it makes more sense to consider the two as a single, continuous "30 years' war" between the United States and Germany, with truces and local conflicts scattered in between. As others have said, "absolute nonsense." The wars were connected, much more so, IMO, than is taught in history courses. But the two countries were not in direct competition in any meaningful way. Hell, Hitler knew almost nothing about us, and had no idea of how strong we were. He was contemptuous of us, to say the least. Of course, this passivity did not extend to the economic arena. The United States capitalized on the Cold War ambiance to launch massive economic reconstruction efforts, first in Western Europe and then in Japan (as well as in South Korea and Taiwan). The rationale was obvious: What was the point of having such overwhelming productive superiority if the rest of the world could not muster effective demand? Furthermore, economic reconstruction helped create clientelistic obligations on the part of the nations receiving U.S. aid; this sense of obligation fostered willingness to enter into military alliances and, even more important, into political subservience. This is the accepted "left wing" version of what happened. Not true, IMO. People who use this viewpoint don't spell it out, but at its core, it ties into the Russia's Communist version or our History, that the USA caused the cold war in order to sell our products and save Capitalism. The "revisionist" History of the "Marshall Plan,", et al, are now showing that this help from us was nowhere nearly as effective as our History books claim. These Nations built themselves back up, using Capitalism. President Bush's options appear extremely limited, and there is little doubt that the United States will continue to decline as a decisive force in world affairs over the next decade. The real question is not whether U.S. hegemony is waning but whether the United States can devise a way to descend gracefully, with minimum damage to the world, and to itself. From Wallerstein's lips to God's ear, he hopes. I see his most recent book is titled, "The End of the World As We Know It: Social Science for the Twenty-First Century ." I wish it was the end of Social Science as we know it, but we won't get that lucky. Wallerstein reminds me of the type of Professor who would say, "Give me a High School Graduate who thinks he knows everything and I will return to you a College Graduate who admits he knows nothing." Overall, my main impression is that the writing is really boring. It was difficult to read. Very "turgid." I think if Tek had received this "over the transom", he would have rejected it.