On
the Coming Decline and
Fall of the US Empire
By
Johan
Galtung
Director and Founder,
TRANSCEND
TFF
associate
January 28, 2004
1. Definitions and
Hypotheses: An Overview
Definition: An empire is a transborder
Center-Periphery system, in macro-space and in
macro-time, with a culture legitimizing a structure of
unequal exchange between center and periphery:
economically, between exploiters and exploited, as
inequity; militarily, between killers and victims, as
enforcement; politically, between dominators and
dominated, as repression; culturally, between alienators
and alienated, as conditioning. Empires have different
profiles. The US Empire has a complete configuration,
articulated in a statement by a Pentagon planner: "The de
facto role of the United States Armed Forces will be to
keep the world safe for our economy and open to our
cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount
of killing". In other words, direct violence to protect
structural violence legitimized by cultural violence. The
Center is continental USA and the Periphery much of the
world. Like any system it has a life-cycle reminiscent of
an organism, with conception, gestation, birth, infancy,
childhood, adolescence, adulthood, senescence and death.
Seeded by the British Empire, the maturing colonies honed
their imperial skills on indigenous populations, ventured
abroad in military interventions defining zones of
interest, took over the Spanish Empire, expanding with
world, even space hegemony as goal, now in the aging
phase with overwhelming control tasks quickly overtaking
the expansion tasks.
Decline and fall is to be expected as for anything
human; the question is what-why-how-when-where-by
whom-against whom. Answers:
- what: the four unequal, non-sustainable, exchange
patterns above;
- why: because they cause unbearable suffering and
resentment;
- how: through the synergies in the synchronic maturation
of 14 contradictions, followed by demoralization of
system elites;
- when: within a time frame of, say, 20 years, counting
from Y2000;
- where: depending on the maturation level of the
contradictions.
- by whom: the exploited/bereaved/dominated/alienated,
the solidary, and those who fight the US Empire to set up
their own.
- against whom: the
exploiters/killers/dominators/alienators, and those who
support the US Empire because of perceived benefits.
The hypothesis is not that the fall and decline of the
US Empire implies a fall and decline of the US Republic
(continental USA). To the contrary, relief from the
burden of Empire control and maintenance when it
outstrips the gains from unequal exchange, and expansion
increases rather than decreases the deficit, could lead
to a blossoming of the US Republic. This author admits an
anti-Empire bias because of enormous periphery suffering
outside and inside the Republic; and a pro-US Republic
bias because of the creative genius and generosity of the
USA. "Anti-American" makes no such distinction between
the US Republic and the US Empire.
There is no dearth of predictions of economic disaster
for the US Republic in the wake of decline and fall of
the system "to keep the world safe for our economy and
open to our cultural assault", also from marxists who
(still) believe that Empire-building can be reduced to
economic greed satisfied by flagrant inequity. But this
is only one component in a complete imperial syndrome
with components attracting and repelling different niches
in societies and persons. Economists blind to
externalities design theories legitimizing inequity,
unrealistic "realists" enforce "order", liberals guide
and dominate political choices of others, and
missionaries, religious and secular, try to convert
anybody. All together an enormous drain of resources.
The case of England indicates that an empire can be a
burden. The decline of the Empire started long before,
but the fall of the crown jewel, India, due to a
combination of nonviolent (Gandhi) and violent struggle,
and the incompatibility of imperialism with the Atlantic
Charter, was decisive. The Empire unravelled very quickly
over a period of 15 years from 1947, obviously unstable.
And England? Today richer than ever in history. Welcome,
USA.
2. The US Empire: A
bird's-eye view
Right after the mass murder in New York and Washington
on September 11 2001 Zoltan Grossman circulated a list,
based on Congressional Records and The Library of
Congress Congressional Research Service, with 133
American military interventions during 111 years, from
1890-2001, from the brutal murder of the indigenous
population at Wounded Knee in Dakota to the punishment
expedition to Afghanistan. Six of them are the First and
Second World Wars, and the Korea, Vietnam, Gulf and
Yugoslavian wars: Democrats started five of them (Bush
senior and junior are the exceptions among isolationist
Republicans who usually focus more on the exploitation of
their own population).
The average per year is 1.15 before, and 1.29 after,
the Second World War, in other words an increase. And
after the Cold War, from late 1989, a heavy increase up
to 2.0, compatible with the hypothesis that wars increase
as empires grow, with more privileges to protect; more
unrest to quell, revolts to crush.
William Blum has 300 pages of solid documentation in
his Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
(Monroe MA: Common Courage Press, 2000). The total
suffering is enormous: the victims, the bereaved, the
damaged nature, structure (through verticalization) and
culture (through brutalization, myths of revenge and
honor). Most of it fits into one single pattern: building
a US Empire based on economic exploitation of other
countries and other peoples, using direct violence and
indirect violence, open (Pentagon) and overt (CIA); with
open and covert support from US allies. The result is the
international class structure with increasing gaps
between the poor and rich countries, and between poor and
rich people.
There is no sign of any clash of civilizations, nor
any sign of territorial expansion. But there is enormous
missionary zeal and enormous self-righteousness. And the
rhetoric changes: containment of Soviet expansion, fight
against Communism, drugs, intervention for democracy and
human rights, against terrorism.
Blum's list of interventions up to the year 2000
covers 67 cases since 1945 (Grossman has 56, the criteria
differ somewhat):
China 45-51, France 47, Marshall Islands 46-58, Italy
47-70s, Greece 47-49, Philippines 45-53, Korea 45-53,
Albania 49-53, Eastern Europe 48-56, Germany 50s, Iran
53, Guatemala 53-90s, Costa Rica 50s, 70-71, Middle East
56-58, Indonesia 57-58, Haiti 59, Western Europe 50s-60s,
British Guiana 53-64, Iraq 58-63, Soviet Union 40s-60s,
Vietnam 45-73, Cambodia 55-73, Laos 57-73, Thailand
65-73, Ecuador 60-63, Congo-Zaire 77-78, France-Algeria
60s, Brazil 61-63, Peru 65, Dominican Republic 63-65,
Cuba 59-, Indonesia 65, Ghana 66, Uruguay 69-72, Chile
64-73, Greece 67-74, South Africa 60s-80s, Bolivia 64-75,
Australia 72-75, Iraq 72-75, Portugal 74-76, East Timor
75-99, Angola 75-80s, Jamaica 76, Honduras 80s, Nicaragua
78-90s, Philippines 70s, Seychelles 79-81, South Yemen
79-84, South Korea 80, Chad 81-2, Grenada 79-83, Suriname
82-84, Libya 81-89, Fiji 87, Panama 89, Afghanistan
79-92, El Salvador 80-92, Haiti 87-94, Bulgaria 90-91,
Albania 91-92, Somalia 93, Iraq 90s, Peru 90s, Mexico
90s, Colombia 90s, Yugoslavia 95-99.
There was bombing in 25 cases (for details, read the
book):
China 45-46, Korea/China 50-53, Guatemala 54, Indonesia
58, Cuba 60-61, Guatemala 60, Vietnam 61-73, Congo 64,
Peru 65, Laos 64-73, Cambodia 69-70, Guatemala 67-69,
Grenada 83, Lebanon-Syria 83-84, Libya 86, El Salvador
80s, Nicaragua 80s, Iran 87, Panama 89, Iraq 91-, Kuwait
91, Somalia 93, Sudan 98, Afghanistan 98, Yugoslavia 99.
Assassination of foreign leaders, among them heads of
state, was attempted in 35 countries, and assistance with
torture in 11 countries: Greece, Iran, Germany, Vietnam,
Bolivia, Uruguay, Brazil, Guatemala, El Salvador,
Honduras, Panama
On top of this come 23 countries where the United
States has intervened in elections or has prevented
elections: Italy 48-70s, Lebanon 50s, Indonesia 55,
Vietnam 55, Guayana 53-64, Japan 58-70s, Nepal 59, Laos
60, Brazil 62, Dominican Republic 62, Guatemala 63,
Bolivia 66, Chile 64-70, Portugal 74-5, Australia 74-5,
Jamaica 76, Panama 84, 89, Nicaragua 84,90, Haiti 87-88,
Bulgaria 91-92, Russia 96, Mongolia 96, Bosnia 98.
35 (attempted) assassinations + 11 countries with
torture + 25 bombings + 67 interventions + 23
interferences with other people's elections give 161
forms of aggravated political violence only since the
Second World War. A world record.
Increase over time comes with shift in civilization
target:
Phase I - Eastern Asia, Confucian-Buddhist
Phase II - Eastern Europe, Orthodox Christian
Phase III - Latin America, Catholic Christian
Phase IV - Western Asia, Islam
The phases overlap, but this is the general
picture.
In the first phase the focus was above all on people
in Korea, south and north, wanting reunification of their
nation, and on poor peasants in Viêt Nam wanting
independence. In the second phase there was the Cold, not
Hot, War for containment of communism. In the third phase
the targets were poor people, small and indigenous
populations supported by "maoist" students. And in the
fourth phase, which is dominating the picture today, the
focus was on Islamic countries and movements,
Palestinians being an important example.
All the time we find that the USA supports those who
favor US business and growth, and works against those who
give higher priority to distribution and basic needs of
the most needy. They die, 100,000 per day, underfed,
underclothed, undersheltered, undercared, underschooled;
jobless, hopeless and futureless.
Satisfiers for their needs cannot be bought with the
money they do not have, and cannot be bought with labor
because that requires jobs or land (seeds, water, manure)
they do not have. A cruel world built on a world trade
headed by the USA, supported by US dominated military and
allied governments, and often populations who benefit
from cheap resources and food products.
What is new in the fourth phase has something to do
with religion. Islam is just as concerned with sin and
guilt and expiation, with crime and punishment, as
Christianity. But they do not place God and his country,
and particularly "God's Own Country", the USA, higher
than Allah and his countries, particularly not Allah's
own holy country, Saudi Arabia.
A United Nations Security Council with a nucleus of
four Christian and one Confucian country have little
authority in Islam, as opposed to the authority enjoyed
in the Christian countries in Eastern Europe and Latin
America. And buddhist, East Asian countries are perhaps
more inclined to change a bad joint karma than to issue
certificates of guilt to the USA.
In other words, the real resistance had to come in the
fourth phase with a new Pearl Harbor that many see as the
introduction to a long-lasting Third World War.
Of that we should not be so certain. But one thing is
clear: Anybody who was the least bit surprised 11
September was ignorant, naive or both. The bottomless,
limitless state terrorism of the United States got a very
unsurprising answer: terrorism against the United States.
With an estimated 12-16 million killed, and an average of
10 bereaved for each one, with pain and sorrow, lust for
revenge and revanche growing, no act of revenge would be
inconceivable. But the deeper roots lie not in the
never-ending chain of "blowback" violence. They are in
the numerous unresolved conflicts built into the US
Empire. The way to solution for sure passes through US
Empire dissolution.
The Pentagon planner's "to those ends we will do a
fair amount of killing" reflects imperial reality. The
when-where- against whom has just been explored. And then
what?
3. On the decline
and fall of empires: the Soviet Empire case
In a comparative study of the decline (of ten) and
fall (of nine, No. 10 is the US Empire) in 1995 , with an
economic focus, the conclusion was that no single factor,
but a combination of factors in a syndrome was the
general cause:
- a division of labor whereby foreign countries,
and/or foreigners inside one's own country, take over the
most challenging and interesting and developing tasks,
given the historical situation;
- a deficit in creativity related to a deficit in
technology and good management, including foresight and
innovation;
- one or several sectors of the economy neglected or
lagging;
- and, at the same time, expansionism as
ideology/cosmology, exploiting foreign countries and/or
one's own people inviting negative, destructive
reactions.
The syndrome idea came from an earlier study of the
decline and fall of the Roman Empire where many authors
have come up with many single factor theories. The idea
was then applied to the Soviet Empire in 1980 , focusing
on five factors referred to as contradictions, tensions,
like the four points above:
In the society:
- a top-heavy, centralized, non-participatory society
run by the Russian nation controlling other nations,
- the city controlling the countryside,
- the socialist bourgeoisie the socialist
proletariat,
- the socialist bourgeoisie having nothing to buy because
the processing level was too low;
In the world: a confrontational foreign policy run by
the Soviet Union controlling and intervening in satellite
countries.
The prediction, made many times by this author in
1980, was that the Soviet Empire would crumble not
because of any single factor but because of "synchronic
maturation of contradictions, followed by demoralization
of Center and Periphery elites", with the Berlin Wall
crumbling in an early phase, within 10 years.
The mechanism was not the big bang of war, but the
whimper of demoralized elites who after lashing out
violently become corrupt, alcoholized, overfed, sometimes
charming, ego-maniacs.
4. On the
contradictions of the US Empire.
The prediction of the decline and fall of the Soviet
Empire was based on the synergy of five contradictions,
and the time span for the contradictions to work their
way through decline to fall was estimated at 10 years in
1980. Sometimes I added a No. 5: between myth, the
massive Soviet propaganda, and reality - to some extent
dissolved in marvelous jokes.
The prediction of the decline and fall of the US
Empire is based on the synergy of 14 contradictions, and
the time span for the contradictions to work their way
through decline to fall was estimated at 25 years in the
year 2000. There are more contradictions because the US
Empire is more complex, and the time span is longer also
because it is more sophisticated. After the first months
of President George W. Bush (selected) the time span was
reduced to 20 years because of the way in which he
sharpened so many of the contradictions posited the year
before, and because his extreme singlemindedness made him
blind to the negative, complex synergies. He just
continued.
President William J. Clinton (elected, twice) was seen
in a different light. Confronted with a pattern of
contradictions, no doubt with significant differences in
terminology and numbers, his violence was an intervention
in Somalia that he canceled, a war against Serbia of
which he evidenced heavy doubts and never any enthusiasm,
and a couple of missiles fired in anger. Being
superintelligent, demoralization in high places, and sex
in strange places, might have been the consequences.
Hypothesis: they tried to impeach him not so much for the
latter as for the former - using the latter as pretext.
The effort misfired, but a highly non-demoralized George
Bush captured the US Presidency.
Here is the list of 14 contradictions posited in
2000:
I. Economic Contradictions(US led system WB/IMF/WTO
NYSE Pentagon)
1. between growth and distribution:
overproduction relative to demand, 1.4 billion below $
1/day, 100.000 die/day, 1/4 of hunger
2. between productive and finance economy
(currency, stocks,bonds) overvalued, hence crashes,
unemployment, contract work
3. between production/distribution/consumption and
nature: ecocrisis, depletion/pollution, global
warming
II. Military Contradictions (US led system
NATO/TIAP/USA-Japan)
4. between US state terrorism and terrorism:
Blowback
5. between US and allies (except UK, D, Japan),
saying enough
6. between US hegemony in Eurasia and the Russia
India China triangle, with 40% of humanity
7. between US led NATO and EU army: The Tindemans
follow-up
III. Political Contradictions (US exceptionalism under
God)
8. between USA and the UN: The UN hitting
back
9. between USA and the EU: vying for
Orthodox/Muslim support
IV. Cultural Contradictions (US triumphant plebeian
culture)
10. between US Judeo-Christianity and Islam
(25% of humanity; UNSC nucleus has four Christian and
none of the 56 Muslim countries).
11. between US and the oldest civilizations
(Chinese, Indian, Mesopotamian, Aztec/Inca/Maya)
12. between US and European elite culture: France,
Germany, etc.
V. Social Contradictions (US led world elites vs the
rest: World Economic Forum, Davos vs World Social Forum,
Porto Alegre)
13. between state corporate elites and
working classes of unemployed and contract workers.
The middle classes?
14. between older generation and youth: Seattle,
Washington, Praha, Genova and ever younger youth. The
middle generation?
15. To this could be added: between myth and
reality.
The list was a simple reading of the US Empire
situation. More sophisticated discourses are certainly
possible, keeping the key ideas of syndromes, synergies
and demoralization.
5. The maturation
of contradictions: An update after 3 years
We shall use the same formulations as above, drop the
small explanatory remarks in the above list, and add some
kind of, hopefully informed, running commentary on
contemporary affairs.
Obviously, the US Empire as a functioning, dynamic
reality, not as a static structure, with the 14
contradictions in its wake is a very complex system. In
such systems linearities are rare, causal chains split
and unite; loops, spirals, any curve shape, are
ubiquitous. Quantum jumps when two factors are strongly
coupled, one changes and the other remains constant, will
be frequent. But the prediction is that within twenty
years the four types of unequal exchange with the USA in
the Center will wither away, whether what comes is more
equal exchange or less exchange, in other words
isolation. Or both.
I. Economic Contradictions
1. between growth and distribution: generally growth
is sluggish with the possible exception of China, and the
distribution often worsening, both between and within
countries. However, the basic concern is with livelihood
at the bottom of world society, the preventable mortality
and the suffering due to near-death morbidity from hunger
or easily preventable/curable diseases. That syndrome is
with us, and the analysis in terms of overproduction
leading to unemployment leading to underdemand leading
oversupply leading to more unemployment etc. stands. At
the same time monetization of land/seeds/water/manure
impedes the conversion of labor into food by tilling
one's own land. The US Empire pursues growth but neglects
and prevents distribution, thereby undercutting itself
since a key aspect of growth in increased demand, meaning
increased consumption, all over.
2. between productive and finance economy. Domestic
and global market turnover being high even if the growth
is sluggish in the productive economy in many countries,
and distribution being low there will be heavy
accumulation of liquidity high up searching for an
outlet. Luxury consumption and productive investment
being limited the obvious outlet is buying and selling in
the finance economy, also known as speculation. The
productive economy responds by putting up bogus, virtual
enterprises like ENRON and WORLDCOM that the growth in
the finance economy quickly gets out of synch with growth
in the productive economy. Thus, the 2001 sharpening of
his contradiction into a crash for some stocks and
depreciation of the US dollar was as expected, indicative
of a chronic pathology. One basic cure for that pathology
is the distribution that the US Empire, through its use
of the WB/IMF/WTO NYSE Pentagon system is impeding. As
that cure is at present unavailable the underlying
pathology will produce new increases in financial goods
values and new crashes.
3. between production/distribution/consumption and
nature: The Bush administration's unilateral exit from
the Kyoto Protocol sharpened this contradiction
considerably and was a key factor behind the banner at
the 2002 summit in South Africa: Thank you, Mr Bush, you
have made the world hate America. The explanation given
was that the Protocol impeded US economic growth (meaning
unacceptable to powerful corporations). This move
endangers the planet and is an expression of contempt for
global regimes based on negotiating ratifiable treaties.
The USA could have demanded re-negotiation. But the US
Empire had other priorities and mobilized millions in the
movement for sustainable development against the USA.
II. Military Contradictions
4. between US state terrorism and terrorism: This
contradiction underwent a quantum jump on 11 september
2001 although the number killed was less than the number
killed in the aftermath of the other 11 September, in
1973, the USA supported coup against the socialist
government of Salvador Allende (one of the now 68
interventions after the Second World War, counting Iraq).
Highly predictable, as predictable as its repetition
unless the US Empire itself exits from the cycle of
violence and decides to understand "that the enemy may be
us/US". But the US Empire now talks about interventions
in more than 60 countries, lasting more than a life time.
A heavy price for the failure to try to, or the effort to
avoid to, solve conflicts/contradictions.
At this point an obvious remark: an effort to explain
9/11, for instance as a "reaction to the US Empire by
hitting two major instruments for economic and military
operation", or the short-hand as "revenge" and
"unresolved conflict" in no way justifies the gruesome
act. Nor is the US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq
justified. But like Kosova they can both be partly
explained as efforts to maintain and expand the US
Empire, for more control of the world oil market, and "to
keep the world safe for our economy" by establishing
military bases.
Violence hits the Empire at their strongest point, is
as wrong, ineffective and counterproductive as the US
violence and mobilizes against the perpetrators. Ruling
out explanation as justification runs against
Enlightenment rationality: solve problems by identifying
causal chains, then removing causes like violence cycles
and unresolved conflicts. But the US Empire stands in the
way and will ultimately have to yield.
5. between US and allies: very fluid. The US Empire
does not want to be seen as the US Empire but as
something generally supported by "advanced societies",
"civilized" as against "evil", "chaotic" and "terrorist".
Washington builds coalitions with Allies in the
NATO/TIAP/US-Japan systems, and others.
This contradiction (and many others) has never
surfaced so clearly as in connection with the war against
Iraq, but there were also tensions budding in connection
with the Yugoslavia and Afghanistan operations. Public
opinion is not an important variable here. Washington
deals with governments and for that reason is very
concerned with who are the members. The three ways of
exercising power, persuasion, bargaining and threats, are
best exercised behind closed doors so as not to be
exposed to anything like the German Foreign Minister's
devastating remark to the US Secretary of Defense in
München February 2003: "In a democracy you have to
present arguments for your position, and your arguments
are not convincing." If the public knew what goes on
behind closed door, like supporting an attack on Iraq in
return for having somebody inscribed on the US list of
terrorist organization, the opposition would
increase.
In 2000 UK, Germany and Japan were seen as reliable
allies. This failed to predict the German position,
linked to the Social Democratic Party having been pressed
already against its inner conviction over Yugoslavia and
Afghanistan. Australia, however, was highly predictable
as an Anglo-Saxon country , and Japan behaved as
predicted. The cost-benefit analysis of the countries
varies, but the trend is against unconditional support
for the US Empire. A very sensitive contradiction that
will sharpen if people exercise much more pressure on
governments.
6. between US hegemony in Eurasia and Russia India
China: these are enormous countries, unconquerable so the
USA has approached them through their fear of Muslim
populations, in Chechnya, in Kashmir (and all over) and
Xinjiang respectively. After the NATO expansion eastward
and the USA-Japan alliance (with Taiwan and South Korea
as de facto members) expansion westward from 1995, the
three countries resolved most of their problems, came
closer together (although not in a formal alliance). But
those moves were temporarily stopped by the USA aligning
them against Islamic terrorism, meaning Muslims fighting
for more autonomy/independence in the three places
mentioned. The attack on Iraq seems to have sharpened the
contradiction again as they do not participate in the
occupation (knowing something about Islamic guerrillas).
But the USA still has considerable market access and
investment economic clout with all three governments.
7. between USA led NATO and an EU army: this is not
the same as the two preceding points which are more about
abstaining from support, and countries feeling the pincer
movement of the US Empire, possibly creating an alliance.
Here we are dealing with a new multinational army of a
potential superpower, creating identity problems for some
members. The question, "why do they need this army when
they have NATO?" has an answer in dualist logic: "this
shows they are not entirely with us, hence they are
against us."
There will be much maneuvering behind closed doors
concerning this contradiction. But the general move will
be in the direction of an EU Army for some members,
building on the present Eurocorps, with a line of command
that does not end in Washington, nor passes through
washington except for some exchange of information. For
defensive purposes or a coming EU Empire? To take over
the spoils?
III. Political Contradictions
8. between USA and the UN: the most powerful country
in the world also uses the veto in the Security Council
most frequently and has close to a de facto economic veto
by withholding or withdrawing support for programs not to
their liking, in addition to the US Empire clout on many
UN members, like changing the conditions for loans
according to voting pattern. That this behavior is
resented stands to reason and that resentment came out in
the open when the Anglo-Saxon USA/UK alliance failed to
get their second resolution on Iraq accepted by the UNSC.
However, very energetic US diplomacy and again US Empire
clout prevented what Washington was afraid of using the
Uniting for Peace resolution to lift an issue that has
gotten stuck in the UNSC into the General Assembly. A
UNGA debate and vote would make the limited support for
an attack on Iraq rather than the French-German approach
of deep UN inspection clear.
9. between USA and the EU: this goes far beyond EU
army vs NATO. The EU has today 15 members, by May 2004
there will be 25, with more to come. If the EU, very much
in their own interest, decided to bridge the basic
fault-lines in the whole European construction, between
Orthodox and Catholic/Protestant Christianity, and
between Islam and Christianity (from 1054 and 1095
respectively) by opening the EU for Russian and Turkish
membership, well, then the USA would be very far behind
indeed. We would be talking of 750 million+ inhabitants.
The process of membership might have to be gradual, like
X% increase per year in access to EU labor market against
X% increase per year in access to resources. The relation
to East Asia may be problematic, but the EU is also doing
good work on this fault-line.And a giant EU could only
gain from abstaining from any imitation of the US Empire,
signing up for UN support instead.
IV. Cultural Contradictions
10. between US Judeo-Christianity and Islam: these are
the abrahamitic religions, and the expression
Judeo-Christianity, so frequent in the USA, draws a wedge
among them. With the recent fundamentalist alliance based
on the idea that Armageddon is near and that the first
coming of the Messiah and the second coming of Christ
could be the same person, this contradiction has become
very sharp indeed. But Islam is expanding very quickly,
Christianity is not and the Jews are a small minority.
This rift will mark clear borders against US Empire
penetration. The young Saudi Wahhabite perpetrators on
9/11 may have acted more than they dreamt of on behalf of
1.3 billion Muslims, and not only 300 million Arabs. And
this warlike relation will limit US Empire expansion
considerably.
11. between US and the oldest civilizations: when
people talk of fundamentalism they usually mean the
religious articulation of old cultures. But cultures are
many-dimensional, including language and other forms of
expression, and sacred times and sacred places in history
and geography, anything. There are awakenings all over
the world, seeing ancient non-Western cultures not as
exotic museum objects to be observed but not lived. The
destruction of artifacts from Sumer/Babylon in Iraq was
seen as an effort to make the Iraqis governable by
destroying other foci of identification. A typical
example of a contradiction in an early, infant stage, but
filled with potential for rapid maturation and powerful
articulation.
12. between US and European elite culture: the world,
or so the West thinks, has four major geo-cultural
Centers: the USA, the UK, France and Germany. Others can
learn to imitate or produce exotica. France and Germany
continue the struggle for cultural prevalence relative to
the USA, with Anglo-Saxon UK being somewhere
inbetween.
V. Social Contradictions
13. between state corporate elites and working classes
of unemployed and contract workers: the powerful US trade
union complex, the AFL/CIO, voted for the first time
against a war: Iraq. But the working classes are today
kept in line by the threat of unemployment and the
inferiority of contract work relative to that vanishing
category, the real position, with security. The
state-corporate elites are better organized and at making
themselves insubstitutable. They can make hire and fire
become easy, with the ultimate threat of automation
("modernization") settling issues.
The postmodern economy can do without workers, but not
without customers. Firing workers they fire customers by
reducing their acquisitive power. The world middle
classes can join by boycotting the products of the US
Empire, like oil from Iraq, Boeing aircraft (one of the
major death factories in the world); in general
boycotting US consumer goods, capital goods and financial
goods, like US dollars, stock and bonds - but keeping
personal contacts.
14. between older generation and youth: younger than
ever, not only college students against the Viêt
Nam war but high school students, easily mobilized
through the Internet as long as that lasts. Maybe an
element of myth versus reality in this: they have been
served propaganda that seems very remote from reality.
The same may apply to women, but here Washington has
played the cards well:`"homeland security" drives the
issue home and women into the ranks defending the
defenders of the home and the family. But the other
nations in the USA, the Inuits, Hawai'ians, First
Nations, Chicanos, African Americans, could be pitted
against the Anglo-Saxon, Southern Baptist, militarized
Deep South, now in command. Hopefully they will not
create an emergency to cancel elections they may not
win.
7. And the decline
and fall?
Have a look at the 14 contradictions, and then a look
at the definition of an empire. The way of solving these
contradictions eating at the heart of the system is very
simple:
for the 3 economic contradictions: reduce, even stop
exploiting!
for the 4 military contradictions: reduce, even stop
killing!
for the 2 political contradictions: reduce, even stop
dominating!
for the 3 cultural contradictions: reduce, even stop
alienating!
for the 2 social contradictions: reduce, even stop all
the above!
For each reduction, the US Empire is, by definition,
declining. For each stop the US Empire is falling. Stop
all four, and the US Empire is gone, although some may
survive in residual forms like the Russian Empire in
Chechnya and the British Empire in Iraq. The most
dramatic recent example is possibly the dissolution of
the French Empire: de Gaulle had the incredible personal
grandeur to terminate the whole empire (except for the
Pacific and some other places) and like for the Soviet
and British Empires a number of independent countries
were born. Global capitalism, however, has a tendency to
recreate transborder exploitation, and there are, as
mentioned, residuals. A new world was born, however, in
the 1960s from the Western empires, in the 1990s from the
Soviet Empire.
Only the naive will assume that new world to be
paradise on earth. New systems emerge with their
contradictions. The rulers of the British, French and
Soviet empires had concluded that the costs by far outrun
the gains. Some others sometimes come to the conclusion
that the costs of the fall, including for the Periphery,
by far outrun the gains. That, of course, depends on the
successor system, the alternative. This author favors
United Nations global governance, and not an EU Empire.
But that is another story.
The British and French empires were based on
"overseas" colonies, the Soviet empire on contiguous,
Czarist/Bolshevik, "union", and the US Empire is based on
what the Pentagon planner said, with the non-US Periphery
being "independent" countries. This confuses some whose
empire concept is linked to "colonies" and not to
independent countries; and others whose concept is linked
to "overseas", not to contiguous territory. Still others
got confused because three of these Centers are Western
democracies, beyond the suspicion of ever committing
major wrongs. The definition opening this essay is based
on a relation of unequal exchange between Center and
Periphery, not on Periphery geography or Center
polity.
That unequal exchange, divided into four components,
is the root contradiction of the empire as a system. From
the four deep contradictions flow the fourteen surface
contradictions, visible to everybody, the subject of
journalism. The deep contradictions almost never are. So
the basic model explored so far is: 4 deep contradictions
imply 14 surface contradictions As the 14 mature,
synchronize and synergize the Center may loosen the grip
on the Periphery in one conscious, enlightened act (de
Gaulle) or see the Empire dissolve, slowly (UK) or
quickly (the Soviet Union). USA, the choice is yours.
But the USA now behaves like a wounded elephant,
lashing out in all directions. This is the boiling stage
of demoralization, with emotions impeding rational
thinking about is and ought, to be followed by a frozen
stage, a "let go", more like the Soviet Union, or
Clinton. Demoralization is oscillating before it
stabilizes. Like individual pathologies, healing is
related to the ability to come on top of the pathology
rather than the other way round. Like now, with the USA
driven by a conflict mainly of its own making.
The model above can now be expanded: [4]
implies [14] implies Demoralization implies
-[4] implies -[14] The 4 deep lead to 14
surface contradictions and demoralization which leads to
a let go of Empire and the dissolution of the 14.
However: the 4 may have deeper roots. Thus, where does
the inequity come from? From an unfettered capitalism so
inequitable that it needs some military protection. But
where does capitalism come from? And all that violence?
The cultural superiority complex with missionary right
and duty, and no duty to understand other cultures, may
be related to the sense of exceptionalism as God's Chosen
People and Country. But where does that idea come from?
And so on and so forth. The 4 defining the US Empire are
not uncaused, not unconditioned. But the focus here is on
their removal and not on removing even deeper, but very
evasive causes. This can happen through negative feedback
loops via waning faith in the viability of the Empire as
a system, in other words demoralization.
The 14 may have other roots. The economic
contradictions come from capitalism; the USA was violent
before the US Empire; some EU members may hate the US
Empire because it stands in the way of their own
ambitions; the same applies to competitive cultures such
as an Islam that wants an expanding dar-al-Islam, the
abode of Islam, as successor to the battlefield, the
dar-al-harb. But the world is better off under USA than
under EU or Islam, some say.
There is some truth to all of that. But the problem is
not only the US share of the world capitalist pie but how
it implies killing, domination and alienation. This has
to decline, fall and go, while paying attention to all
the other contradictions.
There will be class, generation, gender, nation
struggle also without the US Empire. True, but today that
is the major problem.
The 14 may strengthen the resolve to maintain the 4.
In the beginning, and one at the time, yes. Cosmetics may
be applied, bland compromises entered, people
articulating the contradictions silenced, ridiculed,
persecuted, killed. It is the synergy of several
contradictions that leads to demoralization and ultimate
decline. Contradictions between dominant and dominated
nations within a country tend to bounce back and find new
outlets. The dominated face brutal force but not nagging
doubts about viability. Their national home is a dream
untested by contradictions whereas the empire has been
tested and found nonviable at any speed.
Demoralization may not negate the 4. What we are
talking about is decreasing faith in the viability; even
decreasing faith in the legitimacy, of the Empire, with
boiling anger at first, then a frozen let go, with the
possibility of an autonomous let go. Either the Center
deliberately looses the grip, or the Periphery slips out
its clammy, feeble claws. Either way, decline and
fall.
However, after a phase of demoralization a new
political class may decide not to let go but just the
contrary, to strengthen the grip, like the USA is trying
right now. Given the obvious, the impermanence of
everything, this will only postpone the inevitable.
Negating the 4 may not negate the 14. This is
certainly more true than untrue. As explored below, we
may even talk about an objective contradiction having
lost, or even crushed, its subject in search of a new
subject. There are many other roots for many of the
contradictions. That one contradiction (syndrome) may
conceal another, the latter blossoming when the former is
wilting, is clear. But that daoist insight will not stop
contradictions from maturing. As to the US Empire, there
is light at the end of a long and twisting tunnel. But
after that tunnel there are new tunnels.
8. On
contradictions in general
The concept itself harbors contradictions in the sense
of tensions among meanings. The common factor seems to be
a whole, a holon, a system, with at least two forces
operating. The tension is between the forces. There is no
assumption of only two forces, nor that they are exactly
opposite, nor that they are of the same size. Newton's
Third Law is written that way, expressing a
contradiction. But that is a special case and should not
distort our ideas of social systems. We need a more
general discourse.
Before two or more forces let us explore the cases of
0 or 1.
Even with the vagueness of "force" it is not
unreasonable to attribute the property "dead" to a system
with no force, no movement, tendency, inclination. The
objection may be that much happens to a buried corpse:
"to" yes, but not "in". The forces are exogenous to the
system, not endogenous, like in a live organism.
Introduce one force, like running. The body spends
energy. And the counterforce is not slow in announcing
itself as fatigue, trying to change a motion into a
non-motion referred to as "rest". The mechanical analogue
brings up the idea of R, a dynamically changing resultant
force that reflects magnitude and direction of all
forces. The system will move or rest with the resultant.
R>0 means move, R=0 means equilibrium, R<0 means
rest deficit.
Is a force always accompanied by a counterforce? Is
there always a reactio with an actio? And in systems with
foresight, could there even be a proactio for any
expected actio? And a pro-proactio? I find this a very
useful an axiom in the analysis of social and personal
systems. But I see no reason to assume that reactio and
proactio are necessarily opposed. They could also be
aligned with actio and, at least to start with, reinforce
actio.
The idea of force-counterforce twins might lead us to
an even number of forces as they come in pairs. We do not
say that one is producing or generating the other since
that leads to an infinite number. Rather, we assume
synchronicity; they are "co-arising" as buddhist
epistemology will have it rather than one force
generating the next, generating the next, etc. And there
is no reason to land on an even number. Another metaphor
might be a bundle of forces somehow accounting for the
tensions in the system.
Let us move from general talk about "systems" and
"forces" to more specific social and personal systems. In
the conceptual neighborhood is the idea of "conflict" as
tension in goal-seeking systems because of
incompatibility between the goals. Goals are then
associated with life even when attributed metaphorically
to non-life as in "mountains striving upward". If
incompatible goals are in the same system we have a
dilemma, if in different systems we have a dispute. A
goal-holder conscious of the goal is an actor, if not
conscious a party. And that brings in the major
distinction between subjective and objective
contradictions.
A subjective contradiction passes through and is
reflected by the human brain; as thought/consciousness,
as speech/articulation as action/mobilization. But not
necessarily in that order, intellectualized like a
philosopher who first reflects, then writes and then -
maybe does nothing. We could just as well assume the
opposite order, the actor mobilizing for action out of
old habit, then saying what he feels he thinks and
thinking what he feels. Or any other sequence. But sooner
or later there is consciousness.
With two goals we get two goal-seeking forces, A and
B, and three possibilities for the resultant: R=A (A
wins), R=B (B wins) or R=0, an in-between equilibrium,
also known as a compromise.
At that point the mechanical analogy breaks down. The
three cases do not exhaust the possibilities. Moreover,
they do not eliminate the contradiction. A or B wins does
not mean that the dissatisfied loser no longer has the
same or some other goal incompatible with the winner's
goal. The contradiction is still there, under the lid of
the boiling cauldron of a defeat. And a compromise may
leave both of them semi-dissatisfied. If we use the term
"sharp" to describe the contradiction as it was, "blunt"
may apply to a compromise. But how do we transcend the
contradiction?
Since the three possibilities exhaust the logic of
opposing forces within a system, the answer is "by
changing the system". This is what Gorbachev faced in the
contradiction between the Soviet Empire and the social
forces wanting basic change in the DDR: he let the DDR
go. The contradiction now being between people and party
elites in the DDR, the latter then yielded to West
Germany, BRD, eventually to be absorbed by them. As a
result the Soviet Empire declined and fell and BRD
absorbed DDR. The contradiction is still there, but finds
other articulations.
And this is what Gorbachev's successors never managed
to do with Chechnya. All they could do was to prevent
them from winning, not to transcend the contradiction.
For that to happen they would have to let Chechnya go,
which will happen sooner or later anyhow.
For the contradiction to be transcended, and the
tension to be released, system change is needed, and more
so the deeper the contradiction is in the system. An
empire is not changed by suppressing, winning, over some
party or even actor; that only makes the empire more
imperial. An empire is changed by becoming less imperial.
And that is also known as a decline from the empire's
point of view. At the end of that road is its fall.
The stages in the contradiction life-cycle can be
summarized:
[0] Objective contradiction independent of
consciousness
[1] Consciousness-formation through THOUGHT
(intrasubjective)
[2] Articulation through SPEECH
(intersubjective)
[3] Mobilization through ACTION (private
and/or public)
[4] Struggle among mobilized actors
- violent or nonviolent
- quick or slow
- without or with outside parties mediating
- with less or more polarization = decoupling
[5] Outcomes of struggle
[a] prevalence or compromise - back
to [0]-[4]
[b] transcendence = a new reality
- negative transcendence under a new actor
- positive transcendence as new coupling
Through the [1]-[2]-[3]
sequence a party becomes an actor pursuing goals by more
or less adequate tactics chosen from [4].
[5a] does not end the lifecycle of a
contradiction, only a lid on it or a blunting of it, as
has been argued above.
[5b], transcendence, is the end of that
contradiction lifecycle. This does not mean the end/death
of the system as it may harbor other contradictions at
various lifecycle stages.
Transcendence, going beyond, is the creation of a new
reality: -negative transcendence, neither-nor; goals not
achieved -positive transcendence, both-and; goals
achieved, with a twist.
Take the Ecuador-Peru conflict over where to draw the
border in a contested 500km2 zone up in the Andes, with
three wars to settle the issue. Military victory for one
of them, annexing the zone to their national territory,
is "prevalence". Drawing a border, for instance along a
ceasefire line, is "compromise". Negative transcendence
could be to give the zone to the UN or the OEA, creating
a new social reality. And positive transcendence could be
a binational zone, owning it together, with the twist
that neither country has monopoly. A new reality. And
both new realities, systems, would in turn produce their
own contradictions.
Time has then come to explore the problematic
relations between objective and subjective
contradictions.
A social system comes with differences between
categories-- like genders, generations, races, classes,
nations, territories-- which then become relations in an
interaction system; which then become fault-lines,
usually because the interaction is on unequal terms;
which then may lead to polarization and a structure of
discrimination accompanied by a culture of prejudice. All
known societies harbor more or less of these inequalities
and inequities.
An empire uses such structures and cultures as
building blocks, and can be seen as a two (or multi-)tier
system linking domestic and global faultlines. There is a
Center and a Periphery in the global system of countries.
Inside the Center, and inside the Periphery, there is
also a center and a periphery. All three systems may be
based on the logic of quadruple inequity (for
killers-killed sometimes substitute the softer
guards-prisoners).
The linchpin in the system is the harmony between the
center in the Center and the center in the Periphery. The
USA is right now (Summer 2003) trying to construct an
Iraqi center in harmony of interest with the USA
state/corporate center. The Iraqi center must do the four
jobs locally and deliver the fruits of unequal exchange
such as economic value, wanted terrorists, obedience,
conditioning to the center in the (USA/UK) Center,
keeping a commission. They are rewarded with material
living standard at a US elite level.
What has just been described is a simple empire
linking three systems of unequal exchange, two domestic
and one global. The US empire is complex; being a world
hegemon no domestic system is entirely delinked from that
empire. The EU empire links 15 (soon 25) Center countries
to 100+ Periphery countries, but softly so.
There are also other divisions than the faultlines in
domestic and global society, like among political parties
in more or less democratic societies, and groups of
countries in an undemocratic global system. Social
movements, the subjective contradictions, more or less
conscious, articulated and mobilized across some
primordial or newly created dividing lines, prepolarize
the system, and are ready for [4], struggle. But
for what?
Ideally for the objective contradiction, with an
unresolved issue at the center which then has to become
the cause of the movement. And that gives rise to basic
problem of adequacy in the coupling between subjective
and objective contradictions, between the causes and the
issues. Both are parts of social reality. But the
movements may have an inadequate consciousness and cut
the issues wrongly. And the issue may be an orphan,
waiting to be picked up by a movement with adequate
consciousness. There may be a contradiction between
movement contradiction and issue contradiction. And the
result is bad, derailed politics.
Thus, the subjective contradiction in Myanmar/Burma
between the autocratic military government SLORC and the
pro-democracy movement headed by a woman, identified with
one nation in a multi-national society, one upper/middle
class in a very poor society, married to a Westerner in a
country developing its own identity, may be inadequate
for the objective contradictions of the country. From a
Western point of view the basic contradictions are
autocracy vs (Western) democracy and closure vs openness
of the country to economic and cultural penetration. The
subjective contradiction is adequate for those issues.
But there are other issues. Inadequacy may derail the
process. The objective and the subjective must somehow
mirror each other.
Thus, Gandhi had literally speaking to divest himself
of his Westernness and his high caste paraphernalia,
become very Hindu and share the living conditions of the
lower castes and untouchables before he could lead Indian
masses toward freedom and democracy. The leader of Free
India, however, Jawaharlal Nehru, was very Western, very
high caste, very secular and steered India exactly in
that direction. Gandhi wanted an India based on the
"oceanic circles" of autonomous, self-reliant villages;
Nehru a modern, secular, industrial, socialist India. The
subjective matters.
Liberals tend to study the subjective movements and
marxists the objective issues. The argument here is for
both-and, and more particularly for the contradiction
between the two contradictions.
An example from Norway: the objective contradiction a
century ago between the "well conditioned" and the
majority "populace", in steep livelihood gradients, and
the subjective contradictions in the party system. The
populace lived on farming, fishing, hunting, and as
employees; the well conditioned from fortune, as
employers or self-employed. There were grey zones. The
Labor Party, through an act of political genius, created
an alliance of farmers, fishermen and industrial workers,
very adequately posited against the well conditioned.
They won the elections, prevailed for two generations,
and created a new social reality, the welfare state.
That society had its own objective contradictions,
positing a minority of
aged-women-frail/handicapped-foreign workers against the
rest. Uncarried by adequate subjective contradictions the
objective contradiction deepens in the midst of plenty.
The Labor Party was totally inadequate. And the issue
remains unsolved.
Movements against the US Empire: social reality is
complex. Only when cause and issue coincide will the
movements be adequate.
©
TFF & the author 2004
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
|