The Forum > Article Comments > Global neo-imperial fantasies come unstuck > Comments
Global neo-imperial fantasies come unstuck : Comments
By Peter McMahon, published 1/11/2005Peter McMahon argues the Neo-con attempt at global imperialism is coming unstuck because the world is too complex.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
-
- All
Posted by Bruce, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 4:18:33 PM
| |
I love a good bash imperialism, and evil corporations rant as much as the next soft lefty.
But this is just over the top irrational tripe. Instead of looking for evil empires and grand schemes, 'my' opinion (yes opinion) is that we are better served looking at history through the prism of the cumulative self interest and forces that shape(d) it. Thats my five cents. James Posted by Zephyrus, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 6:39:09 PM
| |
Its quite fascinating how paranoid some people can be. The international neo-con world takeover?.(Insert laugh here)
Some things you obviously are unaware of 1. Walmart is a private company and has nothing to do with your paranoid fantasies about George Bush. Its like saying Woolworths is a part of John Howards plan for world domination. 2. George Bush didn't cause the Tsunami or other climatic changes. Global warming may actually be a natural occurrence. (We had an ice age before human habitation!) 3. Investment of money in the Iraq war did not cause the slow response in News Orleans. (Try lack of co-ordination between government agencies as a non-paranoid starter) 4. You are the perfect example of why some university faculties need a kick in the arse. They breed extreme Left wing ideologues who have not been required to produce anything vaguely balanced for a long time. 5. If the US stayed out of International Politics you,like me would currently be dead. Posted by Atman, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 8:46:26 PM
| |
Oh good stuff, neo con conspiracy, oil running out (yes but not for a few more decades) and market forces will dictate next technology), global warming (is it proven man contributes significantly to this? and just why is Mars’s polar Caps retreating?)
Forget all the above because the problem with this article is there is no SOLUTIONS offered. Many people bemoan the fact of the world going to hell but I rarely see practical solutions offered. Oil running out? How do we handle? Global warming – if (big if) man is a significant contributor how to feasibly deal with it. Plans like Kyoto have not worked, what next? And not something that stalls economies and creates poverty and probably makes the problem worse. And lets hope that developing countries see this global warming as another excuse for the West to supply “cheap” alternatives. Another form of imperialism? And what is with the whole imperialism thing. If that means that the “West” is trying to get democracy, freedom and “capitalism” installed in places that might resist. Well this western system seems to have worked. Just why are free democracies the most powerful nations over the last few centuries? And do not give me the colonial exploitation crap. Africa lost most of the colonial power influence at the same time as Asia. Why is Asia booming and Africa not? And to the future. Cannot change history. If there is something better, please tell us. People continually hear “the sky is falling” but what is the answer. I should sign this Frustrated rather than Big Fish. Posted by The Big Fish, Tuesday, 1 November 2005 8:56:05 PM
| |
The argument that it is easy throw the yoke of guilt on either the religious right or the neocons is too populist and has too little factual reasoning behind it. There are a diverse group of interests involved as in any politically-sustained global fallout, and we too often spill the blame on the side we most like to oppose, without seeing the complete picture.
Posted by bigwig, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 5:37:39 AM
| |
The utopia builders, a la McMahon, have set up their boutiques in the global market to sell their soddy product. After the collapse of the historically misplaced Communist utopia, the Left's sorcerer's apprentices are now concocting their new mantric utopia of global governance, to take the place of the displaced one.
Two fundamental contradictions haunt your argument and ultimately bury the phantoms of the Neo-cons and of neo-imperialism that you raised. Your own chronology debunks your argument. You state that "in the 1970s a new global system was emerging. Your phantoms however, the Neo-cons were only in power in 2000. By this time the system was already robust and on its course. The cons were not fabricating a new version of it, but were merely its new managers. And in the aftermath of 9/11 they were also trying to protect it. That was the reason why they went to war, not oil. The second fundamental flaw is, that while you claim that "human experiences are too diverse to bend to the logic... of one global market", your panacea to neo-imperialism is global governance. At the same time you concede that such governance would have "to bend to the logic of...one global market. But how will you place such governance upon such "diverse', non- homogeneous societies? Didn't the recent failure of the EU to unite, which is homogeneous, teach you anything? Your remedy is intellectually unhinged and cannot be taken seriously. All you accomplish is to replace the phantoms of the Cons with your greater phantom of global governance. With such intellectual credentials, Plato would never allow you to enter his Academy. Posted by Themistocles, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 10:52:12 AM
| |
One more thing. All successful economic systems, and indeed, economically healthy households, and even ( must I say it? )Marx's surplus value, are based on "economic efficiency", which you so unwisely disdain and disparage. Have you forgotten that the Soviet Union collapsed as a result of its economic inefficiency?
Posted by Themistocles, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 11:16:58 AM
| |
"Meanwhile, Al-Quaida is still operating and the Taliban are still around in Afghanistan."
Yeah and we should never have spent billions on the Cold War because the communists are still around, eh peter. (Note that using the term 'imperialist', in an economic sense is a communist invention) My favorite part of this paranoid rant comes in the last 2 paragraphs... "Ultimately, the British-led global system fell apart due to its inability to manage social and economic diversity - the socio-political world was just too complex. The Neo-con attempt is failing because of both social and environmental reasons - the real world is just too complex." And then "But the Neo-cons were right about one thing - we all live in one global system now, and we need global-scale governance. The question, then, is whether we return to ideas of a global order run by nation states, or move on to a new kind of global governance system." I thought the world was too complex for that? Posted by Alan Grey, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 1:12:29 PM
| |
Themistocles, I think it's time to removing that log from your own eye ....
First your second 'contradiction': the EU didn't rcently fail "to unite" - a small majority voted against an updated version of its constitution. Did Australia fail "to unite" when it rejected the republican question? This is what happens when free people are given a choice, you know, at 'governance', they get to choose the outcome. Your first 'contradiction' is similarly blighted. Yes, a new global economy was on its way starting in the 70s. McMahon is simply pointing out the irrefutable fact that the neo-cons used the unrivalled power of the US that resulted to further their pax americana agenda. If you don't believe me, go read it for yourself in their own words: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf This was written in 2000 and later a lot of these guys ended up on Bushes payrole. BTW, if you're still not convinced, here is the 2001 US national security strategy: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf Notice the similarities? These guys didn't go to war with Iraq because of 9/11 - 9/11 was an execuse to enact their pre-existing agenda. These guys invaded Iraq to further their own strategic interests. Nothing more, nothing less. Posted by sjk, Wednesday, 2 November 2005 8:22:43 PM
| |
Someone mentioned why there are no solutions. Well, I have a few. But, I need to address a question about global governing first.
Do we really need global governing? Isn't that placing too much power in the hands of one? And, if we are going to give in to global governing, shouldn't the "global governer" be put in that position by the people and not by force of "his" own power? At any rate, that's just my two cents. Here are some solutions I've come up with, though I don't think this should be the end of the list. 1. We are already moving toward hybrid vehicles. More come out every year. We need to keep this up until we can do away with gas-using vehicles all-together. Out of 100% of our consumption of the world's petrolium, 95% of that consumption comes from oil and gas in our vehicles. The 5% is for everything else we use like plastic. (Only 5% for all that stuff! Imagine if we had that other 95% to play with or, dare I say, to not even use and/or use sparingly) 2. Education should be free - all education. If education is so important, why does it cost so much to attain it? If it is so important that we are education (and it IS very important) and if it is imperitive to a country to have as many educated people as possible, shouldn't education be free so that as many people can attain it as possible? Knowledge should not be a market product. The states make enough money in other ways. There's a couple of solutions to the world's problem for ya. There's plenty more that need to be thought of. www.fictionfixation.com Posted by Fiction Fanatic, Tuesday, 8 November 2005 12:20:31 AM
|
I would think the fundamentalist religious believers are the basis for many of these issues just as they are in Iran, were in Iraq/Afganistan, and historically in Rome.
When you get right down to it religious bigots are all cut from the same cloth be they Muslim or Christian - some are just a bit smoother than others.