After the Empire- Emmanual Todd- book discussion

[RainDog]

Elad said that editorials seemed like a fitting place for a discussion of this book, as well as another, so I'm posting here to start the book discussion thread.

I'll post some compiled links from the previous thread.

I hope everyone has had time to read up to the first chapter or so.

INTRO exerpt from AFTER THE EMPIRE:

"...it must be said that the events of the past year have largely confirmed the book's main idea as well as its general prognosis concerning America's altered relation to the rest of the world. One could even say that the process outlined in the book has accelerated, as though the Bush administration were methodically pursuing a program to undermine the legitimacy of the United States abroad and destroy the American strategic system. The United States, which until very recently played an important role in building international order, appears more and more clearly to be contributing to disorder throughout the world.

The war against Iraq represents a decisive stage in this recent transformation. After the Empire's thesis about the significance of America's "theatrical micromilitarism" was all too well illustrated by the aggressive preemptive strike of the world's leading military power against a military midget---an underdeveloped country of twenty-four million inhabitants exhausted by a decade-long economic embargo. The theatrical media coverage of this war, including the U.S. military's close surveillance of how the war was "playing" back home and around the world, must not blind us to a fundamental reality: the size of the opponent chosen by the United States is the true indicator of its current power. Attacking the weak is hardly a convincing proof of one's own strength. On the contrary, and in direct confirmation of the central thesis of this book, the United States is pretending to remain the world's indispenable superpower by attacking insignificant adversaries. But this America-- a militaristic, agitated, uncertain, anxious country projecting its own disorder around the globe-- is hardly the "indespensable nation" it claims to be and is certainly not what the rest of the world really needs now.

...The war aggravated the global economic crisis that has been mismanaged by the world's central power. The American economy itself is increasingly perceived as an unfathomable mystery. One no longer has any clear idea which U.S. companies are totally genuine. One no longer knows how this economy works or what effect interest rates approaching zero will have on its various components. The economic anxiety among America's ruling class is almost palpable. Daily changes in the level of the dollar are followed nervously in the press. No one is sure if the American economy will be able to aborb the shock of the war in Iraq that, even though small in strictly military terms, is proving to be a serious economic burden since the "allies" no longer want to pay a share of the costs as they did during the first Gulf War. The domestic and foreign deficits of the United States are skyrocketing. Indeed leaders around the world are wondering more and more if the central regulating power of the world economy is not heading toward a sheer abandonment of the basic rules of capitalist reasoning.

[RainDog]

1. links and some notes from the previous thread

Todd Bio:

http://dominionpaper.ca/features/2003/the_conceited_empire.html

His bio says "His research examines the rise and fall of peoples and cultures over the course of thousands of years."


this article from Foreign Policy agrees with Todd's thesis:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2002/wallerstein.html

(tho Teryang has some counterarguments about the article here, in the original thread on the book)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum
=103&topic_id=24952#24993

BBC debate with Emmanuel Todd on American Empire:

Laurie Taylor meets three social scientists who have each produced a book exploring the nature and extent of the power of the United States.  Three very different books: Incoherent Empire by Michael Mann, the forth-coming After the Empire by Emmanuel Todd and Empire Lite by Michael Ignatieff.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/thinkingallowed.shtml

Another excellent analysis on related themes (from 12/02)

http://www.rupe-india.org/34/behind.html

Linked to the above is a further, strategic, dimension to the US aggressive designs. Not only is the US increasingly dependent on West Asian oil for its own consumption; its capture of West Asian oil is also intended to secure its supremacy among imperialist powers.

"The global crisis of overproduction is showing up the underlying weakness of the US real economy, as a result of which US trade and budget deficits are galloping. The euro now poses a credible alternative to the status of the dollar as the global reserve currency, threatening the US’s crucial ability to fund its deficits by soaking up the world’s savings. The US anticipates that the capture of Iraq, and whatever else it has in store for the region, will directly benefit its corporations (oil, arms, engineering, financial) even as it shuts out the corporations from other imperialist countries. Further, it intends to prevent the bulk of petroleum trade being conducted in euros, and thus maintain the dollar’s supremacy. In a broader sense, it believes that such a re-assertion of its supremacy (in military terms and in control of strategic resources) will prevent the emergence of any serious imperialist challenger such as the EU."

http://www.rupe-india.org/34/military.html

"The US defence secretary has announced that the US is ready and willing to fight more than one “major theatre conflict” at a time. As the US military offensive unfolds in Iraq, in the rest of west Asia, in Colombia, in Venezuela, and in so many other lands, that claim will be put to the test.
The US military juggernaut is still geared to knocking down targets that stand in place, but has a poor record against guerrilla resistance or mass upsurges. As the US forces get bogged down in struggles with no clear conclusion or exit, the calculations of the US’s present offensive drive may get unhinged.

For one, the other imperialist powers, now spectators on the sidelines, may take advantage of the US’s difficulties to obtain footholds in the very regions for which the US is contending. Already the European Union (pressed by France, whose TotalFinaElf is one of the world’s five largest oil corporations) has advanced a proposal regarding the Palestinian question that is distinct from the US plan, much to the irritation of the US. Such intervention may grow as the turmoil intensifies. While these rival powers are out to advance their own imperialist interests, the sharpening of their tussles with the US will help those facing the immediate brunt of the US attack."


Here's a fellow who thinks Todd is nuts:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/023113102X/qid=1071545252/sr=1
-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-1786164-6486452?v=glance&s=books

Scroll down to Gaetan Lion review, there is only one. You can tell he really hates the idea the neocon reality isn't.

bemildren says:

I stopped paying close attention to Gaetan when he said that Adam Smith "proved" mercantilism was wrong.Smith proved nothing, he advanced a theory, and he argued to support it. In physics at least they know that experience is the measure of a theory. In economics its seem to be less empirical. The truth is Capitalism is not the writ of God, it's quite arbitrary, and you
can't even get the acolytes of the Capitalist shrine to agree on exactly what it means. His "argument" is a hodge-podge of shibboleths.

Gaetan has a very superficial view of Middle Eastern culture, and, one would presume, of Islam. The equivalent would be to assume that Jimmy Swaggart or the Aryan Nations are representative of American Culture. There are liberal
and humanist issues to be dealt with in Middle Eastern culture, and in our own culture, but it seems clear to me that a good deal that is pernicious in the Middle East and in the second and third World generally is a result of Western meddling and interference; and the point of view of Gaetan and the neocons is still stuck in colonialist mode, they still want to pretend we
are bringing civilization to the benighted natives. This flys in the face of the fact that we learned civilization from them, not the other way around, and a lot of other facts too. This is not to say that there is nothing good in Western culture, but rather that hubris is always a mistake.

[RainDog]

2. Soros on the open society- Feb 97

I thought this article was interesting and pertinent to this book discussion, tho Soros covers a lot of different ground. However, the principles (ahem) guiding current economic and foreign policy are discussed in the article-

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97feb/capital/capital.htm


What kind of society do we want? "Let the free market decide!" is the often-heard response. That response, a prominent capitalist argues, undermines the very values on which open and democratic societies depend.
by George Soros

N The Philosophy of History, Hegel discerned a disturbing historical pattern -- the crack and fall of civilizations owing to a morbid intensification of their own first principles. Although I have made a fortune in the financial markets, I now fear that the untrammeled intensification of laissez-faire capitalism and the spread of market values into all areas of life is endangering our open and democratic society. The main enemy of the open society, I believe, is no longer the communist but the capitalist threat.

The term "open society" was coined by Henri Bergson, in his book The Two Sources of Morality and Religion (1932), and given greater currency by the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945). Popper showed that totalitarian ideologies like communism and Nazism have a common element: they claim to be in possession of the ultimate truth. Since the ultimate truth is beyond the reach of humankind, these ideologies have to resort to oppression in order to impose their vision on society. Popper juxtaposed with these totalitarian ideologies another view of society, which recognizes that nobody has a monopoly on the truth; different people have different views and different interests, and there is a need for institutions that allow them to live together in peace. These institutions protect the rights of citizens and ensure freedom of choice and freedom of speech. Popper called this form of social organization the "open society." Totalitarian ideologies were its enemies.

Written during the Second World War, The Open Society and Its Enemies explained what the Western democracies stood for and fought for. The explanation was highly abstract and philosophical, and the term "open society" never gained wide recognition. Nevertheless, Popper's analysis was penetrating, and when I read it as a student in the late 1940s, having experienced at first hand both Nazi and Communist rule in Hungary, it struck me with the force of revelation.

[glitch]

3. Aack! Not yet but I'll get a chance to do some reading tonight

With any luck I'll have something to post tomorrow.

[RainDog]

4. quotes from intro- and questions

Introduction:

from p 19-

..."the passage of the United States into a new oligarchical stage cancels any application of the Doyle law concerning the inevitable peaceful consequences of the spread of liberal democracy. We can well imagine the possibility of aggressive behavior on the part of a poorly supervised ruling class, as well as a more adventurous military policy. In truth, if the hypothesis of an America tending toward oligarchy permits us to limit the validity of the Doyle law, it also keeps us from denying or doubting the empirical reality of an aggressive America. We cannot even rule out the strategic hypothesis of American aggression toward other democracies, new or old."

(Perle's manifesto calls for the U.S. to treat France as a hostile nation...Doyle's Law obviously doesn't apply to neocons, therefore, can it be said that neocons are not part of the philosophical foundations of America as a liberal democracy?)

Todd's explantory model in summary: (p 20)

"at the very moment when the world is discovering democracy (based upon Todd's look at literacy and birth rates to determine democracies) and learning to get along without the United States, the United States is beginning to lose its democratic characteristics and is discovering that it cannot get along without the rest of the world."

Chapter 1: The Myth of Universal Terrorism

While I can appreciate Todd's view of greater democracy based upon what amounts of modernization (falling birth rates and increasing literacy), I have a hard time being so optimistic that such things are so deterministic.

Maybe because I look at a place like Afghanistan. I heard Christiane Amapour note that something like 80% of the population of that country is illiterate. The mortality rates for children are like something out of the medieval era of western Europe. Women, under the Taliban, were persecuted if it was known that they were getting an education.

Doesn't the mere existence of such a problem put additional pressures on the idea of an emerging democracy?

Todd says that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia will be problems for another 20 years, as the two nations continue to undergo "psychological dislocation" as they modernize.

Todd also notes that at these "dislocated" times in any people's history, there is a big threat of things like The Terror which sorted out the initial phase of The French Revolution, or The Civil War, which sorted out the issue of slaveholding in one portion of the United States.

It's worth noting, to me, that Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are all closely connected to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

Look what happened to Iran when the Shah was tossed out...Iran is still under the rule of the Ayatollahs, even though Iran was a relatively literate nation...but the Ayatollah was their "psychological dislocation" reaction to the Shah's rush to modernity (which, of course, was spurred by our support of him and our desire to have a base in the region in opposition to the USSR.)

Granted, students in Iran today are calling for reforms. But Iran was kept occupied with Iraq for much of the time the ayatollahs were establishing themselves.

Todd's response is to leave every nation alone to figure out these things for themselves.

This makes sense to me, but is it possible...once "history" has started--for instance, our intervention to install the Shah and get rid of Mossedegagh, for instance..

[RainDog]

5. link to interview with Todd

http://www.rwevans.co.uk/~r/rwevans/wevansnet04/item0042A.htm

(the link above is to a blog which posts the interview)

Extract from Prospect, June 2003

Interview with Emmanuel Todd, by Michael Monninger

Many French intellectuals see their country as leading the challenge to US power.  Few are as outspoken as Emmanuel Todd, the author of "Apres l'Empire", a best-seller prophesying the decline of America.

* Michael Monninger writes from Paris for "Die Zeit", in which a longer view of this article first appeared.

Emmanuel Todd   Actually, I like the US a great deal.  Until recently, it was the most important factor in maintaining international order.  But now it is a factor for instability.  The industrial core of the US has been hollowed out.  The American trade deficit amounts to $435bn a year - the country needs £1.5bn a day in foreign capital.  The US is no longer self-sufficient.  Europe, with its strength in exports, is.

Monninger  But the US is the undisputed global power...

Emmanuel Todd   The US was the undisputed victor of the 20th century Now it has difficulty in recognising its own dependence.  Hitherto, the Europeans envied the US its standard of living and technological power.  This generated a certain modesty. Nowadays, the US leads only in military terms.  In most spheres the Europeans have overtaken it.

Emmanuel Todd   Europe still does not have a common foreign policy.  Until now it has always been in America's retinue.   Now the Germans have reclaimed their foreign policy, and one cannot overestimate the strategic and symbolic dimensions of this.  In conjunction with France, there is a core of political renewal independent of the US, and with mass popular support.  Spain, Britain, Italy and the east Europeans represent the "old" Europe, since they have not yet achieved autonomy.

Monninger  What about the war on terror?

Emmanuel Todd  The omnipresence of terrorism is a powerful myth, thanks to which the US has assumed the right to crusade around the world, whether in the Philippines. the Yemen or Iraq.  The US wants to keep the world on tenterhooks by means of this permanent sense of war.  But military methods don't help, in the fight against terrorism.  Only police and secret service work can help.  The terrorist threat could have been minimised in this way since 9/11, but the collective psychosis of the Americans did not allow that.

[bemildred]

6. I've just been reading through your links.

The Wallerstein piece and teryang's discussion I like the best.
I've been through the Todd book once, I'll get up my notes on pp1-58
a bit later.

The core issue keeps popping up in various places, the inability
of military force to succeed as a political tool in aggressive
settings, it doesn't pay.

Todd gets into it again in the interview you put up:

The notion that sections of the globe can be controlled through
military might is passé, because it is unrealistic. You can destroy
regimes and bomb their infrastructure, as the Americans have done
in Afghanistan, but the populations -- including those in the
developing world -- have become educated and literate enough to
eliminate any possibility of re-colonization. The only power that
ultimately counts today is economic power.

[RainDog]

7. core issue

"The core issue keeps popping up in various places, the inability
of military force to succeed as a political tool in aggressive
settings, it doesn't pay."

--however, it seems that those who are in charge of foreign and military policy don't believe this, or they refuse to acknowledge this issue because-

1. it would become unarguable for any military intervention for the purpose of extracting natural resources from another nation (i.e. our military as the muscle for pirates, basically.)

2. some conservatives refuse to accept the lessons of Vietnam-- and this is the first among many--that when you fight on another nation's soil, even if you have greater military might, you cannot defeat a guerilla army with might.

3. The Republicans would have nothing to use to scare the American people into voting for them.

4. If this were to become the final judgment of the failure of war in the attempt to constrain terrorism, the press, politicians in both parties, and the American people would have to admit they have been complicit in what is, at its core, war crimes in the invasion of Iraq.

(actually, I think this is already the case that could be stated based upon the administration's lies and the press's CONTINUED complicity in supporting those lies so that yet another day passes in which blood lust is considered sound foreign policy.)

5. As Todd notes, the US would have to be one democracy among equals and, of course, that gets back to the issue of an open society and the idea that no one has a lock on the right answers. This idea is untenable for American fundamentalist extremists, a huge voting bloc for the Republicans. This is also untenable for the oil-y-garchy which is enshrining economic inequity in America as a patriotic value...

No American politician will address these issues.

The Republicans will especially not address these issues because they basically void the Republican raison d'etre.

[bemildred]

8. Actually, some will. E.g. Kucinich.

But they are "unelectable". The basic anti-militaristic
dialog has been sitting there since Eisenhower's last
State of the Union, and I've seen it many times from various
politicians over the years.

The present ruling class will have to be discredited,
then we may seen them thrown out. I expect an economic blowout
of indeterminate proportions at this point. The new book by
Perle is telling on this point, nothing that has happened has
caused them to reconsider their basic assumptions at all. One
can predict the claims of internal sabotage that will crop up
when the whole house of cards collapses.

[RainDog]

11. It's astonishing, isn't it?

I am also amazed that Perle and Frum and their buddies continue, as though they have not already been TOTALLY DISCREDITED TWICE NOW when their foreign policy agenda is implemented.

As is widely known, but rarely discussed, Poppy also used them as "Team B" --and they, like now, inflated the nature of any threat to the United States, claiming things which the CIA could not support...that the economic and thus military might of the Soviet Union was much greater than it actually was.

The CIA has also admitted that its estimates were high...and then Team B's estimates were EVEN HIGHER?!

This is exactly what happened, again, in the lead up and the lies involved in the invasion of Iraq.

And now Perle has the audacity to go for strike three-- at the expense of our national stability.

Where is the American press now? Why isn't Wolf Blitzer discussing this with all sorts of people? Why isn't this a banner running under the talking heads????

Isn't this an issue of such national import it is worthy of the town criers on Fox??

As far as the blow out-- I think it's the blow out which will cause their fall--they will not fall before then, because they still hold the levers of power.

Unless the moneyed forces like Soros and others can do the right thing and convince others in their situation that it is to their advantage to also do the right thing (i.e.-- the fallout for certain people will be less if they do not play the crony fiddle as the Titanic sinks)

And in terms of the economic/political blow out, what I wonder is what a person like me can do to not get stuck down in the bilge hold of the ship as our so-called leaders cause this disaster.

Also in terms of political blow out-- I really worry that, like the final gasp of the German Empire, factions in this country will continue to rally behind those who advocate these modern crusades, because, in rhetoric and belief, the idea of remaking the middle east to suit our purposes, backed by a fanantical Christian sect, is equivalent to the crusades.

[bemildred]

9. Notes

p2. I hadn't though of current US activities being a
"madman strategy", that was an interesting insight. It
also helps drum up business in one of our best export
sectors.

Compare this:

Russia, China, and Iran, three nations whose number one
priority is economic development, have only one strategic goal:
resist American provocations either by ignoring them or by
vocally campaigning for stability and world order"

With this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=114&topic_id=4197&mesg_id=4197

"Clouds of war are gathering. Right now, the most important things to do for China are:

1. Remain neutral between two military groups while insisting on an anti-war attitude.
2. Stock up in strategic reserves
3. Get ready for a short supply of oil
4. Strengthen armament power
5. Speed up economic integration with Japan, Hong Kong, Korea and Taiwan... "

p6. About Chomsky. Chomsky is a linguist, and what he does best
is deconstruct the political rhetoric coming out of the government.
He does not get the other political, economic, and military nuances
as well. (Just my opinion.)

p.12 Just a comment: we have a political oligarchy which, on the
one hand has dumbed down the American people, eviscerating the public
schools and obliterating the US craft skills base, in order to
maintain it's own dominance (I watched it happen after the VietNam
debacle, it was dumbfounding to me at the time.) and now it has
no faith in the US' ability to compete in the global market. Hence,
all this thrashing around. They don't WANT to do what is required
to compete, BECAUSE it will end their rule.

p.46
One could advance the hypothesis that individuals that have
been made conscious and free through literacy cannot be governed
indefinitely in authoritarian ways; or, what amounts to the same
thing, the practical costs of exerting authoritarian rule over a
critically aware population renders the society in which they live
economically uncompetitive.

This ties in with the previous note (p.12) and is also a core
issue. Modern technical states cannot be based on authoritarian
rule, encumbered minds cannot compete in the intellectual arena
that is central to modern economic success.

I just love that sentence anyway. :-)

[RainDog]

10. That's really, really smart of you

To make that link between what Todd said and what the Chinese guy wrote about their situation.

Juxtaposed, it just shouts out at you that what is happening at this time is pure craziness on the part of the U.S. (our collective psychosis...)

It's also important to note that the Chinese guy also said that, unfortunately for us, the American people, a very few powerful interests are taking us into war and, (by Todd's calcuations) economic ruin.)


----
I do think it's also interesting to note that Kevin Phillips, a conservative, is now out there talking, saying that the Bush League has hijacked the Republican Party, along with the bloc they have formed with fundamentalist extremists Christians who are, in fact and in act, totalitarians.

Then they have their neocon bloc to support Puppy's apocalyptic Christianity to pursue and foreign policy which will destroy our nation's credibility as a democracy.

And the crony capitalism of Bush, which is in opposition to honest conservative ideology.

There was also a guy who's running for the Republican nomination on c-span today who was saying the same things (tho, of course, the guy will get no press). But he, too, was saying that the people in power right now are NOT Republicans.

Some Freepers, etc. seem to be coming around to the idea that these people are not conservatives, too...although in their case, they are too limited in their ability to look at these people and choose to label them as the freeper enemy-- liberals.

However, they are not liberals.

So, what are they?

...anyway, a digression, but I do think it's important that Phillips and hopefully others, more and more, will give a voice to conservatism which will allow those who KNOW something is very wrong will have an acceptable outlet for them to oppose Bush (for those who cannot or will not admit that liberals are right about Bush.)

[bemildred]

13. Phillips is a very smart guy.

So, he sees the damage being done. Like Soros, he is not a real
democratic guy, but he does want competence, things have to work,
the trains have to run, not too many bums in the streets, cheap gas,
and so on. There is a growing list of conservatives that fall in that
category, and are starting to wake up to what they have been supporting.

Who was the Republican guy, and what was he running for?

The Republican party has a long and illustrious history, the "Party of Lincoln"
stuff is not bullshit, and these half-wit cunning crackers and ponzi-artists that
Bush has around him are just exploiting that for their own purile ends.

Barry Goldwater would absolutely have had a cow over some of the things
these bozos are up to. But he was a libertarian kind of guy in an anti-communist
sort of way.

[Zo Zig]

12. Some thoughts

Just some thoughts and notes.

From the standpoint of Todd's premise, it is a interesting approach to analyzing the current approach of the US policy. Literacy and birth control seem to be such a simplicities view in my estimation, when compared with other approaches. However, Todd's use of Fukayama's argument in particular is highly plausible. In addition the idea of democracies forming and evolving adds a more realistic foundation to the theories of multipolarity.

A simple summation of the situation from a realist view, it that the world moved from bi-polar balance of power with Russia and the US, to a stage of uni-polarity, with the US as the supersuper power. and is on the verge of a multi-polar system of power. The undetermined variable is that from a realist point of view, will the the balance be that of power, or threat, ala either Waltz or Walt theory of balance. It would appear that the theory of cooperation is forming according to a structural liberal definition among the Europeans, Asians, and Russia.(ns)

Todd's question is then, will the US continue to fight maintain hegemony and its standard of living. Or does it accept the paradox as Todd suggests implied in Doyle's law and Fukuamaya's conclusions that the US is just another democracy among many. Hence, a superpower that is useless, economically dependent, the world's glorious beggar. The current position of our strategic endeavors could suggest otherwise.

Preface: GWB and his neo-con helpers, "the grave diggers if the American Empire".
The would correctly explain this neo-con cabal that has taken over the DOD, and exported an old and improved type of military action that pasts for diplomacy on the worlds stage.
The thesis of theatrical micomilitarism- small weak actors make the best opponents. Was Vietnam war the catalysis or was it the notion of small winnable war as put forth by Kissenger. Does this lead in to the notion of the madman strategy, under a different guise? The original was based on a first strike nuclear, the present is a preventive strike based on the theatrical concept for the media and others to showcase a strength that is nonexistent, i.e. a video game.

Todd's premise is that the hegemony of the US is in decline, much as the same as the Russian's decline was masked by supposed show of military buildup as a sign of strength. The US is posturing in a similar manner. Todd's prediction were based on demographics for the USSR, for the US the decline has been ongoing for some time. Examples of the US decline have been noted by others and a few are highlighted:

1971- The German government refusal to by these dollars and thus support the increaseley overvalued dollar... led to the Aug 15, 1971 actions of the Nixon Administration to suspend the convertibility of the dollar into gold, of the Bretton Woods regime. Hegemonic stability was affected as was confidence, on e reason for this collapse was the continued monetary expansion in the US and abroad another were the the nature of of US domestic politics. (snip from Keohane "After Hegemony" p 207, and Gilpin "The Political Economy..." pgs-149.)

1973- Yom Kippuer War, October- oil prices quadrupled due to OPEC wiling to take greater risk. (Keohane "After Hegemony" p 204) "Prior to everyone underestimated the bargaining power of oil produces, case of power politics being replaced by functional patterns of interactions. especially the distribution of power among actors".(Keohane "After Hegemony" p 206)

1978- Launching of the European Monetary System in response to Reagan's economic policies. The dollars US position as the currency of hegemon ended, and shifted to a regionalized international monetary system. (Gilpin "The Political Economy..." pgs-147.)

1985- "US borrows 100 billion, trade deficit of 108 billion of which 34 billion was with Japan. By the end of 1985 the US was the worlds largest debtor, the immediate cause... the tax and fiscal policies of the Reagan administration. A massive tax cut without a complementary reduction of the expenditures of the federal government". (Gilpin "The Political Economy..." pgs-330.)
by the mid 1980's Japan had replaced West Germany as America's principal economic ally and the financial backer of the continued economic and political hegemony of the US. (Gilpin pgs-332)

For the US a catastrophic view of the world has become its vision as was the commie under every bed, now a terrorist in every pot. Our sense of self has wrapped into some sort of frantic Uncle Sam in the throws of drug withdrawal, which a 12 step program or 14 points of light isn't going to cure. Todd notes that education causes a psychological disorientation of populations, when in a demographic transformation cause a crisis of transition, along the move into modernity and is accompanied by an explosion of ideological violence. The world is evolving, and the US is unable to recognize this? Todd makes the comparison of Cromwell and Calvin as Ayatollahs, thus was the history of modernity in Europe a situation of solely existing in each country, or was it directed outwardly? If the latter than the evolving countries are experiencing a very similar type of civilizing process only a few centuries latter. Ch-1

Intro:
Strength or weakness p-15 "fight to sustain hegemony for standard of living" Dependency and the proliferation of democracies. Globalization via political and militarily lead to dependence and weakens internal structure. Latter in the book Todd compares US with Athens and Sparta as an imperiam. The example is extremely relevant for the present, in light of the Immigration proposal by GWB. As a system of the elites, and the equestrian class and the plebeians, Todd denotes this in his use of the example of the Overclass, and democracy evolving into oligarchies. This is a current example of the decline of the US position, the democracies of old are becoming fundamentally unegalitarian system of domination.

[bemildred]

14. I had to digest that for a while.

You make some interesting comments.

---

I think Todd's logic goes something like this:

1. Aggressive warfare can no longer be made to pay for itself economically. You
can still blow stuff up, but you can't get control of it intact. Since, as
Clausewitz says, war must be in pursuit of political ends to make sense, and
politics is fundamentally about economics, aggressive warfare no longer makes
sense, at least as an economic enterprise. Colonialism is dead. Conquest is
an illusion.

2. Therefore economic warfare is what remains, and economic strength is what
matters.

3. Therefore demographic issues are what matters, as they are the source of
economic strength.

The rest of his argument follows. I take it as a direct challenge to realism.

Similar arguments about the importance of economic power in the rise and fall
of great powers are not new, but the discounting of the value of aggressive
military force is recent as far as I know. The first place I ran into the idea was
in Gwynn Dyer's "War" a couple decades ago, and he puts it in the context of
weapons of mass destruction, which is also relevant, but that is not what Todd
is talking about.

---

I am fairly sure that VietNam would not be "theatrical micro-militarism". It was
most likely the last attempt at old-sytle military force, and the first sign of decline,
as with Afghanistan for the USSR a decade later.

---

I may have some other comments later, thanks for posting your ideas.

[RainDog]

17. I have not finished reading the whole book

but isn't one of Todd's points that the "theatrical micromilitarism" is sort of a necessity for America because the only big export (and it's the Roman Empire tribute kind) is from our selling of weapons to other nations, and our selling of military protection to other nations.

so, we have to constantly find reasons for military action in order for us to remain relevant beyond our conversion to a "financial services rather than manufacturing based economy...isn't this part of his argument? ---a big part?

And our "national psychosis" over terrorism is being manufactured by the Bush junta to create a need for their "product" -- and a need for America to see them as useful as a power, since they are so willing to use military force against the entire world, if "need be."

[bemildred]

18. Yes. It's a way to drum up business,

Todd points out that the US government does not want peace, what it wants
is a steady stream of business in the form of small wars that justify it's
continued exceptional role in World affairs.

[Zo Zig]

19. Comments

I agree with your assessment regarding economic warfare, and I think that ties in with Doyle's Law. In that democracies will not war militarily with each other, however they will in a trade war.
As to demographic, I'm not really that sure as to the general thesis that Todd puts forth. Lower populations equal a lost of power, does that directly translate into a direct economic lost in the present economic environment? Or is it that the up and coming have a greater opportunity based on their numbers?

Regarding realism, interest point about discounting the value of force. Could you expand on that topic.

Vietnam- my point was that of Kissinger thesis in the 50's of small wars to avoid a nuclear war. I agree that Nam was not theatrical, but my question was did Nam have the effect of creating the theatrical micro-militarism that became the status quo? Decline of both the military and the economic system of the US, as the domestic policy and the war cost caused the break down of the international monetary system.

[bemildred]

21. I will see what I can do.

Economic warfare: You have to ask what are you fighting for, how do you
know that you have won, and whether cooperation is not possibly a better
strategy? You can compete, but you still have to think about what your object
is, and about whether war is the proper model for what is going on.

Demographics: It seems clear that more people is not intrinsically better.
What is wanted is a skilled population and the capital base to keep them
productively employed. Within that context one can argue that, up to a
point, more is better. Todd implicitly agrees that it is not just a matter of
size, as he sees a depopulated Europe and Russia as waxing in power.

Discounting the value of force. There are two factors that work against the value
of force in the modern world: weapons of mass destruction and peoples war.
Each requires its own argument.

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Conventional military doctrine operates on the
basis of concentration of force and differential attrition. You concentrate your
forces and attempt to kill the enemy much faster than he can kill you. In the
presence of WMD, any concentration of force simply presents a suitable target.
Hence conventional military operations cannot be pursued in the presence of
WMD. One can quibble about air and naval operations, but not much.

People War: This is also called guerilla war and terrorism. Clausewitz stipulates
that war must pursue political goals to make sense, he rejects violence for its
own sake. If you accept this, then war must be able to achieve political goals
to make sense, that is you must be able to gain wealth, power, territory and
the expectation of being obeyed, or warfare is a waste of time, blood, and money.
War must pay for itself in some sense like anything else you buy. Guerilla war
prevents this. This is essentially Todd's argument that you cannot take and hold
territory against a literate population.

I could talk about this a good deal more, but I think the argument is clear.

Kissinger etc.: I have a low opinion of Kissinger, I consider that his theory is an
attempt to evade the implications of the above discussion about devaluation of
force, and I think the "theatrical micro-militarism" is a secondary avoidance of
the failure of Kissinger's theory in VietNam. Let's face it, if war is not a useful
activity, all these people are out of a job. The theory is not about avoiding
nuclear war, there is nothing to do there but leave the other fellow alone. It is
about pretending that there is still something useful to do with large conventional
military forces, hence the downward spiral in size of the opposition in order to
maintain the illusion. All the worrying about Saddam's WMD before the war is
telling here.

As an aside, the decline of the economic system in the US is much related to
the parasitizing of its economy and society by the National Security State in
order to build these essentially useless conventional forces.

[RainDog]

23. Why "war is not the answer"

Both of these issues, WMD and guerilla warfare illustrate why Bush has pursued the wrong policies.

However, you will get many arguments that those who are currently opposed to the US have shown they are willing to use such weapons on the US, and this is the rationale for "pre-emptively" striking other places to remove those weapons from people who see the US as their enemy at this point.

However, if we look at the invasion of Iraq, I, at least, have to ask how military intervention is successful. Maybe Iraq is not the right case for such observations, since an invasion was planned long before 9-11, but no doubt the invasion was justified, rightly or wrongly, because of the WMD issue.

If you look at the way Rumsfield conducted the initial stages of this war, there is a major problem with the type of war the US is willing to wage vs its stated objectives.

Rumsfield refused to accept that America needed to have large ground forces in the initial invasion (after bombing as much as possible, of course.)

This would seem to be because of the aversion to casualities in the US population (which, to me, seems to be a sort of psychological admission, not outwardly stated by most people, that the wars America has been involved in since WW2 are not "just wars" and thus not worth the deaths of our soldiers.

However, this failure to commit enough troops (Rummy claimed it was because he was fighting the war as a CEO--in other words, thinking he could win "on the cheap" w/o an investment in "employees" and expecting "greater productivity" as a boon to shareholders would apply to war...

anyway, this failure also made the initial invasion a failure in both security and diplomatic terms. Tuwaitha was looted...resulting in nuclear waste disappearing to who knows where...or to villages where children are now sick from drinking water stored in nuclear waste barrels..a p.r. disaster for the US in Iraq and around the world..combined with the p.r. disaster of the looting of the museums...

and the p.r. (for the world, if not for US citizens) disaster when Bush told the Iraqis to leave their oil wells alone and when soldiers made sure only the oil ministry was secure.

Doesn't war have to be won as a perceptual as well as a geographic issue for a war to be successful? I mean, if you discredit yourself in the eyes of the world, it would seem that would make the issue of "winning" a war still open to the idea of guerilla war and to a failure of other nations to legitimize your actions.

And with Iraq, supposedly the Shi'ite Mullahs have agreed upon a strategy to cooperate as much as possible until elections are established and the US withdraws because they think the population will support Islamic democracy and Sharia as part of the law of the land.

Iran is hopeful for this, it seems, because it would promote stability in the relations b/t their two countries.

Turkey, of course, and Iraq do not like it that the Kurds are demanding more and more autonomy. It seems that many Iraqis want a unifed Iraq and fear that Kurdish autonomy would result in civil war. Of course, the Kurdish and Shi'ite areas have oil reserves, while the Sunni areas do not. Guerilla war becomes more attractive for that group when they are looking at a loss of income via any oil if they are not part of a unified Iraq, but if they continue their guerilla activities, will they precipitate more calls for a separation from the Kurds?

What will the US do in the event of civil war in Iraq?

[bemildred]

24. Rumsfeld's war

The purpose of "theatrical micro-militarism" is to demonstrate
superiority, ideally overwhelming superiority. This superiority
is taken as a postulate, an axiom; without it there is no
justification for all the money thrown down a rathole by the
military-industrial complex, and what passes as "strategic" thinking
in the US Gov't these days collapses. This ties back into the
comments on the increasing infeasibility of aggressive conventional
war in the modern era.

This is why there is a reluctance to apply adequate force in the
old manner, it demonstrates the fact that the postulate of
overwhelming superiority is wrong, which controverts the purpose
of the theatrical demonstration.

[RainDog]

15. what do you think of Todd's criticism of Gilpin

(and Krugman, for that matter, for their refusal to talk about the decline in demand as a result of globalization-- due to depressed wages here-- since we have been the "engine" of the world economy via our consumption?

some statistics which stood out for me:

between 1980 and 2000-

greatest increases in income went to those who were already among the richest--59% for the richest 5%.

The poorest 20% experienced zero growth.

An amazing increase in inequity under Reagan and Bush Sr.

From the second year of the Clinton presidency

(he came in on a recession...which Todd notes is another feature of a "roman empire" sort of oligarchy ensuring depressed wages for the rest of the nation)

or, from 1994-2000-

the disparity in income increases between the richest and poorest had come much closer...a 5% difference between the growth income b/t richest and poorest.

Of course, by that time, the richest already had a HUGE advantage from the massive redistribution of wealth from everyone else to the richest during the Reagan and Bush I administrations.

(and I don't know the figures from Bush 2, but with his reverse socialism for the rich, I assume the figures would be much closer to his daddy and Reagan.

One of my favorite quotes from the chapter on Imperial Dimensions, in which Todd discusses the Roman vs Athenian models (and finds we fit Roman predation and empire, not Athenian democracy...

"The imperial power dynamic leads to the development of a universal egalitarianism whose origin is not the liberty of all but, rather, the common lot of their oppression." p77

[Zo Zig]

20. My take

was that Todd was discouraged by their inability to draw a line in the sand. Gilip's book was hard on Reagan and his policies, but he was pro neo-liberal in many aspects. As to Krugman, that really surprised me. I'm not sure as to why he views him as such. The point he makes about demand seems valid, just as the argument that Galbraith made years ago about production as a means to solve all economic problems. Neither are discussed by anyone.

[bemildred]

25. I agree with Todd's criticism of Gilpin.

Henry Ford had this figured out 100 years ago, but the
current ruling class in the US finds it inconvenient.

[RainDog]

16. one issue I have with Todd's work

I realize he's an anthropologist, but I really wonder about his classification of family systems in different nations and the way they impact the way liberal democracy is enacted.

As I mentioned before, England, had a system in which the oldest son inherited. Todd calls this a mutally independent system between parents and children...and says that no brother had an obigation to the other (as opposed to Arabic family systems in which the obligation between brothers is the strong social-bond).

in contrast, Todd labels the German system as autocratic, with one person designated as the single inheritor of each generation.

This difference between anglo-saxon and germanic--is he talking about "pre-history?" --because this difference was certainly not the case in England in most of its history.

I think the difference in the two societies has more to do with the magna carta vs verbal contract rather than family systems.

--this is from the Democracy as a Threat chapter.

I do not see how he gets nazi germany from the german family system.

lf anyone can explain his systems analysis in a way that takes British and German history into account... it can't be because of the marriage of the German royal family into the English, either, because these things were going on long before that...

why did Henry VIII go berserk over his desire to have a male heir.

why did France have a son who received property via patrilineage and shunt others off to get positions of power via the Catholic church??

(and the English equivalent of this was to have one son with an estate, and get the other to get a parsonage. )

[glitch]

22. Germany

"I do not see how he gets nazi germany from the german family system."

I've seen this before regarding Germany and patriarchy. The German version of patriarchy was more extreme than others, the fathers were never questioned. And because German society viewed the Kaiser as a God-Father figure and totally unquestionable it was easier for their society to follow him into WWI, and subsequently for Hitler to assume complete authority, again as a God-Father figure.

I think I first saw the theory in the Eric Fromm books.

[bemildred]

26. I haven't really sorted that out.

It's an interesting insight, but I don't know how much
credence I give it. I think one can as easily talk about these
things in terms of the degree of social conformity expected in
different cultures, or the importance and power of extended
family relations, or various other points of view. It's a
question of the normal level of unquestioning obedience to
authority in a culture, which is very contextual.

[bemildred]

27. About Literacy

This is a point that is not belabored in Todd's discussion, but
that is central to his thesis: literacy, facility in reading and
writing, introduces a new kind of conciousness, a new kind to
thought, most specifically it introduces autonomous thought, and it
develops the facility for reasoned, linear argument. It also opens
up the world of ideas from other times and places and cultures.

One can argue, and I did above, that one reason for the decline in
democratic values in the USA is the rise in media culture, and the
corresponding decline in the capacity for critical thought and
reasoned exposition.

This is why he sees it as culturally explosive and incompatible
with undemocratic social organizations. Todd seems to take this
somewhat for granted, I think he could have made it a bit clearer.