THE MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
IN THE CONFLICT FOR POWER
BY JERRY HARRIS
“Power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
-- Mao Tse-tung
After W.W. II the U.S. had unquestioned hegemony throughout the
capitalist world. But in the early 1970s U.S. power began a long decline,
particularly as the economies in Europe and Japan recovered. Still, the
U.S. maintained leadership by providing military security for the West.
But with the collapse of the Soviet Union there was a basic shift in this
arrangement. The U.S. security umbrella was no longer needed and
previous American economic hegemony had long passed its peak.
Alongside this strategic change was the emerging revolution in
information technology. As information capitalism became firmly rooted
in all the advanced countries a system of economic and political
globalization rapidly developed. These changing world conditions
presented two choices to the U.S. ruling class; either fully integrate into a
globalized system of world capitalism or reassert hegemony through
military power. Globalization became the choice of consensus, backed by
rapidly growing transnational corporations, the immense power of
speculative finance, a surge in cross cultural exchanges and a
technological boom that pointed to a new economy. For most leaders in
the U.S. and West the Soviet collapse had created the conditions to build
a new integrated multilateral system.
2
But beneath the new global system remained a powerful nationalist
wing within the U.S. capitalist class. These elements retained a solid base
of support in the military/industrial complex (MIC), the structural heart of
U.S. superpower status. The hegemonists bloc consist of geopolitical
realists and neoconservatives and both believe the defeat of the USSR
provided the opportunity for a unilateral U.S. empire. This strategy was
laid-out in a pivotal policy paper published in 1997 by the neoconservative
think tank Project for the New American Century, and signed
onto by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and other top
White House officials.
As the paper reads, “Having led the West to victory America faces
an opportunity and a challenge…Does the United States have the resolve
to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
What is required is a military that is strong…a foreign policy that boldly
and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national
leadership that accepts the United State’s global responsibilities…At
present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy
should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into
the future as possible (and maintain) unquestioned U.S. military
preeminence (to prevent) others an opportunity to shape the world in
ways antithetical to American interests.” (Donnelly, 1997, i)
This vision drives the Bush administration and is a sharp challenge
to the globalist strategy followed throughout the 1990s. This conflict for
power between the globalist and hegemonist wings of the U.S. capitalism
is key to understanding the current world and stems from the undermining
of the old nation/state by globalization. A world economy based on global
assembly lines and run by transnational capitalists has outgrown the use of
nationalist armies protecting and extending national markets. Security was
redefined as global stability to facilitate cross border investments. As
pointed out by the Institute for National Strategic Studies, “Almost
everywhere, countries face the task of harmonizing their foreign economic
policies with their national security strategies. China and Russia both face
this challenge, as do the Europeans and the Japanese. So does the United
States.” (Kugler, 2000a, 8)
To understand the nature of this conflict let me begin by suggesting the
capitalist class consist of different networks of power and interests. These
3
would include economic networks of productive and finance capital; political
networks that dominate the state apparatus, intellectual circles and the leading
political parties; cultural networks that include media, academic and religious
forces; and the military/industrial complex (MIC). These networks are
interconnected and overlap but are also internally divided into various
fractions, the most important consisting of globalist and nationalist interests.
...cont'd
http://www.net4dem.org/mayglobal/Papers/JerryHarris_MilitaryIndustrialComplex.pdf
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
