IMP Book- After the Empire -Emmanuel Todd

[RainDog]

Emmanuel Todd is a French philosopher and political writer who calls himself an empiracist. He wrote a book predicting the fall of the Soviet Union in 1976, published as After The Fall in English in 1979.

His latest book, After The Empire, is his look at the United States itself, and in relation to the rest of the world.

I think this is an important book. It was published in French in 2002, and is now available through Columbia University Press.

Here is an exerpt from the preface:

"...I come to the task of writing the preface for the American edition with mixed feelings. I must here address Americans on the subject of the decline of their own country, and I do not see how a normal human being could take pleasure in telling other normal human beings that their country is ill, that it has made foolish strategic choices, and that they, as Americans, must prepare for a reduction of their power and, most likely, of their standard of living.

...I was widely labeled "anticommunist" (after publication of The Final Fall), just as, following the publication of After The Empire, I was often (but not always) labeled "anti-American." The motive for writing this book...(was) my exasperation ...In the fall of 2002 I had the feeling that the world was about to repeat the same mistake with regard to the United States that it made during the 1970s with the Soviet Union: reading an expansion in military
activity as a sign of increasing power when in fact it serves to mask a decline.

...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.

...At the present time, however, the principal failure of the United States is ideological and diplomatic...(after the war on Iraq)..The subsequent fall in legitimacy has been flagrant; however, even before trying to sell the world on the virtues of preemptive war, the American strategic system had begun to fall apart.

...The blindness of America's media and diplomatic elite during (the demonstrations across Europe and the world against the invasion of Iraq) was extreme.

(and Todd says has served to unite Europe, which will emerge as a stronger power as America declines...)

and more.

[glitch]

1. Very powerful

looks like I am going to have to buy another book. Thanks for posting.

[RainDog]

2. here's a little more...

on summary. if you do read it, I'd love to hear what you think.

Todd is critical of Chomsky and Benjamin Barber. Chomsky, Todd claims, doesn't display the slightest awareness of the evolution of the world, nor an ability to view America with any objectivity...same, basically, with Barber.

He claims that Al Qaeda is "a band of mentally disturbed but igenious terrorists...However, America is trying to portray Al Q. as an omnipresent terrorist threat as evil as it is widespread...thus legitimizing any punative action it might take anywhere at anytime. The elevation of terrorism into a universal force institutionalizes a permanent state of war across the globe...Everything seems to indicate that the United States is, for some obscure reason, trying to maintain a certain level of international tension, a situation of limited but permanent war."

..The author also says that Europeans do not understand why America "refuses to solve the Israeli-Palestinian question since it clearly has the power to do so.

(we do? -- I dunno about that one)

Todd also talks about America, France, and Britain all demonstrating, via elections that they are not democracies in practice, but that they are ruled by an "overclass" for which every election is merely the formalization of a continuance of the status quo.

Todd is also, btw, a capitalist and a believer in democracy.

...and if I think about it, what was Hitler, but the last gasp of a dead empire? albeit a deadly gasp that did much harm to many. of course, without a multiple-front opposition to Hitler, who knows how that era would have ended.

[glitch]

4. that does it

Ok I bought it. I'll move it to the top of the pile when it gets here.

I like Chomsky a lot but I often disagree with him.

How far into it are you? I would like to discuss it with you as I read it, that would be great. Incentives always welcome here!

FYI I googled Todd and found this interview from
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."
Neat!

[dudeness]

48. book looks the goods...but this????

Chomsky, Todd claims, doesn't display the slightest awareness of the evolution of the world, nor an ability to view America with any objectivity...same, basically, with Barber.

come on now!!!todd either has not read chomsky or cannot process it..

[RainDog]

53. Rhetorical strategy

Todd is talking about the world since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Whether someone agrees with him or not is a matter of opinion based upon each person's interpretation, I suppose.

I paraphased what Todd said...

he goes on to talk about Europeans writing obituaries for Marxism while Fukuyama was writing about the entire "end of history" ---and that the European view was backward looking, while the Fukuyama-conservative view was forward looking-- but entirely flawed because Fukuyama could not see that his view was to present "liberal democracy" as a sort of heaven, after which we all sort of bask in the presence of the lord and there is no government corruption or abuse of power which would lead to the destruction of liberal democracy... which is the basis of the idea that war would cease when liberal democracy was spread across the world

(this, btw, is sort of a governmental retelling of the evangelical version of Christianity as a source of world stability...sort of ignoring that the inquisition was also part of that evangelizing in the past...what they has to do with liberal democracies not declaring war on one another...well, I digress...)

but what I see from that part of Todd's introduction is a standard rhetorical strategy when someone is writing/arguing a position.

Todd is placing himself and his argument outside of the two American (and other places) arguments which can be viewed as "polarities" of American perception...the Huntington "clash of civilizations" and the Chomsky "What Uncle Sam Wants" ways to approaching American power.

He does not want to align himself in the reader's mind with either a "left" or "right" view of the use of American power around the world, but instead look at other nations' cultural histories, rather than just the America model.

...so far, I have some questions about his sort of assumptions about various cultures, but that's a topic when we get into reading the book.

[Zo Zig]

3. Thanks for posting

Will have to add to the shelf of books to read. Just finished Chomsky "Hegemony or Survial" good overview. I had a few differences with some of the his points, but the one thing that I found lacking was that he didn't develop some of his points very well, IMO. His position on the ME could have been more developed as to a possible solution.
Presently reading Edward Said "Culture and Imperialism" which is dense, but extremely thoughtful. His book "Orientalism" made me really think about how I view other cultures. I think his writing is tough for some to understand in that is requires a greater background in various subjects to fully comprehend the premise of his work. I lent it to my boss to read, no comment as of yet and that was over a month ago.
Will post comments when I have a chance to read your suggestion.


Edit: If you have some suggestions on futher reading on the subject of colonialism(neo) and its relation to hegemony/empire/imperialism etc, please past them on.

[glitch]

5. we could do a book club ~

It would have to be a very flexible book club. Edward Said's book on imperialism is in my pile of unreads, a pile that's getting bigger and bigger. I end up listening to a lot of audio while I work, I have a couple of his talks. He was an excellent speaker and teacher, a very sad loss.

[Capt_Nemo]

6. Every DUer should read this book

It is very, very good!

Criticism of Chomsky is mainly on the point where Chomsky usualy
gets it all wrong: in overestimating US power.

[dudeness]

49. capt nemo..

the US has more bombs than the rest of the world combined..it is still the most dominant economic power in the world..I think chomsky has it right..

cheers

[Capt_Nemo]

60. I don't agree

Military power is less important than economic power, because it
is a consequence of the last. Remember the USSR?

The US hasn't got more economic power than the EU countries combined, and
its economy survives on the goodwill of its creditors.

The fact that the US is trying to reverse the logic of power by
using it's military as a competitive tool in the global market is
just the symptom of the reality that it lost it's competitive edge
on EVERY other field.
That won't work, because global dominion by force is infinitly more
expensive than $500 Billion/year, believe me.

So yes, Chomsky overestimates US power.

[dudeness]

62. best wishes of the new year to you, capt nemo

rather than hijack this thread and digress into a chomsky debate..I would say judging by your post our areas of agreement far outweigh those in which we part ways..I would say however, that at the present time the world has but one empire, the USA, no doubt a unified EU could in fact present a definite threat to US economic hegemony..but the differences between old and new Europe have so far been a stumbling block to a smooth transition , although a single currency is a positive move for the EU..but alas, the old ally Britain still stands aside of a single currency..I see a challenge to US dominance not coming from the EU, but from East Asia, prmarily china and japan, this where the achilles heal of the US economy sits. You are 100% correct in pointing out huge US debts and deficits, however East Asia has replaced Europe and accounts for 70% of the worlds foriegn exchange reserves, mainly in US dollars and is fact maintaining a stable currency rate..if , in fact a move was made by the East Asian bloc to the euro or gold, the would precipitate a huge crisis in the US dollar. perhaps forcing a military confrontation to support an ailing currency as the economy slides into depression. Todd is absolutely correct.the empire will diminish through its overstretching of the military / industrial complex..but i believe it will be later rathwer than sooner..I can draw little analogy between the old soviets and the current crop of resource raiders..

cheers

[Capt_Nemo]

63. Best Christmas and New Year wishes for you too, dudeness

Just let me tell you that the New Europe thing exists only in
part of the european right wing elites. The center-right electorate
throughout Europe is also pissed off at the neo-cons... and we here
in Europe still have reasonably free and fair elections, with the
exception of Italy.

What's more is that Britain and Denmark are the
only EU liquid contributors to have sided unconditionaly with the US in Iraq,
which means that the New Europe countries will learn in the next round
of development fund negociations that there is a political price to
pay. Poland and Spain will be "punished" to serve as an example to
the others, that will realize in no time at all that the US is in no
position to rebuild their ailing economies.

The only hope for the bushies in Europe is that the current unpopularity of the Schroeder goverment will continue up to 2006
leading to the replacement of the SPD/Greens by the CDU/CSU/FDP.

The overstretching of the MIC is already occuring, on the ground in
Iraq and Afghanistan and in the US budget deficit. I think the
crumbling of the empire will be sooner rather than later.

Once again Best Holyday wishes, looking forward to the continuation
of this discussion.

[RainDog]

7. I would love to read and talk about it here.

I'm not that far along...Just into the first chapter, but wanted to share because I thought it was so interesting.

I've read some of Orientalism. It's dense reading, at least for me. I'll look around about books about neo-colonialism and let you know.

Which ones/authors are you already familiar with?

Chomsky also seems, to me, to often see the U.S. as nothing but "the evil empire" -- and I think it's interesting that both supporters and critics of the U.S. may make the mistake of overestimating the power of the U.S.

capt, if you've already read this, if you'd like to also talk about it as the rest of us read, that would be great.

Thanks for the link to the interview. I've searched for an English version of Final Fall and they are few and far between and pretty expensive. Maybe the publisher will reissue if this new book generates enough interest in the author.

[Capt_Nemo]

8. I read it about an year ago

Isn't it ironic that the portuguese edition comes before the english
one? But then again it contains words that are a bit unpleasant for
Anglo-Saxon ears...

"I think it's interesting that both supporters and critics of the U.S. may make the mistake of overestimating the power of the U.S."

Intriguing isn't it? It is kind of a "reverse nationalistic hubris"
phenomenon. And you can see often that attitude in posters on this
board!

You have to keep in mind while reading "Orientalism" that Said was
mainly writing there for a audience of scholars rather than for
the general public. That is why I haven't yet tried to read it...

[RainDog]

9. not surprised at all...

we didn't get a copy of the French "Forbidden Truth" for a while. it also contains things which are painful for America's hyper-sensitive ears to hear... and things which some in power would hope that we would remain deaf and dumb about.

yes, as I was reading this, I thought it gave a good perspective on the reactions to American power both by those who support and oppose the current exercise thereof.

but it's like Althusser said (in paraphase) ideology is hidden for those in the midst of its expression.

whether you support all this theories or not, he still has valid things to say about the workings of ideology in any culture.

when I started reading this, I also thought about the recent report of Americans being so irritated by those darn Canadians with their maple leafs on their luggage...LOL.

to me, I sense in that their is an unease in the U.S. that may come from the population's unwillingness to acknowledge the ways in which our current govt is at odds with the rest of the democratic world.

rather than examine the cancerous infection within, they choose to attack another democracy so that it will share the same feelings of a malady which tries to remain hidden.

[blindpig]

11. Chomsky

The impression that I have gotten from Chomsky is that he is simply holding the US to the standards that we profess and that we're no better or worse than many empires of the past.

[Capt_Nemo]

12. I take no issue with that idea. I'm 100% with Chomsky there, but

The problem arises when he makes his geopolitical analysis about
the current balance of power.

There he takes as true the US establishment own propaganda about
US power, which is absolutely puzzling. Obviously this leads him to
wrongly overestimate US power and distorts somewhat his analytical
skills in understanding the present and forecasting future
developments.

I like Chomsky very much, but I fin myself consistently disagreeing
with him in that point.

[RainDog]

15. in many ways

Todd does not fundamentally differ from Chomsky...it's how he gets there that is different.

Todd doesn't wholly agree or dismiss anyone. He finds things which are valid in both the left and the right, as far as analysis is concerned.

Todd also takes on Fukuyama and his declaration of "the end of history" as facile, but does support Fukuyama's idea, which comes from "Doyle's Law" that liberal democracies do not wage war on one another. (Fukuyama seemed to think that one "liberal democracy" is achieved, a nation and its people are static...there is an eternal equilibrium...which our recent past has totally devalued as an opinion...in my opinion.

The problem is that we are moving away from our commitment to being a liberal democracy...which then puts us in a position to wage war against a variety of nations in a variety of ways.

This point sort of clarifies what I see occuring right now. Todd isn't really saying anything new to me on that point. he is far more detached about it, though, and, as noted below, I have some questions about his assumptions and some statements.

but that's the point of writing something for public discussion...you can check what seems to be reality to you against what someone else sees, based upon the same moment in time with the same political figures.

[RainDog]

10. this article from Foreign Policy

agrees with Todd's thesis

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

The Eagle Has Crash Landed

Pax Americana is over. Challenges from Vietnam and the Balkans to the Middle East and September 11 have revealed the limits of American supremacy. Will the United States learn to fade quietly, or will U.S. conservatives resist and thereby transform a gradual decline into a rapid and dangerous fall?

By Immanuel Wallerstein

The United States in decline? Few people today would believe this assertion. The only ones who do are the U.S. hawks, who argue vociferously for policies to reverse the decline. This belief that the end of U.S. hegemony has already begun does not follow from the vulnerability that became apparent to all on September 11, 2001. In fact, the United States has been fading as a global power since the 1970s, and the U.S. response to the terrorist attacks has merely accelerated this decline. To understand why the so-called Pax Americana is on the wane requires examining the geopolitics of the 20th century, particularly of the century's final three decades. This exercise uncovers a simple and inescapable conclusion: The economic, political, and military factors that contributed to U.S. hegemony are the same factors that will inexorably produce the coming U.S. decline.

Intro to hegemony



The rise of the United States to global hegemony was a long process that began in earnest with the world recession of 1873. At that time, the United States and Germany began to acquire an increasing share of global markets, mainly at the expense of the steadily receding British economy. Both nations had recently acquired a stable political base—the United States by successfully terminating the Civil War and Germany by achieving unification and defeating France in the Franco-Prussian War. From 1873 to 1914, the United States and Germany became the principal producers in certain leading sectors: steel and later automobiles for the United States and industrial chemicals for Germany.

The history books record that World War I broke out in 1914 and ended in 1918 and that World War II lasted from 1939 to 1945. However, it makes more sense to consider the two as a single, continuous “30 years’ war” between the United States and Germany, with truces and local conflicts scattered in between. The competition for hegemonic succession took an ideological turn in 1933, when the Nazis came to power in Germany and began their quest to transcend the global system altogether, seeking not hegemony within the current system but rather a form of global empire. Recall the Nazi slogan ein tausendjähriges Reich (a thousand-year empire). In turn, the United States assumed the role of advocate of centrist world liberalism—recall former U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “four freedoms” (freedom of speech, of worship, from want, and from fear)—and entered into a strategic alliance with the Soviet Union, making possible the defeat of Germany and its allies.

...more

[glitch]

13. thanks for another great link

I've bookmarked this thread, so as soon as the book arrives I hearby promise to read the first chapter and post back.

I have a couple of books in my stack that I haven't read yet, they were highly recommended, both by Carroll Quigley:
- Tragedy and Hope
- Evolution of Civilizations

Such a lot of reading to do.

[RainDog]

14. well, we can start a book discussion group.

anyone who wants to join in this one can offer suggestions, and since you spoke up first, why not let you choose the next one?

The intro to the book is the longest part, btw!!!

I have some questions about the book, which I may go ahead and post here while they're fresh on my mind...or, maybe I'll just write myself an email and save those questions until you get the book.

Let me know when you get the book and we'll then "get on the same page..."

[starroute]

50. 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.

<snip>

In order carry out its plan, the US, already over-extended, will have to extend itself even further. Not only has it rapidly multiplied its military outposts and involvements across the world, from the Philippines to Asia (Central, South and West) to Latin America, but it has taken on the status of a direct occupier in Afghanistan, and evidently intends to do so in at least Iraq. Thus it both spreads its forces thin and calls forth much fiercer nationalist resistance than under the indirect rule common in the neo-colonial order. Anticipating the heavy costs of their new mission, intellectual hacks of the US and UK ruling classes are busy preparing theoretical justifications for a new bout of colonialism. At the same time the internal repressive apparatus is being strengthened in the US and panic, submission to authority and other elements of fascism are being manufactured.

The simultaneous emergence of worldwide popular opposition and resistance, opposition from other imperialist powers, and profound weakness in the US economy suggest that events will not develop as US imperialism wishes.

[RainDog]

55. prescient, maybe?

this is from another section of that topic. good read.

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.

As the US military machine gets tied up in the unending tasks of an occupying power in the third world, the costs—financial and political—would mount. The US economy, already in recession, may not be in a position to take such weight. US budgetary and trade deficits may veer out of control. Depressed demand conditions in the rest of the world as a result of US policy would boomerang on the US, as it faces less demand for its exports and sharper competition at home for its imports. The US’s hope that international uncertainty will boost the dollar is only one of two possibilities. It is equally possible that, under the weight of investors’ fears that the US would not be able to service its mounting obligations, a dollar slide might take place.

The political costs of a deeper recession are not to be forgotten. Indeed, the entire build-up of a vast domestic machinery of repression—under the name of the Office of Homeland Security and the USA PATRIOT Act—and the whipping up of chauvinism, xenophobia, racism and fascistic sentiments are in preparation for the possible resistance at home.

[teryang]

51. The FP author is reduced to generalizations

...in order to construct a schematic of a multitude of events that don't yield well to generalizations. Not that it is a bad job, I appreciate the effort, the author makes some accurate points. But many of the statements are oversimplifications. For example, the Korean conflict wasn't a stalemate, it was a defeat of the "American" policy of unconditional surrender. It was a staggering blow to American hubris and demonstrated the limits of American power directly after WWII. We learned we couldn't defeat the Chinese Peoples Volunteer Army. Mentally, Americans still can't accept this because of their innate chauvinism.

In Vietnam we learned we couldn't defeat the army of a much smaller power nor could we reverse social change hundreds of years in the making. The core lesson is that an actual engagement on the ground in Asia with a war hardened enemy with great power support could outlast any American ground force. Japan's "rebuilding" was successful economically because of their war contracts supporting these American military efforts. Both wars represented huge unwarranted tests of American strength and transfers of American wealth to Japan. These were serious miscalculations by the far right who have still not accepted the verdict of history. Despite the stated objectives of American policy in these two conflicts, they represented an abandonment of Potsdam principles which were righted by the "enemy" side. So much for the decline. The omnipotence was never there. Our withdrawal in Lebanon war related to what? A stupid commitment, I think.

But paradoxically, US power remains intact vis a vis the nation state model of analysis. If you are doing country studies no one nation comes close. Another analytical problem is one that reduces the assessment of power to an order of battle chart. How well will the country do in war? How well will the country do in two wars at the same time? Yet countries' progress in power through peaceful endeavor. Peace builds commerce. War destroys capital. This is why late twentieth century policy avoids engagement with major powers and proxies of major powers.

A second is that there is a disintegration of models for assessing relative power. The simple minded are adrift without their ideological paradigms. What is the ultimate significance of international corporate ownership, marketing and exploitation? There is no check on the extension of power of these groups owned largely by American and European elites. So now the squabble breaks out among themselves in the rush to carve up the earth. There is no statesman to characterize an international order, as the dominant corporate plutocracy rejects any order but that imposed by its own tyrannical terms. Thus mulilateralism and the UN are relegated to the dustbin of history by neo-conservative Darwinians who postulate scenarios of the decline of civilization, the clash of civilizations and other millenial nonsense. We are primarily dealing with unregulated and unchecked corporate corruption of traditional institutions and policies.

Consideration of war and conquest is based upon an anticipated failure of traditional liberal foreign and economic policy that is as much manufactured paranoia as an assessment grounded in fact. It is, in essence, a worldview. Free trade getting the better of us in the global energy markets? Fine, reject free trade and embrace neo-colonialism, social darwinism, neo brutalism and the Straussian worldview. However, this is the worldview of an aging aristocratic plutocracy in America that cannot adapt to change nor accept any limits on its international corporate prerogatives criminal or otherwise.

It is this class which is threatened by parvenues at home and nationalist upstarts abroad. The information revolution receives only so much consideration from this class as it can be used for precision targeting of political opponents and oppositon governments. Thus the ad hoc rationalizations for neo-colonial agression are manufactured to justify conquest to preserve an outdated economic model based upon a Malthusian estimate and gross overweighting of the importance of certain fossil fuels and other materials. Peak oilism is the Malthusian polestar.

The Pentagon supports the plutocracy because fuel costs and fuel logistics are something it knows that it is particularly dependent upon. The contractors support it because without war they cease to have a reason to exist. Thus the preservation of lines of communication by the great seapower becomes seizure of the sources of the fuels to maintain the lines of communication. It is reductio ad absurdum of policy choices in which no other options are offered. Is the productive creative potential of our society so bankrupt that we cannot pay for energy? Have we nothing to exchange? Or is that we cannot stomach the emergence of prosperous powerful states outside of the nineteenth century Rhodesian world view?

The war on terror is war on a chimerical foe. There is no "non state" foe capable of threatening the American mainland in any strategic sense. Such foes are enabled and empowered by states. States are the sources of visas, explosives, biologics, aerospace training, and "security lapses" and the obstruction of law to cover them up. Such threats do not materialize out of the ether. Such enabling occurs in order to find pretexts for the empowerment of reactionary policies. The alternative is closer examination of neo-colonial "globalization" and its two fold objectives of subjugation of vassal states and subjugation of rising expectations of the underclasses of the world. These have expectations of political and economic well being which go beyond the corporate consumer culture of their exploitation.

[bemildred]

52. Nice.

:thumbsup:

[RainDog]

54. can you explain some of your thoughts for people like me?

I would like to understand your take on these topics, and if you could "talk down" to me I would greatly appreciate it. :)

"These were serious miscalculations by the far right who have still not accepted the verdict of history. Despite the stated objectives of American policy in these two conflicts, they represented an abandonment of Potsdam principles which were righted by the "enemy" side."

--can you explain the transfer of wealth to Japan part?

--can you explain how this was an abandonment of Potsdam princples --and how they were righted?

--what is a nation state model of analysis?

"A second is that there is a disintegration of models for assessing relative power. The simple minded are adrift without their ideological paradigms. What is the ultimate significance of international corporate ownership, marketing and exploitation? There is no check on the extension of power of these groups owned largely by American and European elites. So now the squabble breaks out among themselves in the rush to carve up the earth. There is no statesman to characterize an international order, as the dominant corporate plutocracy rejects any order but that imposed by its own tyrannical terms."

--how is this different than any other dominant power or powers in the past who have conquered or colonised other areas of the world? (btw, I'm really asking, not challenging...asking for an explanation of the differences, since it seems to me that when queens and kings were sending people to take control of resources in other nations, the only difference is the "divine right" was situated with a hierarchical power with much the same attributes as corporations, in a guise which suited the culture of the times in which they operated.)

"It is reductio ad absurdum of policy choices in which no other options are offered. Is the productive creative potential of our society so bankrupt that we cannot pay for energy? Have we nothing to exchange? Or is that we cannot stomach the emergence of prosperous powerful states outside of the nineteenth century Rhodesian world view?"

--again, are we offered no choices because of our lack of exchange or lack of imagination or because those in power are vested in a particular form of energy production?

isn't this issue in the U.S. (and elsewhere) also and most basically the exercise of power by a few corporations with undue lobbying (and govt. positions of) power who are blocking "the future" because of their vested interest in maintaining their existing investment in one sort of energy extraction?

"The war on terror is war on a chimerical foe. There is no "non state" foe capable of threatening the American mainland in any strategic sense. Such foes are enabled and empowered by states. States are the sources of visas, explosives, biologics, aerospace training, and "security lapses" and the obstruction of law to cover them up. Such threats do not materialize out of the ether. Such enabling occurs in order to find pretexts for the empowerment of reactionary policies. The alternative is closer examination of neo-colonial "globalization" and its two fold objectives of subjugation of vassal states and subjugation of rising expectations of the underclasses of the world. These have expectations of political and economic well being which go beyond the corporate consumer culture of their exploitation."

-can you elaborate on this paragraph? why isn't it possible for certain groups with the financial means (and it is clear that the financial means exist for terror acts around the world via funding from very rich people who are not the governing powers of their nations...) to destabilize another nation's economy, for instance, by the fear of terrorism?

--I think that Bush, rather than dealing with the statistical nature of the threat of terrorism here has exploited it to push through all sorts of cyncial and corrupt legislation, as well as politically expedient legislation to cement boot his groups' power...and at any cost to American citizens.

as far as various nations who have made deals with "terrorists" in order to maintain power...absolutely.. you can look at Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and see the export of terrorism as a form of bribery.

And, of course, the American govt's failure to address these issues also fail to address why we have supported the Saudis with their human rights abuses, or Pakistan...

but what about the other side of the issue...which is that there are also ideologies which are in opposition to every day Americans' desire for a certain form of govt?

what do you think the objectives of "Al Qaeda" are? Do you think they would stop with the ouster of American from Saudi Arabia? (which is what the invasion of Iraq was able to accomplish for Bush...a way to remove troops from S.A. without appearing to give in to the threat of terrorism).

Do you think that Islamic fundamentalism is not an "evangelical" sort of religious/political belief system which wants to export itself to other regions of the world?

---in the same way that evangelical Christianity/western nations' conquest exported itself?

Again, I appreciate your contribution and I'm so happy this topic has gotten so many interesting people to share their insight.

So can you help me understand your take on the above quotes?

thanks

[Dirk39]

16. It's a must read

Hello from Germany,
Todds' book is on bestseller lists all over Europe for more than a year and I'd say it's one of the best and most important books about the state, the USA is in.

Reading it a second time, I had problems with the tone of his voice.
He seems to be a bit naive about things going on in Europe. And on the other hand, there is an underlying "old" european resentment against the USA in Todds writing. It's more about the metaphors and figures he's using, than the facts he's describing.
The northamericans have no connection to the ground, no roots, it's not a real country:

-They're only consuming, not producing.
- Their nomads, but their inability for continuity isn't productive in any way
-Their military is weak, despite all hightech, they can't fight on the ground, they're not willing to die, all they can do is throwing bombs on innocent people and leave a mess. Reminds me somehow of Hitler, when he told a japanese diplomat in 1941: "Do you think, soldiers, whose god is the dollar, will do what's necessary?"
- They can't make plans

On the other side there are the Europeans with a connection to the ground ("Blut und Boden"),who were previous farmers.

I don't know, how much you people know, about the history of european antisemitism, but somehow, Todd is replacing the jew in the minds of antisemites with the northamericans or they become interchangeable.

The christian antisemitism somehow started with the reproach, the jews in the dessert wouldn't have a connection to the soil. You can find a lot about this in Hegels' writing.

I'm very concerned about this atmosphere in his book. And it sounds a bit bigot to me, when on the one hand, Todd argues strongly against the war, just to add a bit later with a kind of "schadenfreude": they don't want to die, they can't stand being victims, they can't fight a real war. They're cowards.
And this cliché of consuming americans. People, who just use, eat and enjoy, what other peoples' hard labour has created. This was the kind of vulgar anticapitalism of the Nazis and the conservative revolution, that paved their way.
I don't want to say in any way that Todd is an antisemit or a nazi, this would be completely unfair and stupid, it's more about some figures and resentments you find within the european cultures for many centuries.

What's wrong with consuming, enjoying your life and not wanting to die for some idiotic leaders? Although this might still be just the same cliché, just reversed.
Would be very interesting to discuss this book with american readers.
And I have to emphazise that I think the book is very interesting and alone for the facts he's combining, it's worth reading it.
Dirk

[RainDog]

17. Please take part in a discussion as we read it.

I'm only at the beginning of the book, but my questions about his work stem from other issues...

(although the comment you made on Hegel is really interesting and I wish you'd explain and educate me some more about this point.)

But my intial questions about the means by which he makes his argument are these:

1. what is his definition of a "liberal democracy?" I assume, by this, he means an enlightenment- based democracy which share the goals of individual and national liberty, equality-as in the idea of no ruling class based upon heredity, nor an idea of any group controlling the liberty of any other, and fraternity-or now-humanity, in that we are all in this together.

He uses that phrase, however, without explaining his exact description of the term.

2. He doesn't seem to take into consideration one of the strongest culture differences between other western democracies and the United States, which is the current, and seemingly always more pronounced here strain of fundamentalist Christianity and the resulting "literalist" and "black and white" sort of thinking that is a hallmark of this sort of philosophical view of the world. It is a pov that tends to put itself in opposition to the concept of a "liberal democracy" in ideology because of its belief in a pre-ordained destiny for humankind, for its reliance on a hierarchical view of humans in relation to a (spiritual) king, and in its refusal to consider that its basic text is open to more than one interpretation.

3. He talks about the strength of emerging democracy in Eurasia. This could be an example of my ignorance, but which countries is he referring to...and is this the tendency in a majority of nations there? The ones I can think of are Turkey, India, possibly some of the former soviet states, the eastern European states...does his idea of Eurasia include Japan? I suppose I tend to think of Eurasia as a specific area including Afghanistan and countries like Uzebekistan...what region does his term "eurasia" cover?

4. he talks about an overclass as one comprised of an educated elite...however, in America, I don't think that exactly describes us as much as it describes France. We do not value theorists and pundits here, for the most part, who take an academic approach to our nation. However, we absolutely valorize those who have made a lot of money. Also, he claims the educated elite who control are 20% of the population. However, I would argue that, again, in America the percentage is much smaller and is based upon financial power...and in this country, "educated" intelligence is not an indicator of financial power, and in fact can work against that, while a "cunning" sort of intelligence is more apt to produce a wealthy power broker here...at least that's how I see it.

---but that's how I would describe our "overclass."

again, I am not very far along in my reading, so I've yet to encounter much of anything like the criticisms you have noted from Todd.

However, I do think that his remarks about the U.S. and its relation to other nations is one in which America is now dependent upon the willingness of other nations to provide cheap goods to maintain our economy.

the export of U.S. jobs which has been going on for decades, and which has now extended to "white collar" sectors is an honest cause for major concern in the U.S.

what do we now manufacture, other than weapons? If that is our chief export, then our leaders surely know that it is in our best interests to keep the world in a state of perpetual war.

I am interested in reading the ways he talks about "managing, in everyone's interest, America's losses."

I also think he's absolutely right that America is moving into a "postdemocracy" sort of oligarchy...whose members exploit the fears of those they hold power over and thus rouse them to war.

...again, because this is the only export we have which other nations cannot (and do not want to) match.

[Zo Zig]

18. IMO, Comments on Q#3

Want to join in on this if I may, first I have yet to read this book but based on the posts above it would appear that there are some general points that are common from other sources that I've read. Besides I really like this idea of book club.

#3. Eursia- the theme of which as best I can recall was first coined in the early 1800's by a British officer named Arthur Conolly, who served along the Himalayan frontier, as the Great Game.

During the 1900's George Curxon defined it "Turkestan, Afghanistan, Transcaspia, Persia to many these names breathe only a sense of utter remoteness... To me, I confess, they are the pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a game for the dominion of the world". "British governments pursued a policy of propping up the tottering Islamic realms in Asia against European interference, subversion, and invasion. In doing so their principal opponent soon became the Russian Empire". *A Peace to End All Peace, David Fromkin page 27.

This theme is echoed in many writings up to present,a good example is "The Grand Chessboard" by Zbigniew Brzezindki He denotes the Eurasian Chessboard as follows: West-ie EU, South-ie ME, East-ie China, Indo-China and Middle Space-ie Russia, and the Stans. The geopolitics are to "pinpoint the critical states whose location or existence have catalytic effects either on the more active geostrategic players or on regional conditions; and formulate specific policies to offset, co-opt, and or control the above so as to preserve and promote vital US interests, and to conceptualize a more comprehensive geostrategy that establishes on a global scale the interconnection between the more specific US policies". pages 39-40

In short Eurasia is the key to the road to global supremacy, or Hegemony. Robert Gilpin expressed it as "Pax Americana,.. ensured an international system of relative peace and securtiy. Great Britain and the United States created and enforced the rules of a liberal international economic order". The theory of hegemonic stability by Robert Keohane: "that order in world plitics is typically created by a single domnant power". It is defined "as preponderance of material rsources; raw materials, control over sources of capital, control over markets, and competitive advantages in the production of highly valued goods". After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in
the World Ploitical Exonomy, pages 31-32

Currently there is a liberal economy system in Europe extending into the various areas of the chessboard, and the US is the enforcer of power, but the question that comes to mind is the dollar going to continue to be the currency of the hegemony?

Don't know if this answers your question #3.

[RainDog]

20. Great post! thanks

I'm so glad you are contributing too! Yes, I think this could be a really interesting and informative book discussion.

Todd actually mention Z.B. and The Grand Chessboard, and seems to agree that he has the most accurate assessment of the current and future issues.

I haven't read TGC, but it looks like that's one I should also put on my list...

okay, I have to go to work now.

But thanks so much for contributing. You have much more knowledge of this whole idea, and I appreciate that you can help explain where Todd is coming from.

[Capt_Nemo]

19. I agree that he's a bit naive about things going on in Europe, but

I don't think your argument that "What's wrong with consuming, enjoying your life and not wanting to die for some idiotic leaders?"
is valid.

On Europe he underestimates the influence of the US political establisment and military
industrial complex with the right wingers in Europe.

But what he is saying about americans is that they are eager to
follow their idiotic leaders fighting wars but don't accept that
they have to pay the price in blood and treasure for making those
wars. This is absolutely true and it is mirrored on the fact that
shrub's ratings started declining right after he asked for the
additional $87 Billion.

The bloodthirst of thousands of armchair warriors dryed up pretty
fast when they realized that kicking butt was not for free:
"USA! USA! US... Huh, what's this? $87 billion???????"

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

21. BBC debate with Emmanuel Todd on American Empire

FYI:

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

Click on "listen to the most recent Thinking Aloud". It should be online until next Wednesday.

[glitch]

22. Thanks!

I love audio links - thanks for posting!

[Emillereid]

23. I just ordered the book and would like to join a discussion too --

perhaps after the holidays when everyone's had a chance to read it -- we could use one of the forums for a book discussion?

[RainDog]

24. great!

why don't we discuss as we go along...set the goal of reading the preface, intro and chapter 1 (that's 45 actual pages of Todd's writing) in a week's time after people who want to discuss have a chance to purchase the book.

fwiw-

I don't know what sort of price/deal you can get for the book online, but I can get it for 20% off the cover price for anyone, plus the cost of mailing the book, and w/o tax, I'm pretty sure, if it's purchased by someone outside of the state where I live.

I think the cover price is something like 29.95, so 20% would cover postage, or round about, if it's sent priority, and if it's sent media mail, postage would be cheaper.

20% is the same discount I get, and also anyone else gets who buys more than fifty dollars worth of books at the independent bookstore where I am working until the end of the year.

If you want me to do this, pm me and I'll give you the email address for the store, or the toll free number. You would not have to pay until the store received and sent out your book (we only have two copies in stock at the moment.)

[RainDog]

25. So...Anyone Reading Todd Yet?

got yer books?

just checking in...

[Zo Zig]

26. Need to Order

[glitch]

28. Still waiting for it !

boo hoo. The minute I get it I will post.

[bemildred]

27. A few comments ...

Mr. Todd sounds excellent, I'll have to get a copy.

I like Mr. Chomsky, but think he has blind spots, and he does
overestimate the power of the US IMHO. We have been in decline
since the 60s, and the current crew are a classic corrupt, decadent
elite trying cluelessly to fend off the decline by pretending
nothing is wrong. Meanwhile the basis of power is hollowed out
by the expense of their displays. We have come a long way from
Teddy R.'s "Talk softly and carry a big stick".

Al Qaeda is being propped up as a replacement bete noir for
the USSR, a ludicrous exercise. The sense of loss in the defense
industry when the USSR collapsed was palpable, and the search for
a replacement has been continuous and relentless since. It is a
sign of how far they have sunk that they think OBL and his merry
band will serve the purpose.

A couple other recommends:
"Empire" -- Negri and Hardt (difficult, but worth it)
"The Unconquerable World" -- Schell (just excellent)

[RainDog]

29. The Unconquerable World

...is one on my list, but I haven't bought it yet.

Can you tell me a little bit about it, since I can't read it yet? maybe that's another one for a DU book club which we can hopefully form...

I assume when we all get the book and have read into, say, the first chapter, we can post in The Meeting Room. The Lounge moves too quickly, of course, and I don't know if the mods would let us use this forum.

[bemildred]

30. Here's the Amazon review:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805044566/002-1786164-6486452?v=glance

Which gives a fair idea. Scroll down. He get's into Mao and Giap
and builds on the insight of Clausewitz that war must serve political
purpose to be meaningful. It's really good stuff.

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.

[RainDog]

32. interesting review

and raises issues I do not know enough about, but I think these are surely things to try to find out about for ourselves via other sources, as well.

the only thing I know for sure, as far as economic strength of the U.S. is concerned, is that Paul Krugman seems to nail things often, and Paul Krugman would not agree with Gaetan Lion's assessment, it seems to me.

as far as productivity as a measure of financial health...I suppose that figure depends on how you define our national economic well being, since fewer workers doing more work may benefit shareholders, but those who work for a living don't seem to be enjoying some huge benefit, as unemployment numbers in America indicate.

also, Gaetan doesn't mention issues like the dollar's decline, combined with our huge trade deficit.

again, I would like to look at the issues he mentions in greater detail, and also the "mercantilist" label. these things can only contribute to a more interesting reading, to me.

[bemildred]

33. 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. The Schell book
is well worth it when you have a nickel to spare. I'll get into
the Todd book, but it may take me a bit. I think a meeting
room thread would be good if we can get regulars for it. I
don't usually go there now, time is precious.

[RainDog]

35. It would be great if you would participate

I would love to have your perspective since you seem to have lots to contribute vis a vis economic issues, and more.

So far there are, I think, four or maybe five of us who haven't read the book who want to do a book group, and then two who have read it who can also contribute to discussion.

With you, that's five or six people reading/discussing as we go along. Obviously others may want to join in, too, but I think that's a big enough group to start a book discussion group.

I stopped reading it for a bit to wait for others, but had to start again today.

What I didn't "get" from Gaetan's reading is his contention that rising female literacy and falling birth rates can't contribute to more liberalism/freedom in the middle east.

Iraq had one of the highest literacy rates for women, I know, but I don't know the birth rate there. But as far as any nation being in a position to be a leader in a democratic govt in the middle east, I would say Iraq is one of, if not the best chance up front.

...they were already a secular govt, too.

what is going on there now, of course, will determine much, as different groups vie for power, or find it in their interests to move to civil war or not.

on the other hand, Afghanistan under the Taliban is a perfect example of the loss of a move toward greater democracy. It's no coincidence that women were not allowed to attend school.

I think Iran, too, will make the transition to more democracy because of its educated population, and because females have had a tradition of education, even with the rise of the Ayatollah.

In fact, strangely enough, it is our long-time allies which have some of the worst situations for women..like Saudi Arabia. Osama doesn't offer females a better deal with his brand of fundamentalism, so, beyond his possible appeal as an end to "colonialism" I don't see that his view of governing could be sustained without force either.

[bemildred]

38. I will try to stop in once or twice a day.

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.

[Zo Zig]

34. Another book(s?) to add to your list

"The Political Economy of International Relations" by Robert Gilpin.
This one is as thick as a brick, the basis is that of power as an economy system, when viewed from the three major ideologies of political economy; Liberal, Nationalist, and Marxist,and the function of the dynamics of the international structural, trade, multinationals, economic development, finance, and its order. I finished it about a year ago, and would need to re-read parts in order to give a further summary.

However, if your on the road to a well rounded view of the subject in question I would suggest this and Robert Keohane's "After Hegemony". Keohane addresses the issue of IR from the point of liberal institutionalism. If you want a realist view try Kenneth Watlz "Man, The State, and War, or Hans Morgenthau "Politics Among Nations". Watlz's book is heavy on the theory of philisophy; ie Mill, Kant, etc. Morgenthau is a realism primer, what is state power.

If these help great, if not try beating yourself about the head and face with any heavy book to acheive similar affects of reading these. You really have to want to read this type of material, or it isn't worth buying.
Merry Xmas!

[RainDog]

36. whaaack!

that's me, hitting myself in the head...

Zoe, you HAVE TO (please) contribute with your knowledge of these other books!

...please?

And which one do you think, if someone were to read only one other book, would be the best one to choose?

[Zo Zig]

41. An Answer?

A simple question, hey? Let me say this, if your interest is EconIR try Gilpin. But to give a suggestion that you are going to invest yourself in worries me, what if it doesn't meet your expectations then was it really worth it for you?

For me a really good book regarding the subject matter that is in this thread tends to open more avenues of questions, as opposed to answering them.

The subject matter in Gilpin delves into the historical basis of the present economy system and how states have tended to act in the last fifty years or so. At the time of reading this my inquiry was that of trying to understand the rise/fall of the US as a hegemonic power after WWII. It does not address the present situation regarding a unipolar balance of power status. However, this period of history is important to understand the events and the context in which they occuried and how this lead to the current state of relations.

Generally, I will mark items of interest in the reference list for future reading, in Gilpin's book there are twenty items. Due to the fact that I was still interested in the question of hegemony, I have yet to revisit the books of interest. Reviewing these now seems to lead back to the original question in another form that of empire and its offspring colonialism. Which was the reason this thread was of such interest to me.

So, I will order the current book and hopefully have it by the 24th, and yes I would like to be a part of that thread. Very few people I know have any interest in these subjects, and it is refreshing to see many here that are interested and willing to comment.

If you are really seeking a source on the current status of globalization try Joseph Stiglitz "Globalization and its Discontents", its on my list to read. Check the review at Amazon.

Hope you find this to be a simple answer.

[RainDog]

43. Yes, I have the Stiglitz book

I got it as a present and started it... now that we are discussing the Todd book, I have more reason to finish it.

Have any of you heard of a book called, I think, World on Fire? The author is named Chua, I'm pretty sure.

Was released this last year.

And, yes, I'm also really happy that people are interested in reading and discussing this particular book/topic.

[RainDog]

44. so...a head count to keep track...

so far the following have said they want to participate...

Vidali
Zoe
Emillereid
RainDog

bemildred...will participate...I don't know if you plan to read the book or not..

BonJour said he was interested in reading the book, too, and it would be nice to have his pov, since he's in France and can maybe relate some of the discussions of Todd there, maybe.

Dirk and Capt-- hope you two will also participate since you've already read the book, and again can add a pov from a diff. place.

Anyone else...let us know. otherwise, whenever Zoe and Emillereid get their books, we'll set a schedule to sort of break up the reading.

I think it's really great that we have the opportunity to do this!

[bemildred]

45. I have ordered it, not expected until after Xmas.

But I will hang out and watch the conversation if
you start earlier.

[RainDog]

46. We can wait till you get the book

I don't think anyone else would mind, since others have ordered it too.

...and in the meantime, others here (including me) can read some background if we have the chance.

here's a link to some of Gilpin's book from Amazon for anyone who wants to check out a bit of his book.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0691092796/ref=sib_dp_rdr/104-8340873-9376714#reader-page

[Zo Zig]

47. Expecting

to receive either the 24th or the 26th. I nominate you RainDog to establish the reading schedule, time, and forum for this event, a second? If you are so inclined.

I'm looking forward to the discussions, and agree that those with a a geo or national pov should participate. They would provide an additional perspective on the subject, one that is sorely missing in many aspects of our present times.

Thanks for the continued interest shown by all!

Happy Festives-feats of strength start next week.

[bemildred]

37. Thank you for the list.

I'll check them out.

The Gilpin book sounds interesting, and I was thinking about
Keohane already, but thought I'd do the Todd book first, seems
much more, umm, original.

I routinely beat myself about the head with big heavy books,
but often wander outside the bounds of politics and economics.

Merry Holidays to you too.

[glitch]

31. second that

I heard really good things about the Schell book.

[ixion]

39. great synopsis... the book is in my cart

thanks for posting this. I'm not sure I agree with the Chomsky analysis, however his call on the US state of decline and disorder is right on.

[whirlygigspin]

40. apres moi le deluge

if your french is any good, you can order the book in paperback/french version from FNAC, only euro4.85
available from 15 january 2004

http://www.fnac.com

[glitch]

42. Got my book!

Anybody else still waiting for theirs?

[bemildred]

56. I received my copy today.

Read the first bit. Excellent stuff.
He turns some nice phrases: "theatrical micro-militarism".

[RainDog]

58. his premise

I don't want to say this to skew anyone else's reading, but for me, as I've been reading his analysis, he seems to basically validate every critique that feminists have made vis a vis "patriarchy" for decades now, in his emphasis on literacy and birth rates as indicators of democracy,

I'm also trying to find a cheap copy of Fukuyama's book, and Huntington's-- don't want to pay for a new copy--both are in pb. But I think it's important to also be familiar with those books since he refers to them so often in opposition to his own premise.

[bemildred]

59. Declining reading competence in the USA is one factor

that gets little attention here. I ran into this in another
book, the title of which escapes me now, maybe it will come back,
but the reading competence of drafted US soldiers declined
dramatically between WWI and WWII and continued that decline
in Korea and VietNam, requiring considerable adjustment in Army
training doctrine. Since the end of the draft, the sample is
skewed, but one assumes the trend continues.

I don't want to defend patriarchy, it sucks, but it's not the
issue, the issue is unaccountable and ignorant rulers. When
the ruling class becomes isolated and parasitical and cannot
be brought to heel it's just a matter of time before things stop
working.

The schedule suits me fine.

[RainDog]

57. Tentative Schedule

would this work for everyone else as a schedule?

I thought I would set Thursdays as the days we would "officially" finish one section and on each Thursday we could start a new thread based upon that reading...assuming we need more than one thread.

Jan. 8th: pp 1-58 (which includes the preface, intro, and chapters one and two)

Jan. 15th: pp 59-99 (chapters three and four)

Jan. 22nd: pp 101-144 (chapters five and six)

Jan 29th: pp 145-202 (chapters seven, eight and conclusion)

[glitch]

61. Your schedule looks good nt

[Zo Zig]

64. Received copy,

schedule looks good.

[PATRICK]

65. the Hollow men

Happy Hollw-een! It is always fun though there is little comfort in looking at the big picture. Will the multi-generational unpunished war profiteers succeed in escaping pun ishment while the land they betrayed and ruled(at the same time!) plummets away from the human dream to second string status?

No tears from the people seeking to crush the bastion of democracy and human rights. Their money is safe elsewhere. The big picture is the insanely stupid harm, waste and loss of valuable time when the truth writ large across the globe threatens irrationality with immense tragedy. Global leadership sucks. Not just American leaders and pundits but the powerless pragmatic bureaucrats in charge of most nations sidestepped the human global wave for the truth. Some rode it a bit. Some denied it even to the point of political suicide(that's ok, their souls are with the money people and their future tied to them alone). Others, as usual considered it the cleverest thing to manipulate disaster(even their own) as if that were smart victory, the "principled" thing to do despite reality.

Those career loons make the idealists dreaming of peace and environmental responsibility look like the moderate realists- which in perspective they nearly all are. The "leaders" should all be led away and the people should try a bity harder to keep these types far far away from the controls of the planet.

Empires have fallen faster and faster as times have modernized. The seduction of seeming greater tech and money power has blinded the idiots in charge each and every time. Fall faster and harder but the trash keeps coming back to the lure for another try.

[bemildred]

66. Kissinger:

"Despite his loyalty to realist strategic principles,
and notwithstanding the admiration he maintains for
his own intelligence, Kissinger these days does not
seem to possess a clear vision of the overall picture."