The Vietnam fiasco and the decison to float the
dollar in 1973 was certainly seen at the time as
the twilight of US hegemony. But I agree with
Yoshie that we have to start thinking of the
ruling class as global rather than national, so
the old nation-state measures may not apply.
The world is different in ways that I think we
don't fully understand. Has anybody
read this new book "Empire"? If so, does
it offer any insights?
Ellen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Tom says:
>>The USA entered into the twilight of empire between 1968 and 1974. Any
>>semblances of glory since then have been mirages sustained by the
>>obsequiousness of USA's "partners" and the relentlessness of the public
>>relations campaign.
>
>If the USA had really entered the twilight of empire, it would have
>by now suffered from the same indignity that the UK -- an imperial
>has-been -- had:
>
>When the ruling class is global, rather than national, an imperial
>state (= the state whose politico-military powers guarantee the
>reproduction of capitalism) doesn't have to be a mercantilist
>success. In fact, practicing mercantilism even after becoming a
>great economic power is likely to get you into deep economic trouble
>(= overinvestment), in the process dragging down others a bit. See
>Japan.
>
>Yoshie
>
