Jim: > The post-BW system created a _new & different_ kind of US hegemony. > At least on international monetary matters vis-a-vis other rich > countries, the US had more power and less responsibility. At the same > time, US financiers rose to power. This new kind of hegemony became > more important as various matters such as the 1970s oil crisis were > swept under the rug. (OPEC had shaken the system.) This new kind of > hegemony culminated with Reagan.
This is what Michael Hudson's book "Super Imperialism" is about, although Michael acknowledged Henry C. K. Liu' s priority in coining the term "dollar hegemony!" After all, I know both Michael and Henry, and like both of them, although I am better friends with Michael. So, I don't care how they settle their issues: Both are very smart and knowledgeable fellows, and know what they are talking about! Michael is Trotskyist and Henry is not, but I gave up on those distinctions quite a while ago! > Competition in the "core" these days is between > enterprises, not primarily between countries. Are you sure? If the competition is just between corporations, who cares who buys what? Why is it that the US congress is so worried about Sovereign Wealth Funds and other foreign entities buying the US real assets, some of which are viewed as strategic? > Just because a country hosts the Olympics doesn't mean that it's > becoming a hegemon -- or even rising. Of course not! That China becoming the next potential hegemon, if it can become that and I am wholeheartedly against the rise of another hegemon, whoever that hegomon may be, is beyond what is happening at these olympics! > If I'm right that nation-vs-nation competition and conflict aren't as > crucial as they used to be in capitalism's core, then asking "who is > the hegemon?" is asking the wrong question. What if you are not right? Best, Sabri _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
