part one: the hegemonic paradox of transnational high-tech capitalism

Empire or Imperialism

Wolfgang Fritz HaugTranslated by Sam Putinja

Part One: The Hegemonic Paradox of Transnational High- Tech Capitalism

1. Some Preliminary Clarifications Hegeloncemockedthatcommonsenseisthegreatestmetaphysic.Inanopaqueaswell as inadeceptivelyobviousmanner, theassumedessenceofa thingcontractsandcondenses itself into theverynameofthings. A name, remarked the pre-Marxist Walter Benjamin, is the “true

boundary 238:2(2011) DOI10.1215/01903659-1301248 ©2011byDukeUniversityPress

Thetitleandthesesarefromtheconference“EmpireorImperialism?”heldinAthens,Greece,March31–April1,2006.AnearlierversionofthisessaywaspublishedinDas Argument267(2006),andamoredevelopedversionwasdeliveredasalectureattheUniversityofViennaonMarch20,2009.IthankAndreasNovyforhisinsightfulcomments.Unlessotherwisenoted,alltranslationsarethoseofSamPutinja,translator.Translator’snote:WolfgangFritzHaugandIwould like to thankJanRehmann(UnionTheologicalSeminary,NewYork)forhiscommentsandsuggestionsonanearlierdraftofthistranslation.

2 boundary2 / Summer2011

call”of language.1LouisAlthussersharpenedoursenseofhowan indi-vidual,throughhisorhername,iscalledforthasasubject:“everyindividualiscalledbyhisname, in thepassivesense, it isneverhewhoprovideshisownname.”2And if, ingeneral, individualsdonotname themselves,thenitseemssocialrelationsaredoingit.MartinHeidegger’sproposition,“innerworldlybeingshavealreadybeendisclosed,”3canbeappliedtothestructural“formsofbeing,thecharacteristicsofexistence[...]ofthisspe-cificsociety”asMarx findsexpressed inexistingsocioeconomiccatego-ries.4Notonlyarevalue,money,capital,wages,andsoon,articulatedandinterpretedsocialrelations,butsotooarethestate,law,religion,morals,andthelike.Wearebornintothem,andtheyarecontinuouslybeingre-andoverinterpreted.5Bymeansoftheirnames,inwhichtheireloquenceiscondensed,theyincorporateourthinkinginto“formsofthoughtwhicharesociallyvalid,andthereforeobjective,”6orinto“currentandusualmodesofthought,”asMarxnoted(Capital,1:682).Thehistoricalmaterialistmustcontinuallybreaksuchanenchantmentandallureofnames.Thisisalsothe task of the question around which two Greek journals, Outopia andTheseis,convenedaconferencein2006:“EmpireorImperialism?” Whatthisquestionraised,ontheonehand,wastheimpactofthebookEmpirebyMichaelHardtandAntonioNegri.Andontheother,thefactthatthebook’smainthesis—“The United States does not [. . .] form the cen-ter of an imperialist project.Imperialismisover”7—appearedtobedirectlyrefuted by Rainer Rilling’s claim that the American regime undertook astrategicreorientation“fromneoliberalglobalizationtomilitaryglobalism.”8

1.WalterBenjamin,Selected Writings: Volume 1, 1913–1926(Cambridge,MA.:HarvardUniversityPress,1996),65.2.LouisAlthusser,Essays on Ideology(London:Verso,1984),51.3.MartinHeidegger,Being and Time,trans.JoanStambaugh(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1996),192.4.KarlMarx,The Grundrisse,trans.MartinNicolaus(London:Penguin,1973),106.5.SeeWolfgangFritzHaug,“Kategorie,”inHistorisch- kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxis-mus,vol.7/I,ed.W.F.Haug,F.Haug,andP.Jehle(Hamburg:ArgumentVerlag,2008),467–86.6.KarlMarx,Capital,vol.1,trans.BenFowkes(London:Penguin,1976),169.Hereafter,thisworkiscitedparentheticallyasCapital.7.MichaelHardtandAntonioNegri,prefacetoEmpire(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniver-sityPress,2000),xiii–xiv(emphasisinoriginal).8. Rainer Rilling, “Imperialität: US-amerikanische Diskurse seit 9/11,” in Schöne neue Demokratie—Elemente totaler Herrschaft, ed. Michael Brie (Berlin: Karl Dietz, 2007),143.

Haug / EmpireorImperialism 3

Though a long-term development,9 this strategic change by the UnitedStateswasnottakentocompletionuntilthereactiontotheattacksofSep-tember11,2001.Thischangesetinmotionandproducedthe“thirdwave”oftheoriesofimperialism.10Almostovernight,theconceptofimperialism,aswellasthatofempire,11“becameunexpectedlycommonplace.”12 Inordertoengagewiththequestion,Empireorimperialism?,thesetwo terms must be transformed into concepts. This is so because whatis usually considered a concept is only a term whose name identifies atheorem.Thewordterm—fromtheLatinterminus(end)—indicatesthattheprocessofcomprehensionhasalready“terminated”andthatameaningoressencehas“congealed.”Yet,underthiscrust,asBertoltBrechtsaid,thingsaremoving“under thoughtbeyond it,”“unterdemDenkenweg.”13Naturally,aconceptasimportantas“imperialism”isnotanylessexemptfromthisas istheconceptof“empire.”Soasnottobestrandedbehindtheactualmovement,wemustalwaysbeginanew.Withoutforgettingwhatwas previously elaborated with this nomenclature, we must try to “talkthrough”—in the original sense of the Greek word dialogízomai, whosedescendant isourconceptof thedialectic—thecurrentcontexts.This isnotdonewithchangesindefinition.Itisessentialtobringthe“conceptualcontext” intomotion through reflection.Thequestiondemands researchandwidediscussion.Someoftheforthcomingquotationsaresupposedtofreezetheflexibleandalterablewebofopinionsintheirparticularhistori-

9.AttheendoftheColdWar,theUnitedStatesundertookthegoalof“worldsupremacy.”SeeEricHobsbawm,“America’sNeo-ConservativeWorldSupremacistsWillFail,”Guard-ian,June25,2005,24.10.JanOttoAnderson,“Imperialismus,”inHistorisch- kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxis-mus,vol.6/I,ed.WolfgangFritzHaug(Hamburg:Argument,2004),848.11. “In the secondhalf of the twentieth century the concept of ‘Empire’ largely disap-pearedfrompoliticaldebatesandbecameinsteadanobjectforhistoricalstudy”(Rilling,“Imperialität,”141).12.RainerRillinghastraced indetail thedebatesunleashedat thetime in theUnitedStates regardingempireand imperialismand theconcepts’applicability toUS foreignpolicy(Rilling,“Imperialität,”141).Supportedbythiswork,Iwilltouchonlyselectivelyontheratherinconclusivedebates.SeealsoRainerRilling,“WeDon’tDoEmpire,”accessedFebruary 24, 2011, http://www.rainer-rilling.de/texte/wedontdoempire.pdf; and Rilling,Risse im Empire(Berlin:KarlDietz,2008).13.BertoltBrecht, “DieGrosseMethode,” inMe- ti / Buch der Wendungen, inGesam-melte Werke(Frankfurt:Suhrkamp,1967),12:493.Translator’snote:WiththankstoKarenKramer (Stanford University, Berlin) for suggesting the translation of “under thoughtbeyondit.”


calmoment.Thiscannotbeotherwiseinastudythatdealswithhistoricalaction, tentatively feeling itsway through thecontemporaryunconsciouswiththegoalofreinterpretationfromtheperspectiveofasocio-analysis.14 TheLatinword imperium isderivedfromtheverb imperare,whichmeanstocommand,asisalsothecasewiththegrammaticalmoodofthe“imperative.”Imperiummeans,firstofall,commandorauthority.Commandrequiresobedience. Its realizationdependson thepowerof those com-manding.MaxWeber,asiswellknown,definesthispoweras“theproba-bilitythatoneactorwithinasocialrelationshipwillbeinapositiontocarryouthisownwilldespiteresistance,regardlessofthebasisonwhichthisprobability rests.”Hedefinesdomination (Herrschaft) as “theprobabilitythatacommandwithagivenspecificcontentwillbeobeyedbyagivengroupofpersons.”15 TodescribeintheseWeberiantermsthe“ruleofthecapitalistsovertheworkers”asanalyzedbyMarxcanyieldonlysuperficialresults.16Thisissobecauseitisprimarilyastructural domination,inthesenseof“rule[...]oftheconditionsoflabor,”inwhich“commodities[...]becomemeansofdominationovertheworker.”17Justasmoneygrantsitspossessor“agen-eralpower[Herrschaft]oversociety,overthewholeworldofgratifications,labours,etc.,”thedominationofcapitalismediatedbycommodities.18Onlyintheworkplacedoesthecapitalistruledirectlythroughcommand,which,ifrefused,heanswerswithdismissal.Ownershipofproperty,whichunder-liesandbestowsthisdominance,aswellastheauthoritywhichactualizesit,requirestwofactors,whoseoppositesstructure inonewayoranotherthe entire world of imperatives: consent and force. Only the interactionof the instancesof ideologicalpowerand repressiveapparatuses,whichareby themselvesnotprimarilyeconomic,enables theownershipof themeansofproductionorofabstractwealth(money)tosecureitsauthorityover material and personal resources. And only the concrete discursivearrangementofpoliticalandideologicalstrugglesinturndecidesabouttheapprovalor rejectionof specificprojects for theuseofaggregatedsoci-

14.Astotheconceptofsocio-analysis,seeW.F.Haug,High-Tech- Kapitalismus(Ham-burg:Argument,2003),14.15.MaxWeber,Economy and Society: Volume One,ed.GuentherRothandClausWittich(BerkeleyandLosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1978),53.16.KarlMarx,“Resultsof theDirectProductionProcess,” inCollected Works,byKarlMarxandFriedrichEngels(London:LawrenceandWishart,1994),34:398.17.Marx,“ResultsoftheDirectProductionProcess,”34:398.18.Marx,The Grundrisse,222.


etalpower.ThisextremelyimportantdoubledeterminationiswhatAntonioGramsci’s central conceptofhegemony isabout.At thesame time, theconceptofhegemonyfurnishesthekeytounderstandtheinterrelatednessofthemanifoldtopicsinGramsci’sPrison Notebooks.Aswillbeshown,thiskeyalsounlocksourproblematicofimperiality,whichreceivesitsmeaningfromtheconceptoftransnationalhigh-techcapitalism. Tomaketheconceptofhegemonyfruitfultoourtask,wemustfirstreclaimthewordhegemonyfromitscurrentunreflectiveuseinmainstreamlanguage.PublicdiscourseknowsnothingofGramsci,or isatbestonlyfamiliarwithhimfromhearsay,anditusuallymakesnodistinctionbetweensupremacy and a leadership capacity that is both moral-intellectual andbasedonaconcreteanalysisof thesituation.Atmost,mainstreamdis-courseadherestothedifferenceidentifiedbyJosephS.Nyebetween“soft”and“hard”power.19Thisisaninstrumentaldistinction.Itispresentedinaself-evident manner from above, from the perspective of the exercise of imperial dominance. Incontrast, theconceptofhegemonymustalsobeabletobeappliedfrombelow,fromanemancipatoryperspective.TheideaBrechtpickedupfromLaoTsethat“quitesoftwater,byattritionovertheyearswillgrindstrongrocksaway”20isimportant.Nevertheless,hegemonytheoryasderivedfromGramscishouldneverlosesightofthe“hard.”Inthisregard, thename for theconceptof “hegemony” thatsignals the impor-tanceofthequestionofleadershipcouldmisleadbysuggestingthatques-tionsof“hardpower”wouldbeexcluded.Inactuality,theyformthecomple-mentaryfocalpointsoftheobjectofhegemonytheory.Muchasanellipse,hegemonyalsohastwofocalpoints:“politicalsociety+civilsociety,thatis,hegemonyprotectedbythearmorofcoercion.”21Hegemonytheory isthusneveronlyaboutthatwhichgivesititsname,butalsoaboutthatwhichappearsastheopposite. Atthepoleofleadership,whichissetagainstthepoleofcommandandcoercion,thequestionisagainposeddoubly:fromaspirantstohege-monyareexpectedpolitical-ethicalaswellasconcreteanswersbasedontheanalysisoftheconcretesituation.Iftheprospectivehegemoncanoffer

19. JosephS.Nye, “TheDeclineofAmerica’sSoftPower,”Foreign Affairs (May/June2004):16–20.20.BertoltBrecht,“LegendoftheOriginoftheBookTao-Te-ChingonLao-Tsu’sRoadintoExile,” inBertolt Brecht Poems: Part Two, 1929–1938, ed. JohnWillettandRalphManheimwiththecooperationofErichFried(London:EyreMethuen,1976),315.21.AntonioGramsci,Selections from the Prison Notebooks,ed.andtrans.QuintinHoareandGeoffreyNowellSmith(NewYork:InternationalPublishers,1971),263.


neitherphysicalsecuritynorthesatisfactionofmaterialneeds,hispowerwilldissolveintoair,aswasthecasewithMikhailGorbachev.

2. Imperialism: A Vanished Concept Reemerges Anambiguityplaysout in thebackgroundof thequestion,Empireorimperialism?The“or”canbereadasinclusiveorexclusive.Inthefirstcase, imperialism is the manifestation of empire. In the second, eitherempireor imperialismexists.Several things suggest that the title of theAthenianconference, “Empireor Imperialism?,” impliedapreference forthesecond,exclusivereading.This issobecause itwasas ifHardtandNegri,withtheirclaimthatnonation-statecouldanymoreformthecenterofanimperialistproject,were“bizarrelyoutofsyncwiththetimes,”asLeoPanitchandSamGindinnoted.22This judgmentisunderstandableifonerememberstheroleoftheAmerican-ledmilitaryallianceaftertheattacksofSeptember11,2001. In thefaceof theattackagainstoneof itsmem-berstates,NATOpromptlyinvokedacaseofself-defense.Yet,theAmeri-cangovernment,as the leaderof thealliance,decidedtobypassNATO.The NATO treaty turned into wastepaper. The central organ of the Ger-manelite,theFrankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,summeditupthisway:the“hegemon”wantedto“sovereignlyleadthewar,”andthealliancepartnersfoundthemselvesintheroleof“Diadochstates,”whichwereexpected“toservetheAmericansasallieswithoutanyanchoringintheir intergovern-mentaldecision-makingbody.”23Thesamearticleinterpretedthebypass-ingofthemilitaryalliancebyitshithertohegemonicpowerasrepresentingthe “dismantlingofEurope,”withGreatBritainas the “modelsatelliteoftheAmericanglobalpower.”AnumberofNATOstates joined the“coali-tionofthewilling”;24others,ledbyFranceandGermany,resisted.Someofthemembersofthe“willing,”aswenowknow,integratedthemselvesintothe logisticaloperationsof theCIA,with itsworldwidenetworkofsecretprisonsandsubcontracted interrogationand torture.Thiswasadisloca-

22.LeoPanitchandSamGindin,“GlobalCapitalismandAmericanEmpire,”inSocialist Register 2004: The New Imperial Challenge,ed.LeoPanitchandColinLeys(London:MerlinPress,2003),4.23.DirkSchümer,“DieKrimkriegssituation,”Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,December12,2001,43.24.“IrelandfurnishedShannon[airport]totheCIAforsomanyflightsthatlocalsdubbeditGuantánamoExpress[...]ItalyhelpedalargeCIAteamtokidnap[...]Poland[...][had]torture-chambersconstructedfor‘highvaluedetainees’—facilitiesunknowninthetimeof[theSoviet-backed]Jaruzelski’smartiallaw”(PerryAnderson,The New Old World[London:Verso,2009],74–75).


tionofthecoerciveapparatusoftheAmericanstateanditsrelocationintodozensofotherstatessoastoevadethejurisdictionofAmericanlaws.TheUSmilitary-statemeanwhileextended itselfbeyondnationalboundaries.It is not simply the case that the US Rechtsstaat, the rule-of-law state,remainedconfinedtoitsnationalborders,buttheGewaltstaat,thecoercivestateapparatus,expandedthescopeof itsemergencypowers(statesofexception)intothedomainofdomesticpoliticsaswell. Atthetime,ashake-upwasintroducednotjustinEuropebutalsoin theentire internationalstatesystem thatcanbedescribed,using thejargonofthestockexchange,asa“sideways”movement.Indeed,govern-mentsachievedmaximumdirectresistancebycastingtheir“No”votesintheSecurityCouncil, fromwhomtheUnitedStatessought legitimacyforitswaronIraq.Meanwhile,thesecurityapparatusesofthesesamestatesdidnotstopfunctioningasauxiliaryforcesoftheUnitedStates.AstheUSmilitarylaterrevealed,theGermansecurityapparatusidentifiedbombingtargetsinBaghdad,andGermansecretserviceagentsalsointerrogatedatleastoneGermancitizenwhowaskidnappedbytheCIAinoneofthegloballyscatteredillegaltortureprisons.YetatthesametimetherewasarapprochementbetweenthecorestatesoftheEuropeanUnionandRus-siaandChina.TheselattertwopowersparticipatedwithIndiaandSouthAfricainaproject,supportedmostofallbytheLulagovernmentofBrazil,forthedevelopmentofstructuresfor“amarketwithintheworldmarket”forthenewlyindustrializedcountries(NICs). Onlyinthelastfewyearshasthetermempirefoundentranceintothepoliticalvernacularofthepresent.Theincipientrenaissanceofimperi-alismtheoriesisyoungerstill.Around1990,thetopichad“virtuallydisap-peared from thepagesofMarxist journals.”25Noteven the firstUSGulfWar,clearlyconducted tocontrolMiddleEasternoil reserves,couldcallbacktheconceptofimperialismfromoblivion.Therealityitselfneverdis-appeared.OneneedonlyexaminehowMichaelIgnatieff,in2003,justifiedhisclaimthat“America’sentirewaronterrorisanexerciseinimperialism”with theargument“whatelsecanyoucallAmerica’s legionsofsoldiers,spooks and Special Forces straddling the globe?”26 Panitch and GindinciteaNationalSecurityCouncildocumentfrom1950whichstates,“Even

25. Prabhat Patnaik, “Whatever Happened to Imperialism,” Monthly Review 42, no. 6(November 1990): 1–6; cited in Panitch and Gindin, “Global Capitalism and AmericanEmpire,”2.26.Michael Ignatieff,Empire Lite: Nation- Building in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan(Toronto:Penguin,2003),66.


iftherewerenoSovietUnionwewouldfacethegreatproblem[...that]theabsenceoforderamongnationsisbecominglessandlesstolerable.”27If theAmericanclaimtoshapetheworld throughtheuseofcarrotsandstickscanbetermed imperialist,because itexpands itsdominanceoverthenational-constitutionalterritorytotheentireworld,thenitfollowsthatsincetheendoftheSecondWorldWartheUnitedStateshasneverceasedpursuingapatternofgloballyexpansiveimperialism. Ifthisisso,howcouldtheconceptofimperialismhavelargelydisap-pearedfromMarxistdiscussions?Manydeterminationsareatworkinthisdisappearance.IwillconcentrateononethatIholdtobecrucial.AnyonewhoutteredthewordimperialisminthecontextofMarxisminthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcenturyusuallyreferredprimarilytoLenin’s1917tractImperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Indeed,asa“conjuncturalanalysis”itappearsincontestable,becauseitgivesanexplanationforthemurderousclashofexpansionistcapitalistinterestsatthetimeoftheFirstWorldWarandtheeveoftheRussianRevolution.Yetthepredominanceofitsconjuncturalcharacteristicsmakes itsgeneralizationsappear inretro-spectas“hardlyatheory,”asAijazAhmadclaims,28thusthrowingoutthebabywiththebathwater.Butwhatparticularlyunderminesthisworkonthelevelofageneral theory is thethesisexpressed in thetitle,whichLeninusedtobasehisJanuary1916article,“OpportunismandtheCollapseoftheSecond International”: “Theepochofcapitalist imperialism isoneofripe and rotten-ripe capitalism, which is about to collapse, and which ismatureenoughtomakewayforsocialism.”29Leninnarrowstheeraof“pro-gressivecapitalism”tothetimebetweentheFrenchRevolutionin1789andthemassacreoftheParisCommunein1871.Hiscriteriaforclassifyingitas“progressive”restsupon“theoverthrowoffeudalismandabsolutism”—inotherwords,thecomingtopowerofthebourgeoisie,whichwasenvelopedinthepathosofhumanrightsandpoliticalemancipation,andthe“libera-tionfromtheforeignyoke,”ornationalliberation.30Significantly,thesearenotthecriteriainThe Communist ManifestonorthoseoftheMarxiancri-tiqueofpoliticaleconomy.Central toMarx’s ideaof theprogressivenessofcapitalismisthedevelopmentbycapital“oftheco-operativeformofthelabourprocess,theconscioustechnicalapplicationofscience,theplanned

27.PanitchandGindin,“GlobalCapitalismandAmericanEmpire,”18.28.AijazAhmad,“ImperialismofOurTime,”inSocialist Register 2004,48.29.VladimirIlyichLenin,“OpportunismandtheCollapseoftheSecondInternational,”inCollected Works(Moscow:ProgressPublishers,1964),22:109.30.Lenin,“OpportunismandtheCollapseoftheSecondInternational,”109.


exploitationofthesoil,thetransformationofthemeansoflabourintoformsinwhichtheycanonlybeusedincommon,theeconomizingofallmeansofproductionbytheiruseasthemeansofproductionofcombined,social-izedlabour,theentanglementofallpeoplesinthenetoftheworldmarket,and, with this, the growth of the international character of the capitalistregime”(Capital,1:929).Andwhat isglobalization ifnot the latestact inthisdrama!InsteadofthecriteriaofMarx,LeninborrowedfromKarlKaut-skythediscourseof thedefinitivedecayingstageofcapitalism,which intheGDRstillinthe1970scoulddazzleevenanintelligentMarxistsuchasJürgenKuczynski,whonotonlyoverlookedthedevelopmentofcomputer-basedautomationintheWestbutalsodeclareditasbeingimpossible.YetwhenoneaskswhatledtothecollapseofSoviet-typestatesocialism,oneultimately reaches the conclusion that thedevelopmentandwidespreadapplicationofhigh-techproductiveforcesandthecorrespondingadapta-tionof institutionalstructureswereincompatiblewiththeproductionrela-tionsoftheSovietnationalsecuritystate,unlikeintheadvancedcapitalistcountries.Onemustplainlyseethisasa lessonthatsurprisinglyfollowstotheletterMarx’steaching:iftherelationsofproductionprovetobetooconstrainedforthedevelopmentofproductiveforces,andiftheyturnfrom“formsofdevelopment”oftheproductiveforcesintotheir“fetters,”an“eraofsocialrevolutionbegins.”31ThisalsomeansthatDavidHarvey’sconceptofacapitalismofplunderanddispossession32shouldnottemptus,despitetheactualtransferofgiganticamountsofresourcesitentails,intoclosingoureyes to theenduringhistoricalproductivityofcapitalism,asambigu-ousand destructive as it is. The tributary andexploitive relationshipsofhigh-techcapitalism,protectedbypatentrights,arebasedontechnologi-caladvancesandtheforcefulprotectionofintellectualpropertyrights.Aswell,theotherextremelypopularview,offinancecapital’sdominationoverproductivecapitaltoanextentneverdreamedofevenbyLenin,33leadstoanundervaluationoftransnationalcorporationsandthedevelopmentofthehigh-techmodeofproduction. Theadvanceofhigh-techcapitalism,withitsdramaticdevelopmentof productive forces, hasembarrasseddiscourses regarding thehighestandlaststageofdecliningcapitalism.Andthetransnationalizationofcapi-

31.KarlMarx,preface to “AContribution to theCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy,” inCol-lected Works,byKarlMarxandFriedrichEngels(London:LawrenceandWishart,1987),29:263.32.SeeDavidHarvey,The New Imperialism(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2005).33.Ahmad,“ImperialismofOurTime,”44.


talandtheunipolarconcentrationofglobalhegemonicpowerintheUnitedStatesaftertheexitoftheSovietUnionfromhistoryhasleftbehindforthepresent time the thesis thatcapitalist competitionnecessarilyunleashesinter-imperialist clashes.To theextent thatLenin’s theoryof imperialismretreated into the background, Kautsky’s prognostic thesis of an “ultra-imperialism” reemerges, predicting “an international alliance of financecapital”which,“intheplaceofastrugglebetweennationalfinancecapital,”wouldbringforward“thecollectiveexploitationoftheworld.”34KarlHeinzRoth,aninfluential intellectualoftheleft-autonomistsceneincontempo-raryGermany,observedthecurrentpredominanceof“thestructuresandinstitutionsofacollectivebalanceofdomination,ofan‘ultra-imperialism’directedagainst theGlobalSouthandsecuredbymeansof themilitarysuperiorityof theUnitedStates.”35ShaliniRanderiaandAndreasEckertviewimperialismas“perhapsthemostimportant[...]concepttodescribeand evaluate the relationships between the West and the rest of theworld.”36Forthem,theIMFandtheWorldBankcountas“thecentralinsti-tutionsofthenewpost-colonialimperialism.”37 Thus,foratime,theoriesofimperialismdisappearedfromthecen-terofMarxistanalyses.Theperiodoftheemergenceanddisappearanceoftheoriesisnotthesameastheperiodoftheemergenceanddisappear-anceofthephenomenawithwhichtheydeal.Hegel’simageoftheowlofMinerva,whichdoesnottakeflightuntilhistoricaldusk,hasbecomeaprov-erbfortheseshiftsinphases.Thereisnolackofexamplespertainingtoourcontext.Afterneoliberalderegulationhadtakenholdeverywhere,theRegulationschool(whosemembersincludedMichelAglietta,RobertBoyer,AlainLipietz,and,inGermany,JoachimHirsch)becamehegemonic.Itwasonlyafterthemechanized,standardized,monotonous,andrepetitiveworkperformedonassemblylines,whichwasthebasisforFordism,gavewayto flexibleautomation,madepossibleby thecomputer, that theconceptofFordism,developedbyGramscihalfacenturyearlier,becamepopular.Thereisnoshortageofreasonstobeshockedbysuch“culturallags”andtobecatapultedbysuchshocksintothecurrentperiod.

34.KarlKautsky,“ZweiSchriftenzumUmdenken,”Die Neue Zeit33,no.2(1915):144.35.KarlHeinzRoth,Der Zustand der Welt: Gegen- Perspektiven(Hamburg:VSA,2005),32.36.ShaliniRanderiaandAndreasEckert,eds.,Vom Imperialismus zum Empire: Nicht- westliche Perspektiven auf Globalisierung(Frankfurt:Suhrkamp,2008),13.37.RanderiaandEckert,Vom Imperialismus zum Empire,10.


WhileLenin’stractonimperialism,withitsconjuncturalbeliefintheimminent endof capitalism, remains relegated to thepast, theoppositeapplies tohisNotebooks on Imperialism.During theFirstWorldWar, intheseworkingpapers,heundertookafeverishevaluationofwhatevercon-creteanalysesofactualcapitalistinstitutionsandactorshecouldgetholdof. These emigration notebooks are more relevant than Lenin’s tract onimperialismandincludeatremendousamountofmaterial,whichstillawaitsatheoreticalreevaluation;thecompiler,interestingly,largelywithheldcom-mentaries.Otherbookscouldhavebeenwrittenbasedonthesematerials.Readers todaywill recognizeplenty: it isas ifLenin’s journalsgiveusaclearinsightintothearchaeologyofthepresent—actuallyasalutaryview,becauseheshowstheseculardimensionsofdevelopmentsthatwewouldotherwise fundamentallymisunderstand. Inacertainsense,mostof thedeterminationsthatarebelievedtobespecificallynewtodayarealreadypresentinthemirrorofthiscollectionofmaterialfromthebeginningofthetwentieth century. Only the relations of forces are still different, and forsomeoftoday’sregulatoryinstitutionsofglobalcapitalismthetimeisnotyetripe.Inparticular,capitalisnotyetequippedwiththeadequateproduc-tiveforces,togetherwiththecorrespondingmodeofproduction,38thatthecomputerandtheInternethavemadepossibleinthemeantime.YeteveninLenin’sday,ideaswerefermentingintheheadsofcapitalistelitesthattodayfillthefrontpagesofnewspapers.Thisisthecase,forinstance,whenLenin, inthelongforgottenGrundriss der Sozialökonomik fromtheearlytwentiethcentury,excavatestheconsiderationthat“‘imperiumetlibertas,’towhichtheAnglo-Saxons,fromCromwelltoRhodes,owetheirgreatestsuccesses!”wasfor(imperial)Germanyastillunattainablemodel.39Acen-turylater,theformula“EmpireandFreedom”isputintoquestioninanotherway.Thisissobecausefreedomstandsforconsent.

38. In theMarxiansenseofacontradictoryunityofproductive forcesandrelationsofproduction—inourcase,high-technologicalmeansandtransnational-capitalistrelationsofproduction.SeeW.F.Haug,“Élémentsdumodedeproduction‘hightech’”(contribu-tion to theEuropeanSeminar“Lecapitalismeaujourd’hui—Tendances,contradictions,recherches d’alternatives,” organized by Espaces Marx, Paris, June 1–2, 2001), www.wolfgangfritzhaug.inkrit.de/eu/eu-index.htm.39.VladimirIlyichLenin,“FromPrinciplesofSocialEconomics,”Collected Works(Mos-cow:ProgressPublishers,1968),39:69.


3. Empire and Imperialism in the Light of the Problem of Hegemony

How shall we distinguish the concepts of empire and imperial-ism, in their contemporary sense, from each other and from the socio-economicdominationofcapital,ontheonehand,andstatedominance,on theother?Theeasiestwaywouldbe tosee itasWeberdid,and tosaythat“‘imperialist’capitalism[...]hasalwaysbeenthenormalforminwhichcapitalistinterestshaveinfluencedpolitics.”40Butthentheconceptof imperialismno longerhasanyactual objectand is thusexpendable.Wouldwe,instead,nameaformofdomination,whichtransversesnationalboundariesonacapitalistbasis,asimperialist?Thatistosay,whichpur-suesforeignpolicywiththeuse,orthreatofuse,offorceonbehalfoftheinterests of domestically embeddedcapital?Shallwedefine theuseofcoercionbyonestateto forceopentheeconomyofanother tounequalexchangeastheessenceofcapitalistimperialism?Shallwe,withregardtocross-borderprojectsofdomination,andborrowingfromGramsci,makeconsent and force criteria, in other words, hegemony and dictatorship?Hans-JürgenBielingsummarizesthestateofthediscussionin2005inthefollowingmanner:

Most of the recent theoretical contributions on imperialism havedepartedfromthecentral—economistic-instrumental—assumptionsofclassical theoriesof imperialism[. . .].They[. . .]proceedfromthepositionthattheimperialistlogicofcapital—asacountermove-ment to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall—is a permanentprocessthatisabovealltiedtoprocessesofprimitiveaccumulationanddispossession[...]andthatthedevelopedcapitaliststatesnolongermobilizetheirentirearsenalsofpowerfortheconstructionof“formal”butratherof“informal”imperialstructures.41

Bieling himself asserts that “relationships of dominance in globalcapitalism do not have to be necessarily imperialist” and proposes “tolocateimperialismandhegemonyonthesamelevelofabstractionasspe-cific inter- or transnational formsof domination, i.e. as two variationsorpoles which comprise a differentiated articulated mixture of elements of

40.MaxWeber,Economy and Society: Volume Two,ed.GuentherRothandClausWittich(BerkeleyandLosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1978),919.41.Hans-JürgenBieling,“DieEuropäischeUnion:EineneueSupermachtmitimperialenAmbitionen?,”Prokla138(2005):248.


forceandconsent.”42 Ifwe followBieling,wecandistinguishbetweenanation-state-based imperialism and a transnational empire, which doesnotservetheaggregatecorporate interestsofnation-state-basedcapitalbutforms,asGiovanniArrighiandJasonW.Moorecallit,“cosmopolitan-imperial(orcorporate-national)blocsofgovernmentalandbusinessorga-nizationsendowedwiththecapacityofwidening(ordeepening)thefunc-tionalandspatialscopeoftheworldcapitalistsystem”forallinvolved.43Thedecisive“containersofpower”inthisfunctionalspacewouldthenbethosestates thathost the “‘headquarters’of the leadingcapitalistagencies.”44Their transnational empire, whose inner sanctum does not necessarilyfunctioninanimperialisticway,is,asRothsays,surroundedbya“sphereofcollective-imperialistcolonialdominance,whichbeginsintheprotector-atesofsoutheasternEurope(Kosovo,Bosnia-Herzegovina,andMacedo-nia), thenextends intocentralAsia (Afghanistan,Chechnya),and in themeantimealsocontrols thehistorical-politicalcenterofeastArabiancul-tureanddevelopmentalmomentum.”45Wemight add that in contrast toclassicalcolonialismandimperialism,theinformalmodeisalsoinopera-tionhere,whichmakesthisformofdominanceappearasitsopposite,asamissionfordemocracyandhumanrights.Withregardtothemixtureofconsensualandrepressiveelements,theformerwouldbedominantintheinner relationand the latter in theouter relationof sucha transnationalimperialbloc.Atthesametime, itshouldbetakenintoaccountthatthisappliesnotonlytointerstaterelationsbutalsotorelationsbetweenstatesandnonstateactors,since“the‘state’[...]assumesanincreasinglypro-nouncedmixedpublic-privateform.”46Evenmoreso,sinceintransnationalhigh-techcapitalisma“mannerofsystemizationofthesocietal”emergesthatcanbedescribedasa“mixedeconomyofpatternsofdomination.”47

42.Bieling,“DieEuropäischeUnion,”250.43. According to Giovanni Arrighi and Jason W. Moore, the historical development ofcapitalismasaworldsystemisalwaysbasedontheformationofsuchblocs(GiovanniArrighiandJasonW.Moore,“CapitalistDevelopmentinWorldHistoricalPerspective,”inPhases of Capitalist Development: Booms, Crises and Globalizations,ed.RobertAlbrit-ton,MakotoItoh,RichardWestra,andAlanZuege[NewYork:Palgrave,2001],70).44.ArrighiandMoore,“CapitalistDevelopmentinWorldHistoricalPerspective,”67.45.Roth,Der Zustand der Welt,22.46.JoachimHirsch,“DieInternationalisierungdesStaates,”Das Argument236(2000):335.47.WolfgangFritzHaug,Dreizehn Versuche marxistisches Denken zu erneuern, gefolgt von Sondierungen zu Marx/Lenin/Luxemburg(Hamburg:ArgumentVerlag,2005),80.


Thereasonforthisisobvious:“Onesearchesinvainatthegloballevelforagovernmentcapableofregulating,asinanation-state.Thiscannotoccurunderexistingconditions,norcantheseconditionsbereproducedundis-turbedwithoutsuchregulation.Asthiscontradictionseeksitsownformofmovement,thelackofaglobalregulator,asindispensableasitisunattain-able,givesrisetoamultiplicityofpracticesandinstitutions,inwhichcapi-talist,civilsociety,andstateactorsinteract,usuallyundertheroofoftheUnitedNations.”48 Withthis,ourguidingquestion,Empireorimperialism?,hasalreadybeenaltered.Empirenowstandsforthepredominanceofthemomentofhegemony,andimperialismfortheprimacyofdictatorship.Bothareidealtypesthat inrealityneveroccur inapureform.Wehavethustorespec-tivelyexaminetheconcreteorganiccompositionoftheexistingrelationsofdominance.Andthisneedstobedoneonthemanysystemiclevels—politi-cal,ideological,cultural,economic(finance,technology),military—thatdonotnecessarilyfollowthesamescript.TheAmerican“worldpresidency,”or“imperialpresidency,”asitisoftenreferredto,particularlyinLatinAmerica,49isinturnconceivablewiththeseconcepts,bothasdominancesupportedbyconsensusanddominancebasedonrepression.Aboveall,itallowsfortherecognitionof inner-imperialwrestling,whichdealspreciselywiththisdifference in dominance. According to the extent of disapproval in worldpublicopinion,theBusheraappearedas“dominancewithouthegemony,”50astateofaffairswhich,attheendofthisera,borderedondishegemony.51Nevertheless,intheirsecondvolumedealingwithimperialism,theeditorsofSocialist Registercouldclaimalltheirauthors“recognizethatwhatmostdistinguishesUSsupremacyinthenewimperialorderisnotitsmilitaryandsurveillancepower,hugethoughthatis,butthepenetrationofthestates,economies,andsocialordersoftheotherleadingcountriesbytheUSstate,

48.WolfgangFritzHaug,High- Tech- Kapitalismus: Analysen zu Produktionsweise, Arbeit, Sexualität, Krieg und Hegemonie,2nded.(Hamburg:ArgumentVerlag,2005),151.49. John Saxe-Fernández speaks of an “imperial presidency,” which, since the earlynineteenthcentury,developedasan“institutionalexpressionofasystemicreality thatspringsfromtheessenceofcapitalistdevelopmentitself”(JohnSaxe-Fernández,Terror e imperio: La hegemonía política y económica de Estados Unidos[MexicoCity:DebateEditorial,2006],15).50.SeeHaug,High- Tech- Kapitalismus,242–46.51.By2005, theUnitedStateswas “almostuniversallyhatedanddistrusted” (RobertGilpin,“WarIsTooImportanttoBeLefttoIdeologicalAmateurs,”International Relations19,no.1[2005]:5).


UScorporations,andUSvalues.”52Oneisthereforewelladvisedtotakeintoconsiderationadisparitybetweendifferentlevelsofhegemony.

4. The Contradictory Compatibility of Empire and Freedom 53 If the Anglo-imperial secret of success, as Lenin imagined it, isbasedonthecompatibility of empire with freedom, thenwewillnot treatauthorityand freedomasexternalantipodesbut insteadtakeaccountoftheirorganic interrelation.Therelationshipbetweenempireandimperial-ism,asindicateduptonow,isnotnecessarilyoneofexclusionbutcanindi-cateaninnerantagonism,inthesenseofacontradictionofglobalcapital-ism.Itsdominanteconomicactorsarethetransnationalcorporationswiththeirheadquartersembeddedinnation-states.Thefirstbeginningsofsuchfirmswerealreadypresent in the formof largemercantilecompanies inearlycapitalism.Incontrasttosuchcompanies,today’sglobal players inthe world market are not mercantile capitalists, and, what is more, theycoordinatethemselvesbymeansofatechnologyofinstantaneousglobalreachintheformofintegratedinformationandcommunicationstechnolo-gies.Thehigh-techmodeofproduction,forwhichtheypreparedtheway(aswellasviceversa),hashelpedthemtoadominantpositioninglobalcapitalism, from where they have displaced local or nationally boundedcapitals to the more or less subaltern position of subcontractors. Theseactorsmustnowstrivetoachieve,asmuchaspossible,ahomogeneousdomainencompassing their entireglobal sphereof operations,withuni-formrelationsofcommercial“intercourse”(Verkehrsverhältnisse)(Capital,1:90)—inotherwords,property-rightsguaranteesandlegalauthoritiestoarbitratedisputes.Liberalizationandthepolitical-militarysecuringofcapi-tal mobility cooperated in the creation of this space of operation, whichbuttressedthisnewtypeofworldmarketwithacorrespondingallocationofproductionsites.Inthisphaseoftheemergenceandimplementationofthehigh-techcapitalistglobalizationunderneoliberalhegemony,aphasethat coincides at first with the liberalization of capital markets and laterwiththeemergenceoftheInternet,transnationalfirmscouldachievetheirglobalscopeofoperationthanksonlytotheabsolutemilitarysuperiorityof

52.LeysandPanitch,prefacetoSocialist Register 2004,vii.53.Theconceptoffreedommustherebeconsideredsoberly,withoutthetremoloofide-ology,fromthestandpointofthetheoryofhegemonicpower.Consideredinthisway,free-dommeanssolelythemomentofconsent,withoutanyapplicationofethicalnorms.Afterall,onecouldalsovoluntarilytakepartinacampaignoftheftandoppression.


thisoneparticularnation-state,theUnitedStates.TheUnitedStatesalonehad,andfortheforeseeablefuturewillcontinuetohave,globalcontrolbymeansof itsmilitarybasesandweaponssystems,whichnootherstatecanmatch. Butifanationalmilitarysuperpoweristheprerequisitefortheexis-tenceofatransnationalspaceofoperation,thenitmustatthesametimeconflictwiththistransnationalspaceithasenabled.Thesuperpowerstrivesalmostnaturallytodisadvantagethelesserpowers.Thesuperiorityofthisonenation-stateisemployedatenormouscosttostrengthenitspositionbymakingotherstatesdependentortoperpetuatealreadyexistingdepen-dencies.Thiscanbeintheformofmilitarydependency,technologicalorlegalstandards,or the traditional imperialistwayofcontrollingaccesstoscarceresourcessuchaspetroleumoruranium.Yetjustasthecompetingtransnationalfirms,inspiteofcompetition,mustpushforapplicablestan-dards foreveryone, thesuperpowercannotavoid fulfilling this functionalnecessity. Itmustsee to the taskofpromotinguniversalstandardizationanddevelopingtheglobeforthesecuremovementoftransnationalcapi-taland itspersonnel.Thisexplainstherecentresurgence indiscussionsoncosmopolitanism thathavebeen takingplaceaboveall in theUnitedStates.Le diable porte pierre,astheFrenchsayinggoes:Thesuperpowermustformallyengageinanexerciseofmereprimusinterparesifitwantstomaintaintheinformalcharacterofitsimperialism.

5. The US Experience as a Form of the Master- Servant Dialectic The greatest contradiction, however—the historical dynamic ofwhichhasbeenonlygraduallyrevealed,untilthecollapseofthe“NewWallStreet System” announced it with a world historical thunderclap54—washeldinstorebythepoliticaleconomyofthesuperpower.ItremindsusofHegel’sdescriptionof theMaster-Servantdialectic.This issobecause itisexactlyatthepointwhereit istriumphant,andwhereitstriumphislit-erallyenjoyedintheformofconsumption,thatthereasonsforitsunsus-tainabilityarelocated.TheUnitedStatesisasuperpoweronlywithregardto theparadoxicalpriceof itsoverconsumption. Itborrowedthefinancialbasisfor itsconsumerismandalsofor itsmilitarymightfromitsvassals.“Inthisregard,ofcourse,theColdWarprovidedtheUSAwithaglorious

54.SeePeterGowan,“Crisis intheHeartland:Consequencesof theNewWallStreetSystem,”New Left Review55(January–February2009):5–29.


opportunity.”55Indeed,asalways,Marx’sphraseaboutcompetitionapplied:“Onecapitalist alwaysstrikesdownmanyothers” (Capital, 1:929).How-ever,atthesametime,allcapitalistsfearedexpropriationbytheircommonenemy, theSovietUnion.TheUnitedStatesbecamethestrongholdandguarantorofglobalcapital.With thedisappearanceof this threat,so toodisappearedthe“commercialbasis”oftheparadigm.Thespatiotemporallyopen-ended“waronterror”wassupposedtoreconstituteit.Yettheasym-metricalnonstateandrhizomaticenemyofthisnewconstellationcouldnotreplacetheoldsystemicantagonist,thesecondsuperpowerinthebalanceofterror,theUSSR.CapitalcontinuedtoflowintotheUnitedStates,thoughitno longercameoutof fearbuttodobusiness—someof it ratherwon-drousbusiness,which,as it seemed,could transformpenury intoabun-dance.Wewillreturntothis. Itischaracteristicofcapitalthat,underitsreign,accordingtoMarx’sdictum,“everythingseemspregnantwithitscontrary.”56Thispeculiarhis-torical pregnancy also applies to the United States. As the competitionagentofUScapitalontheworldmarketandintheinternationalstatesys-tem,theAmericanstatetookpossessionoftheroleoftheglobalaggregatecapitalist(Gesamtkapitalist).Againstanyrivalstoitsowndomesticcapitals’interests,theUnitedStatesbrandishedtheirincomparablepower.Thiswashegemonyinthesenseofthemainstreamcrudepowerapproach,“dictatesofthehegemonicpower”:57simplepreponderanceandcrushingsuperioritybymeansofviolence.Admittedly,theeconomicactivitiesoftransnationalUScapitalallowedforstill lessnationalspecificationthantheworldmar-ketactivitiesinRosaLuxemburg’stime,sincetheirvaluecreationchainswerenowabovealltransnational,thatis,organizedonaborder-crossingbasis.Tobesure,theUnitedStatesremainedthe“containerofpower”thatshelteredtheheadquartersofUScapital.However,theexportsuccessesofUScapitaloperatingfromChinawerereflectedintheUStradedeficits,althoughthevaluecreationchainsweremanipulatedinsuchawayastorealizeintheUnitedStatesthelion’sshareofthesurplusvalueproducedin

55.DavidHarvey,The New Imperialism(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2005),39.56.KarlMarx,“SpeechatAnniversaryofthePeople’sPaper,”inCollected Works,byKarlMarxandFriedrichEngels(London:LawrenceandWishart,1980),14:655.57.ImmanuelWallerstein,“CrisisoftheCapitalistSystem:WhereDoWeGofromHere?”(paper presented at the Harold Wolpe Lecture, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Novem-ber 5, 2009, http://www.ukzn.ac.za/ccs/files/Wallerstein%20November%202009%20Wolpe%20Lecture.pdf).


China.Inordertomaintainitsdoublyadvantageousposition,UStransna-tionalcapitalmustthuspursuetheexpansionofglobaltraderelationsandnorms,which, in the frameworkof theWorldTradeOrganization (WTO),would result in a kind of global political-economic jurisdiction. InasmuchastheUSstatepursuedandcontinuestopursuethisstandardization, itservedandservestheinterestsofalltransnationalcapital.Wheneverthisservice,whichisprovidedtothecollectivityoftransnationallyactivecapi-tal,securesadvantagesforthosewhoaremoreefficientcompetitorsofUScapital,Americanpoliticsthendevelopsaschism.Theimperialstatethenclaimstheprivilegeofkeepingtheunleashingofanunlimitedworldcapital-ism,itsemancipationfromnationalborderregimes,withinthelimitsofitsowninterests.Unlimitedfreetradeissomethingthatappliestoothers,nottotheUnitedStates.Inthisregard,theWTOitself,whichashorttimeagowasitsinstrument,becamebothersome.

6. Transforming Nation- States into Cacique States Accordingtotherule“Hewhocannotbebribedwillbeeliminated,”theaggregatedpowerofstateandprivateglobalmarketinterestscanpre-vent,toacertaindegree,capitalistcompetitionfrombeingarticulatedintheformofstaterivalries.Yetwhenantagonismsthusbecomelargelydenation-alized,it isatthecostoftheirreproductionasanintensificationofsocialconflictswithinindividualnationalsocieties.Thisissobecause“theAmeri-canempirecanonlyrulethroughotherstates.”58Nation-statesarethusnotobsolete.Yettheirfunctionshavebeenreducedinthiscontext,accordingtoAhmad,toenforcinglocaldisciplinary“labourregimes.”59IcallthistheCacique- ization of nation- states. This term is derived from the Cacique,native village chieftains in colonial Latin America. They represented thedominatedpeopleandreliedonthem,ontheonehand,butwerealso,andpredominantly,themeansthroughwhichimperialrulewasexercised.60The“right-wingimperialproject”—oraswewouldsay,theimperialistproject—soughtto“establishformalinequalityintheinternationalsystemofstates,”accompanied by the “invalidation of trans- and international regimes,”thoughbymeansofthe“centralmodeofdominationofinformalimperiality,torulenotover,butthroughstatesandstatesystems.”61Thisclientelistic

58.PanitchandGindin,“GlobalCapitalismandAmericanEmpire,”33.59.Ahmad,“ImperialismofOurTime,”45.60.Seetheentry“Kazikentum,”inHistorisch- Kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus,vol.7/I,549–53.61.Rilling,“WeDon’tDoEmpire.”


subalternization of the weaker nation-states, which was blatantly aggra-vatedduringtheBushera,has,however,proventobeanAchillesheelfortheglobaldominanceof transnationalcapitalwhenever those indispens-ablestatemediatorsarethreatenedbythelossoftheirdomesticlegitimacybecauseoftheirallegiancetowardtheimperialstate. In theageof imperialism, imperialisms collidedwithoneanother.Theplural imperialismsisdecisive.IfPanitchandGindinarecorrectthat“abenignimperiumcanhardlyprovetobemorethananillusionintoday’sworld,”62thentherewouldbeonelastsingleimperialismwithatbestocca-sionallyconflictingregionalsub-imperialismsfollowinginthewake.Hence,accordingtothem,thecurrentconstellationhastodomorewiththecontra-dictions of imperialism generally than about inter-imperialist rivalries. Atthesametime,theyviewtheideaofatransnationalcapitalistclass,whichcouldberegardedasanewtypeofimperialclass,asunrealasthebeliefinareturntorivalriesbetweenthenationalbourgeoisies.63However,whetherthescalestiptooneortheothersidedependsontherespectiveweightwe put on consent and coercion, the two foci of the elliptical reality wecallhegemony.Inonecase,wecancomprehendsuchantinomiesasthecontradictions of imperialism. In the other case, we would have to dealwith the contradictions of the dominion of transnational capital, whichwouldthenmeananewtypeofempire.BegunastheAmericanizationoftheworld,byvirtueofitsinnerlogic,globalizationwouldeithercausethede-Americanizationofglobalrelationsorresultinadifferent“globalcitizen-ship”withintheAmericanstate. Thisnewtypeofempirewouldthusbethesphereofoperationoftransnationalcapitalismprotectedbycoercion.Withoutthiscoercivearmor,itwouldbeasdifficulttosustainasshippinglanesintheHornofAfricainthefaceofpiracy.Fortheforeseeablefuture,onlytheUnitedStatescanandwillfunctionasthe“self-evident”hegemonforthisempire.Ontheotherhand,itisexactlythisexceptionalprivilegethatformsthebarriertoitsreal-ization.IntheoddformulationofJoschkaFischer,theformerGermanfor-eign minister under Gerhard Schröder, the collapse of the Soviet UnionbequeathedtotheUnitedStatesthe“poisonedgiftofunilateralism”asa“Trojanhorse.”64OnlytheUnitedStateswasabletoprovidetheapparatusofforceatthegloballevelwithoutwhichcapitalistglobalizationwoulddis-

62.PanitchandGindin,“GlobalCapitalismandAmericanEmpire,”32.63.PanitchandGindin,“GlobalCapitalismandAmericanEmpire,”24.64.JoschkaFischer,“Lamaldicidelunilaterismo,”El País,April2,2009,31.


solveintorivalprojects,noneofthemsecureandstilllessglobal.TheroleoftheUnitedStatesastheglobalpoliceforcewasthepreconditionfortheexistenceofthatempire.Yetthispreconditionforitsexistenceturnedouttobeatthesametimethethreattoitsexistence.Throughittheglobalempireof transnational capitalwas inevitablybeleagueredby inner imperialism.Tostabilizetheglobalempireofcapital,theglobalpoliceman,awareofhismonopolyofviolenceandlookingafterhisownadvantage,appointedhim-selfmaster.Ashedidso,heonceagaindestabilizedhisdominion. This drive for direct world dominance by the administration ofGeorgeW.Bush tookonclumsyaswellasdestructive features.Yet thecontradictorydouble roleof theUnitedStatesbrought to light thateventhisprojectofan“AmericanCentury”waspregnantwithitsopposite.Thisalsodeterminedtheanti-AmericanismthattheBushadministrationsowedallover theworld.Evenwhere theslogansof thenewanti-Americanismappearedtobeunambiguous,uponcloserexaminationambiguitiesjumpintoview.ThiswasapparentinthejointstatementinthetitleofanarticlebySamirAmin,FrançoisHoutard,andIgnacioRamonet,“Maketheimperialproject fail.” In theanalyticalpartof thearticle,wearetold,“TheUnitedStatesdestroystheautonomyofthecountriesoftheSouthandalsocon-siderablyrestrictstheautonomyofWashington’s‘allies.’Economicsbringsthe triad countries together, but politics drives their nations apart.”65 Asa matter of fact, the inverse could be the case. It could be that capitaldrives apart the nations—but are they the subjects that we are dealingwithhere?—whilepoliticsisceaselesslyengagedwithhealingtherifts.Thestatementends in theappeal to “make theUSmilitaryproject fail.”Theauthorsaresilentonhowthiscanhappen.Insteadtheyadmit,“However,thisfailurewillbeaccompaniedbyterribleconsequencesforhumanity.”66Yethowcanonecall for something thatwouldbeaccompaniedbyhor-rificeffectsforhumanity?Wassalvationtobeexpectedfromoutsidetheempire?Theappealconfineditselftovaguesuggestions:“Onlythepeoplethemselves who are under attack are in a position to put a stop to thedemandsofWashington.”Eventhishopeispregnantwithitsopposite:“Yettheirmethodsofstruggleareoftenof fragileefficiency[. . .].Theyresorttomethodsthatdeferthecrystallizationofsolidaritybythepeoplesofthe

65.SamirAmin,FrançoisHoutard,and IgnacioRamonet, “Das imperialeProjektzumScheiternbringen:VierBausteinefüreinewirklichmultipolareWelt,”Sand im Getriebe48(January2006):3.66.Amin,Houtard,andRamonet,“DasimperialeProjektzumScheiternbringen,”4.


North.”67OnthisaspectAhmadisclearer:“Terrorismisnowwherenationalliberationusedtobe.”68Itistruethatthepoliticsofneoliberalglobalizationhascompletelybrokenthebackboneoftheremnantsofnationalliberationanddevelopmentalregimes.Nevertheless, it isquestionablewhethertheassertionbyAmin,Houtard,andRamonetthattheUnitedStatesdestroyedtheautonomyof the countriesof theSouthholds true in suchagener-alized form. The policies of delinking and self- reliance that Amin earlieradvocatedforthenational-modernizationregimesofthethirdworld69havefailedduetoendogenousreasons.AndtheBRICcountries(Brazil,Russia,India,andChina),ofwhichatleastthreecountasthe“South,”throughtheirintegration in theworldmarketand theconcurrentdevelopmentof inter-nalmarkets,havebeenabletoconsiderablyexpandtheirroomtomaneu-ver, albeit inmanycontradictory forms,andeach in verydifferentways.AlmostimmediatelyafterAmin,Houtard,andRamonethaddeclared“Rus-sia,China,andIndiaarethethreestrategicantagonistsoftheAmericanproject,”70NewDelhisealedastrategicpartnershipwiththeUnitedStates,whileChinabecamethemainfinancierofAmericanoverconsumption. Itisobviouslynotthemomentforconclusiveanswers.Butwemustattempt to analyze the contradictions of global capitalism with political-theoretical instruments of thought, informed by the critique of politicaleconomy,inordertoincreasethecapacitytoactbyemancipatorymove-mentswithinglobalcapitalismandtopreparethegroundforthestillpend-ingrenaissanceofaprogressivealternativetoit.Otherwise,answerswillincreasinglycomefrom“reactionaryandatavisticelements.”71Answersofthat kind fit into the calculus of the Bush administration. Already underBush’s predecessors American policies had greatly increased the phe-nomenonof reactionaryanti-imperialism.Finally,outof thisdevelopedaveritableworldwarscenariowiththeubiquitousfigureofthevirtuallyomni-present terrorist. It is thisscenario thatsubjectedtheempireof transna-tionalcapital toa flagrantly imperialistmanagement.Empireor imperial-ism?Thisquestionhashauntedthecapitalistworldsystemeversince.Yettheemancipatoryforces,whichhaveestablishedthemselvesworldwideinthe formof a counterhegemonic sphere critical of globalization, standa

67.Amin,Houtard,andRamonet,“DasimperialeProjektzumScheiternbringen,”4.68.Ahmad,“ImperialismofOurTime,”47.69.SamirAmin,Delinking: Towards a Polycentric World(London:ZedBooks,1990).70.Amin,Houtard,andRamonet,“DasimperialeProjektzumScheiternbringen,”3.71.LeysandPanitch,prefacetoSocialist Register 2004,ix.


chanceonlyfromtheimperial insideout,sotospeak.Ifsocietalantago-nismweretobedisplacedtothestatesystem,andthisresultedinanewtypeofworldwar,theseforceswouldhavelost.

Part Two: The Question of Reconstruction of US Hegemony under Obama

1. Preliminary Remarks TheendoftheBusheraprovedtobeafiascofortheUnitedStates,andalsofortherestoftheworld,butitcontainedthehistoricalchanceforanewbeginning.Thosewhohadtheirsensesintactcouldnolongerdenythat “neoliberal neo-imperialism”72 had failed on all sides. A memorable“passivedialectic”73canbeobservedhere:itispreciselytheunilateralismoftheAmericansuperpowerthathasmadethedrifttoward“multi-polarity”irreversible. By Bush’s claim to leadership, which operated with the pri-macyof force, stillmoresoby thebreakdownof theAmerican financialmarketsanditseventualglobaldissemination,thequestionofinternationalleadershipand thus thatofhegemonywas“multipliedbyzero.”74Briefly,thismeant,“noone,neitherthegovernmentsnorthemarkets,neithertheeconomistsnorthepoliticians,reallyknowswhattheyshoulddo.”75 Toputitsimply:whethertheUnitedStatesunderObamawillregainits leadershiproleintheinternationalstatesystemlinkedwiththeglobalplayersoftheworldmarketcanonlybeansweredbymeansofhistoricalaction,notwithconceptualworkalone.Whattheoreticalreflectioncando,however, istoanalyzeconditionsofthepossibilityofhegemony.Nothingpointsto“anyeasyaccessiontotheroleofglobalhegemon.”76Yetwhat

72.PerryAnderson, “AfterHegemony” (paperpresentedatEinsteinForum,Potsdam,Germany,October18,2005),citedinPatrickBahners,“DerTagdanach,”Frankfurter All-gemeine Zeitung,October26,2005,N3.73.W.F.Haug,“XXthCentury’sMarxism:AnEvaluation” (lecturegivenat theBrechtForum, New York, April 11, 2001, http://www.wolfgangfritzhaug.inkrit.de/documents/XXCenturyMarxism.pdf).Forfurtherelaborationontheconceptofpassivevs.activedia-lectics,seeW.F.Haug,“FürpraktischeDialektik,”Das Argument274(2008):21–32.74.FrankSchirrmacher,“GehenSiejetztnachHause!”Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,November24,2008,33.75. Loretta Napoleoni, “La feria de las vanidades de la globalización,” El País, Janu-ary29,2009,25–26.76.DavidHarvey,“WhytheU.S.StimulusPackageIsBoundtoFail,”Bullet: A Social-ist Project e- bulletin, no. 184,February 12, 2009,http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/bullet184.html.


shouldbeunderstoodasthepositionof“globalhegemon”?Ifwethinkofitastheruleroftheworld,thenitisasunattainablefortheUnitedStatesasforanyotherimaginableaspirant.Eventodefinehegemonyas“domi-nancethroughconsent”77movesthepositionofthealliesofahegemontooclosetowardvoluntaryvassalage.Ifwethink,incontrast,ofthehegemon,intermsofThucydides,asatleastformallyaleaderamongequals,78thenitsachievementispossibleatleastpartiallyandundercertainconditions. ThepropositionthatarecoveryofglobalhegemonyfortheUnitedStatesis“conditionallypossible”underObamachargesanyanalysiswithclarifyingtheconditionsunderwhichtheanswermustbefound.Firstandforemost,everyattemptatreconstructingAmericanhegemonymustdealwiththequestionofwhethertheUnitedStatescanleaditselfandtherestof the world out of the economic crisis. Is it possible to achieve such arescue operation by means of a “Green New Deal,” and would such adeal actually work? This suggests an almost infeasible task for Obamaandhisadministration.The“NewWallStreetSystem,”whichPeterGowandescribed,accounted foran incredible40percentof theprofits realizedby firms in theUnitedStates.79At first, thissystemseemed to lie in tat-ters,withoutanyforeseeableresuscitation.ItturnedoutthatstabilizingtheUSfinancialsectorwasexpensive,butitwastheeasierpartofthetask.Resuscitatingconsumption,production,andthelabormarketprovedtobemuchharderandtotakemuchmoretime.IfBaronvonMünchhausenonceboastedof havingpulledhimself out from the swampbyhisown tuft ofhair, itappears that theAmericanstatehasmadeanhonestattemptatsuchastart.Therequiredmoneyforthe“rescue”ofbanksandadecel-erationof theeconomicdownturnwasno longer raised from thecapitalmarketsbutwasinsteadborrowedfromthestateitselfthroughitstreasury.TheFedfinanced“theindebtednessofthetumblingeconomicsuperpowerbybuying loans.”80Theexpectationsof inflationgeneratedbythisactionimmediatelyweakened thedollar’sexchange rate.Chinesecentral bankchiefZhouXiaochuanpubliclydoubtedthe lasting“acceptanceofcredit-basednationalcurrenciesasmajorinternationalreservecurrencies.”81

77. Peter Wahl, “PR-Show oder Weltregierung? Die Bedeutung der G8–Gipfel in derglobalisiertenWelt,”Sand im Getriebe51(June12,2006):7.78.Thucydides,History of the Peloponnesian War,Book3,§IX.79.Gowan,“CrisisintheHeartland,”7.80.PhilipPlickert, “DasRisikodesungedecktenGeldes,”Frankfurter Allgemeine Zei-tung,May11,2009,12.81.CouncilonForeignRelations,“ZhouXiaochuan’sStatementonReformingtheInter-


In the realistic-radicalviewofMikeDavis, theprospectswerenotgood foraquickeconomic recoveryof theUnitedStatesunderObama.Withregardtotheessentialdomestichegemonynecessaryforapoliticsofeconomicreconstruction,hesawonlythehigh-techindustries,“withtheircaptiveuniversitiesandvast internet fandom,”asasocial force thatstillretained“enoughpubliclegitimacy(domesticandinternational)andinter-nalself-confidencehypotheticallytoactasaconstructivehegemonicblocrather thanasamobofdesperate lobbyists.”82ShortlyafterDaviswrotethis,notonlyhad theUSautomobile industrycollapsed,but so toohadCaliforniaanditsSiliconValleywithitshigh-techindustries.TheeconomistsObamabroughtintooffice,orrather,maintainedinoffice,whountilrecentlywerederegulators,seemedtohave,onceagainaccordingtoDavis,“aboutasmuchchanceofbringingthebanksbacktolifeashisgeneralsdoofwin-ningthewaragainstthePashtuninAfghanistan.”83Trillionsofdollarswouldbe needed to rescue “bad banks” or to make the nationalization of thebankingindustrypossible.Previouslythestatewouldhavesimplyprintedmoney.However,themonetarysovereigntyoftheUnitedStateshadbeeneroded.For“ifObama’sdomesticspendingfailstoproducesignificantcol-lateralbenefitsforAmerica’stradingpartners,theymaythinktwiceaboutbuyingWashington’sdebtordecidetoimposesomeconditionalitiesoftheirown.”84Furthermore,oneshouldnotsimplythink“theChineseareslavesoftheirtradesurplusandundervaluedcurrencyandhavenoalternativebuttosubsidizetheUSTreasury.”85Certainlytheyhave,inthewordsofPaulKrugman,maneuveredthemselvesintoa“dollartrap”byinvestingaround70percentoftheirtradesurplusindollars.Aweakeningofthepositionofthedollarastheglobalreservecurrencywouldleadtothelossofalargeportionofthisnominalwealth.Chinacannotseeksecurityforthiswealthbyshiftingitintoothercurrenciesbecause“itcan’tsellthemoffwithoutdriv-

nationalMonetarySystem,”March23,2009,http://www.cfr.org/publication/18916/zhou_xiaochuans_statement_on_reforming_the_international_monetary_system.html.Theideaof thedollarascredit-basedmeant, in thiscase, itsexchangeratewasdependentondollarpurchases,aboveallbytheChineseandotherAsiancentralbanks.Insodoing,theircurrenciesremainedinexpensive,andhencethepricesoftheirexports.Atthesametime,thiscontributedtolowinterestratesthatfurtherinflatedtherealestatebubbleintheUnitedStates.82.MikeDavis,“ObamaatManassas,”New Left Review56(March–April2009):39.83.Davis,“ObamaatManassas,”40.84.Davis,“ObamaatManassas,”40.85.Davis,“ObamaatManassas,”40.


ingthedollardownandtriggeringtheverycapitallossitsleadersfear.”86IfAmericanhegemonyattheeconomiclevelpresupposesthefunctionofthe dollar as the global reference and reserve currency, then this func-tionisnotonlythestartingpointbutevenmoresotheresultofAmericanhegemony.Notonlydothedifferentsystemiclevelsinteractbutsotoodonationalandinternationalevents.ForoveradecadetheforeigndebtoftheUnitedStateshasbeengrowingattherateof$2billionaday.Fromahis-toricalview,debtsappear“asaprincipalpredictorofleadingworldpowers’debilitation.”87“NoGreatPowercansurviveatthetopif itcannotpayitsway.”88Thealreadyhighly indebtedUSstate89mustnowtakeonfurtherhugedebts.Forthisitmustfindlendersthatitmustbeabletoattractwithinterestpayments,butitisunabletodoso.Iftrustinthedollarbreaksdownatanyonepoint,thenadynamiccouldensuethatmaybedifficulttobringtoahalt.Evenifthisworst-casescenariodoesnotcometopass,thedan-gercitedbyDavis isneverthelessnottobedisputed:“Thedollar threat-enstobecomethedogcollaronthenewNewDeal.”90ForDavis,thereisnodoubtthat“thebubbleworldofAmericanconsumerism,asitexistedatthestartofObama’sformalcandidacyin2007,willneverberestored.”Thismakesa“protractedstagnation”a“realisticscenariofortheerathatmaysomedaybearhisname.”91Onedoesnothavetoshareeveryaspectofthisskepticaloutlooktorealizeitbringsintoarealisticfocussomeofthepivotsaroundwhichasolutiontotheproblemsmustrevolve. JohnGray,oftheLondonSchoolofEconomics,offersanotherkindofskepticalviewpoint.GraystartedoutasanadvisortoMargaretThatcher

86.PaulKrugman,“China’sDollarTrap,”Pittsburgh Post- Gazette,April4,2009,http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09094/960385–109.stm.87.Arrighi,citedinHarvey,“WhytheU.S.StimulusPackageIsBoundtoFail.”88.PaulKennedy,“FirstChooseYourFutureWar,ThenChooseYourWeapons,”Feb-ruary2010,http://www.ihavenet.com/United-States-Needs-to-re-assess-global-position-global-future-PK.html.89.“AggregateUSdebtasapercentageofGDProsefrom163percentin1980to346percentin2007”(Gowan,“CrisisintheHeartland,”26).90.Davis,“ObamaatManassas,”40.91. Davis, “Obama at Manassas,” 40. There was a foretaste already in March 2009.PaulA.SamuelsonofferedthisviewfromthewindowofhiswinterresidenceonFlorida’swestcoast:“Mostshopsareempty.Thereisanoversupplyofnursingworkers,sincemostof thehusbandsofnursesareunabletofindwork.Onebumpsinto lawyersandengi-neerswhoarewillingtowashcarsbecausetheyareunabletofindwork.Abandoned,half-finisheddwellingsdegeneratemonthbymonth”(PaulA.Samuelson,“PodríaEEUUsufrir‘décadasperdidas’comolasdeJapón?,”El País,March29,2009,16).


buthassincetransformedfromaneoliberalSaulintoacriticalPaul.InSep-tember2008,hewentsofarastocontendthat theUnitedStateswouldexperienceadownfallfromthecrisis“inthesamewaytheSovietUniondidwhentheBerlinWallcamedown.”92Thisis,however,unfounded.UnliketheformerSovietUnion,theUnitedStatesisnotamulti-ethnicnation-statebutamelting pot.Furthermore,theUnitedStatesisnotbeingforcedto“armitselftodeath”byanothersuperpower.Aboveall,thereisnoothermorepowerfuleconomicsystemlyinginwaittoreplacethecollapsedone,ifonedoesnotwanttoconsiderChina’sauthoritariancapitalism.Butworthcon-sideringisGray’snextclaim:“TheeraofAmericandominanceisover.”Infact, theprojectofdirect dominanceended inacompletedebacle.Withregard to the question whether the Phoenix can rise from the ashes oftheBushregimeandreconstituteitshegemonyunderObama,Grayoffersanothersnap judgment: “TheeraofAmericanglobal leadership [. . .] isover.”93However,direct dominanceisnotleadership.GrayjoinsinwiththelanguageofthemainstreamthatknowsnothingofGramsci. Wemustbeginanewtoassessthequestionoftheglobalrelationsofhegemonyundertheconditionsofthemajorcrisisoftransnationalhigh-techcapitalisminitiatedbytheUSmortgagecrisis.Todothis,wewillleavethequestionofthereconstructionofUShegemonyunderObamaopenforthemomentandinsteaddowhatphilosophersarenotoriousfor:workona(re-)framingofthequestion.Anattemptshouldbemadetomakethemainconcepts flexible,sothat theymoreeasily“snuggleup,”asAdornosaysin his Negative Dialectics,94 to the contemporary historical process. Thestrategicorientationofthequestionwillpointtowardthatofhegemony in transnational high- tech capitalism.Thesecondphaseofglobalization,ini-tiatedbythismajorcrisis,hasmadeanewtypeoftransnationalpoliticalhegemonyindispensable,andnotonlyforover-exportingcountriessuchasGermany.Indeed,inthewordsofUlrichBeck,thiscallsforthenecessaryreplacementof “themaximofnationalRealpolitik, thatnational interests

92.JohnGray,“AShatteringMomentinAmerica’sFallfromPower,”Observer,Septem-ber 28, 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/28/usforeignpolicy.useconomicgrowth.93.Gray,“AShatteringMomentinAmerica’sFallfromPower.”94. Translator’s note: “Snuggle up” is adapted from John Cumming’s translation ofanschmiegenas“snugglingup,”inMaxHorkheimerandTheodorW.Adorno,Dialectic of Enlightenment(NewYork:Continuum,1972),182.IntheEnglishtranslationofAdorno’sNegative Dialektik,theverbanschmiegenisrenderedas“toadhereto.”Ileaveittothereader todecide ifAdornohadthemoresensuousmeaning inmind.SeeTheodorW.Adorno,Negative Dialectics(Florence,KY:Routledge,1990),13,43.


mustbepursuednationally,bythemaximofcosmopolitanRealpolitik:ourpolicieswillbemorenationalandsuccessfulthemorecosmopolitantheyare;andtheywillbemorelikelytofailthemorenationaltheyremain.”95Inwhatfollows,IshallstartfromGramsci’sconceptofhegemonyandfurtherdevelopafewofitsdimensions.

2. Hegemonic Prelude: Obama’s Electoral Campaign Theconfluenceofmilitary,economic,andpoliticalcrisesattendantwiththelossofinternationalhegemonyhasforcedaparadigmshiftinUSpolicies.Obama’sstunningelectoralvictoryhasmadesuchashiftpossible,andthecrisesaidedhisvictory.ThatObamawasabletofighthiswayintotheWhiteHouse,is,asFelipeGonzálezhasremarked,“initselfanhistori-caleventthattothisdayinanyoftheotherdemocraticnations[...]wouldnotbepossible.”96Thepresidentialelectioncampaignwasthefirsttestofafuturehegemonialcapacity.Theconservativecampreliedontheclassi-calpatternofpassive hegemony :manydangersthreateneachindividual;onesingleindividualatthetopofthestateapparatuspromisestoactforthesecurityofthemany.Onehadsimplytogiveone’svoteforthiscandi-date inordertobeabletogoaboutone’sprivateaffairs inpeaceagain.Onthecontrary,Obamaenteredthesceneasacatalystwhomomentarilyenabledisolatedindividualstouniteandtobecomeahistoricalforce.Withhis “Yeswecan,”hemobilizedsocial stratawhohad turned theirbacksonconstituted“politics.”The“optimism”heradiateddidnotcomeat theexpenseof intellect.Hedidnotpromisethatarosyfuturelayahead.Heinstead identified tasksandopenedupspaces fornecessaryaction.Hebrokethroughthespellof“passivating”hegemonywithformsofactivation.Believing inhim,millionsofAmericansbelievedonceagain in theirownpower.Thisbeliefinthemselves,andinthepossibilityoftruedemocracy,electrifiedthem.TheRight,incomparison,diditsutmosttocounteractthisself-confidencebymobilizingageneralsenseoftimorousness.Theyfailedinthis.“Change”becamethealmostuniversaldemand.Awidelysharedfeelingthat“itsimplycannotgoonlikethis,”nourishedbydailyreportsofwarandcrises,overlappedwiththeotherchangethatwasobservableinthedebate, theparadigmshift fromapassivating toanactivatingmodeof hegemony.Obamanot onlypromised somethingnew,but healready

95. Ulrich Beck, “Eine neue kosmopolitische Realpolitik liegt in der Luft,” Frankfurter Rundschau, December 28, 2008, http://www.fr-online.de/in_und_ausland/politik/aktuell/1651555_Eine-neue-kosmopolitische-Realpolitik-liegt-in-der-Luft.html.96.FelipeGonzález,“YenéstollegóObama,”El País,January31,2009,25.


embodied it throughhis interactionwith thepeople.His impactmade itswayintothemedia.Becausehisapproachtopeoplewasstructurallynew,itbecamenews.Themedia-reportedeffectshad further impact,namely,thetransmissionofanactivating hegemony project.ThoseattractedbythisprojectformedanidealcompositeinlinewithGramsci’sconceptofhege-mony,uniting“thedominatedandtheeducated”andbringingtogether“themiddleclasses,thepopularclasses,andtheintellectuals.”97 ThishegemonicimpactwasnotlimitedtoAmericanvoters.Itcouldbeseenasatestofafutureinternationalhegemonialcapacity.AlreadytheDemocraticprimariesputpeopleallaroundtheworldandofallranksandclassesundertheirspell.“Themoretheysaw,themoretheythoughtoftheUnitedStatesasagainthelandofpossibility.”98Beforethat,theyhadwrit-tenofftheUnitedStates.Notonlyhaditlost,forthem,itspreviousattrac-tion,butithaddevelopedintoasituationofdishegemony,inwhichforcesofrepulsionwerepreponderant.Now,thestrugglebetweenBarackObamaandHilaryClintonby itselfexudedahegemonicpotency.Allaround theglobe,massesofpeopleparticipated in thiscontest regardlessofwhichsidetheyleanedtoward.Inthefirstinstance,theywerepersuadedbythemerefactthatsuchacontestwasbeingheldatall,letalonebyhowitwasplayingout.Later,gradually,Obama’smessagewasgettingthrough.Whenhe visitedBerlin in July 2008, the scene in front of theVictoryColumn,withhundredsofthousandsfillingthe17JuneBoulevard,remindedoneoftheotherdemonstrationonFebruary15,2003,thememorabledaywhen,inoversixhundredcitiesaroundtheworld,peopleprotestedthependingAmericanwaragainstIraq,andthe“globalizationofpublicopinion”99cele-brateditspremiere.

3. “Clinton’s Widows” Never Ceased Demanding the Return of US Hegemony

TheyearthattheUnitedStatesinvadedIraq,“thestrugglebetweentwoimperialprojects”couldbediagnosed:“ThefirstonewantstheUnitedStatestoexertitsdominanceprimarilythroughleadership,theotherwantsits leadership to be exerted primarily as dominance.”100 As Luigi Piran-

97.Jean-MarieColombani,“Unliderazgocreíble,”El País,January11,2008,10.98.NormanBirnbaum,“Obama’sBerlinVisit,”Nation,July26,2008,http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080804/birnbaum.99.AccordingtotheFrenchnewspaperLa Croix,February16,2003.100.Haug,High- Tech- Kapitalismus,249.


dello describes in Six Characters in Search of an Author, the Americanallies, who had been affronted by the Bush administration’s blunt claimtodominance,weresearchingforanewhegemon,whichhadbeenpre-dictedbyPerryAndersonalreadyin2002:“thewidowsofClintonwillfindconsolation.”101Thissexist-tintedjibeconcealedthatitwastheeconomicstructurethatdemandednotsomuchconsolationasahegemoniallyregu-latedsphereforinter-ortransnationalactivities.BeneaththeschismintheWest,whichwastheresultofdivide and conquerandtheformationofacoalition of the willing(whichhadnosay),the“sharedinterestsoftrans-nationalcapital,whichindeeddonotalwaysrepresenttheinterestsofindi-vidualnation-states,”102cametothefore.Evenifthesecommoninterestsofcapital in turnconflictedwith theolddivisiveeffectsofcompetition, inthefaceoftheUSdriveforwar,Europewasbynomeanssplitintothosewho supported and those who opposed US hegemony. It was preciselyaUS-ledhegemonic“empire”inthesenseofapower-guaranteedglobalspaceforcommerceandtheprotectionof“intellectualpropertyrights”thateventhosegovernmentswhoopposedthewarweredemanding.Almostbeseechingly, the Spanish secretary of state for the European Unionsoundedoff that theUnitedStatesunderObamacouldonceagainplaytheleadfiddle“inaconcertofnationsthatworksforsharedinterestsintheeraofglobalization[...].IstheUnitedStateswillingandabletohearthisappealforconcertedeuro-Atlanticaction?”103Italmostsoundedlike“Lord,hearourprayer.”Thepoliticalclassoftendoesnotknowwhatitissaying.Asanexample,thesameSpanishsecretaryofstatedressedupthewishforareturnoftheUnitedStatesasahegemonwiththewordsthatitshould“nolongerlayaclaimtohegemony.”104EventhepoliticalscientistIgnacioSotelodeclaredthatthe“[UnitedStates’]biggestmistakeofthelasttwentyyears[...]wastoexerciseaworldwidehegemonyinwhich,afterall,theonlyincontestablesupremacyresidedinthemilitarysphere.”105Sotelohereidentifiessupremacywithhegemony,andheforgetsthepowerofUSpopu-larcultureandlifestyle,andtheeconomicpotentialofthe“preeminenceof

101.LuigiPirandello,Six Characters in Search of an Author(London:Heinemann,1980);PerryAnderson,“ForceandConsent,”New Left Review17(September–October2002):10.102.Haug,High- Tech- Kapitalismus,244.103.DiegoLópezGarrido,“ObamabuscaunentendimientoconEuropa,”El País,Janu-ary11,2008,31.104.LópezGarrido,“ObamabuscaunentendimientoconEuropa,”31.105.IgnacioSotelo,“ObamaenEuropa,”El País,April3,2009,8.


thedollarasthehegemoniccurrency.”106Evenifitistruethathegemonyimpliessupremacy,supremacydoesnotnecessarilyimplyhegemony.Anendtothegraspingforworlddominationdoesnotmeananendofhege-mony.Rather,itallowsforcomprehendingaconditionfortheconcretepos-sibilityofrecoveringhegemony. AstheAmericanvicepresidentJoeBidendeclared,attheMunichSecurityConferenceinFebruary2009,thatinthefuture“theexampleofourpowermustbematchedby thepowerofourexample,”107onecouldhear an official sigh of relief from Atlantic elites. Indeed, for some time,PresidentObamahasnotletachancegobytoexpresssimilarwordsandforthesewordstobefollowedbydeeds.Anamazedandattentiveworldbecamehopefulthatpossibilities,longthoughtburied,wereopeningup.InGermany,theFrankfurter Allgemeineascertained“analmostglobalinter-estthatthisrenewalsucceedfortheUnitedStates,andinfactquickly.[...]An America that is weak, mired in economic depression, and that evenkeepsitsdistancefromthepoliticalaffairsoftheworld,wouldbeapoliticalandeconomiccatastrophefortheworld.”108 Yethopesthat“Europecouldfinallyachievethemuchsought-afterstatusofbeingtreatedasanequalally”109remaindashed.Attainingsuchstatus would presuppose European unification going beyond a commonmarketanddevelopingfromaneconomicallymotivatedallianceofstatestoanalbeitweakversionofafederalstate.Evenifsuchasupra-statewaspossibletoachieve,itisunlikelyitwouldequaltheUnitedStatesintermsofmilitaryandmassculturalpower.Onecanthusonly talkabout formalequality.YetSotelowascorrectwhenhedeterminedthistobe“themostimportantchangeinUSforeignpolicyafterBush....BecauseiftheUnitedStatesisweak,thenEuropeisevenweaker.Europe’schanceliesinget-tingtheUnitedStatestogiveupitsdivisivegameofmaintainingbilateralrelationswithEuropeanstates.”110Thisisalsonottobeexpectedwithoutfurtherado.IftheEuroweretoweaken—letalonedisplace—thedollarin

106.JohnBellamyFosterandFredMagdoff,“FinancialImplosionandStagnation:Backto the Real Economy,” Monthly Review, December (2008), http://www.monthlyreview.org/081201foster-magdoff.php.107.JosephR.Biden,“Speechatthe45thMunichSecurityConference,”July2,2009,http://www.securityconference.de/Joseph-R-Biden.234.0.html?&L=1.108.Klaus-DieterFrankenberger,“ObamaaufderKanzel,”Frankfurter Allgemeine Zei-tung,February26,2009,1(editorial).109.IgnacioSotelo,“Elnuevoescenariointernacional,”El País,November11,2008,4.110.Sotelo,“ObamaenEuropa,”8.


its functionas theglobal reservecurrency, theUnitedStateswould losethe possibility of continuing its private and public overconsumption, andthephantasmofapanickedflightoutofthedollarwouldbecomerealwithunforeseeableconsequences.Inrelationtotheexistingprivilegeofbeingtheissueroftheglobalcurrency,thecollapseofthedollarwouldcomeasanenormousshock.“Thewellofmoneymayberunningdry,andso,too,maybeAmerica’slegendaryoptimismandhope.”111Undersuchconditions,thequestionofhegemony,whenstatedconcretely,amountstotheques-tionofwhether theUnitedStates, in its relationswith itsallies,whoarehighlydifferentiatedintermsofpowerandcapacities,willsettleforaposi-tionofbeingprimusinterpares,apositionforwhichtherearenoothercan-didates.YetisthisstillevenapossibilityfortheUnitedStates?

4. The Hegemonic Sacrifice Inhisinauguraladdress,ObamaassuredtheworldthattheUnitedStateswas“readyto leadoncemore.”AtoncethequestionaroseastowhetheritwaspossibleforObamaandAmerica“topersuadeothernationsto follow its leadandagree tomeasures thatWashingtonwantsbut fel-lowmembersof thesystemofstatesmaynot initiallybesoenthusiasticabout.”112UnderBush,thiscapacity“collapsed.”Andwithitsodidoneofthelegsof“thethree-leggedstool”ofmilitarysuperiority,controloffinan-cialmarkets,andpoliticalhegemony.113Obama’sprojectofrebuildingtheleadership capacity of the United States must develop in the “tensionbetweenthevisionof revivedKennedyesqueAmerican leadership in theworldthatheunfoldstohisowncountry,andwhattherestoftheworld[...]willnowbereadytoaccept.”114Thisisthetensionbetweennationalcorpo-ratistand(inter)nationalhegemonicpolitics.Itdoesnotnecessarilypara-lyzetheabilityofAmericanleadershipaslongasitispossibletokeepthetwopolestogether.IndeedWilson,Roosevelt,andKennedyneverstoppedpursuingthenationalinterestsoftheUnitedStates,buttheyhad“thewis-

111.JosephStiglitz,“HowtoFailtoRecovertheEconomy,”Guardian,March8,2009,http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/06/useconomy-useconomicgrowth.112. Paul Kennedy, “Obama Abroad: The Return of Soft Power?,” International Her-ald Tribune, November 13, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/opinion/13iht-edkennedy.1.17797777.html.113.Kennedy,“ObamaAbroad.”114.TimothyGartonAsh,“Obama’sGrandNarrativeMayUniteHisCountrybutDividetheWorld,” Guardian, January 22, 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/22/obama-white-house-barack-obama.


domandtheintelligencetoseehowtheycouldmergewhatwasgoodfortheircountrywithwhatwasgoodfortheworld,oratleastlargepartsofit.”115 But wisdom and intelligence alone are not enough to get thingsdone. The antagonisms reflect massive vested interests, and the intelli-gence of the respective leaderships can only influence conflict-handlingstyles,whichadmittedlyabound.Cunningandflexibilityandall theother“soft”leadershipvirtuescannotdispensewithclearingthewayofthehard-eststumblingblocks. A particularly tough prerequisite for hegemony is the hegemonic sacrifice.Whatisrequiredis,inGramsci’sunderstanding,the“catharsis,”towit, theovercomingof theunmitigatedegoismof thedominantgroup,andtheyieldingofthe“sacrifice”withwhichitmustseala“compromise”inordertoachievearelative“equilibrium.”Indeed,“suchsacrificesandsuchacompromisecannottouchtheessential;forthoughhegemonyisethical-political,itmustalsobeeconomic,mustnecessarilybebasedonthedeci-sivefunctionexercisedbytheleadinggroupinthedecisivenucleusofeco-nomic activity.”116 Nonetheless, “the fact of hegemony presupposes thataccountbe takenof the interestsandthe tendenciesof thegroupsoverwhichhegemonyistobeexercised,andthatacertaincompromiseequilib-riumshouldbeformed.”Thusitseemsindeed“incongruous”butisnever-thelesscomprehensibletointerpret“theconcreteposingoftheproblemofhegemony[. . .]asafactsubordinatingthegroupseekinghegemony.”117Thisholdstrue,mutatismutandis,notonlywithinnation-statesbutalsofortheentirestate-systemoftransnationalcapitalism. Theseemingparadoxthattheleadingpowermustinsomerespectsalsosubmittothosebeingledindicatesthethresholdatwhichtherecon-structionofUShegemonyinamultipolarworldcomestoahalt.“Isitreallypossible,”askstheresearchdirectorofGlobalCompact,“topreservetheleadershiprole inaglobalizedandinterdependentworldsuchasours, iftheleaderisincapableofsurrenderinganyaspectofitsdecision-makingpower in favor of more global authorities?”118 The hegemonic sacrifice,in thiscase,wouldtaketheformofapartial transferofsovereignty.TheUnitedStateswouldhavetodispensewithforcingrulesonitsalliesthatititselfdoesnotobserve.Anditcouldnolongerdefyinternationaljurisdic-

115.Kennedy,“ObamaAbroad.”116.Gramsci,Selections from the Prison Notebooks,161.117.Gramsci,Selections from the Prison Notebooks,161.118.ManuelEscudero,“G-20,muchas lucesyalgunasombra,”El País,November18,2008,35.


tion.Itwouldhavetointegrateitselfintotheveryorderforwhoseintegra-tionitplaysaleadingrole.Andasanintegratedintegratorofan“informalempire”itwould,atleastinpart,actuallybecome,asArthurSchlesingeralreadyclaimedin2005,a“virtualprisonerofitsclientstates.”119 Infact,amemorabledialecticofoppositeshasreignedovertherela-tionshipbetweenenforcingpowerandhegemonicsacrifice.Thestrengthof the superpower became the source of its weakening, and its weak-nessopenedforitthepossibilityofarecoveryof“softpower”:nothingelsewouldaccommodatetheregenerationoftheleadershippoweroftheUnitedStatessomuchasthecompulsion,outofsheerweakness,toovercomethebarriertothehegemonicsacrifice.

5. Return to the Original Question: Empire or Imperialism? Ifanempireisadominionwithrulesthataremaintainedbyforce(ofarms),thentheterritory,inwhichtheglobalplayersundertaketheiractivi-ties,canbeataminimumconceivedofasanemergentempire.Toregardglobalgovernanceas“regulationwithoutgovernment”120iscorrectonlyifoneunderstandsgovernmentnarrowly,thatis,astheexecutiveofanation-state.Theargumentbecomesincoherentinthecontextofthenarrowsenseofgovernmentwhentheauthorcontinues,“Theconfigurationandregula-tionofthenewlyemergenttransnationalareasofglobalization[...]willbedominatedbytheUnitedStatesandforthetimebeingindependentlyfromtheG8andotherinternationalinstitutions.Inthisrespect,thisgovernance- systemhasimperialcharacteristics.”121Yetwhatshouldthedominationoftheconfigurationandregulationofthenewlyemergenttransnationalareas,bytheexecutiveofanation-state,meanifnotgovernment?Ifdominancemeansonlythedecisiveinfluencetosettherules,thenitwouldbeagainincoherenttolinktheconceptofempirewithdominationbyanation-state,tosay thedirect ruleof theUnitedStates.Corresponding to itsconflict-ing areas of application, the WTO rules, which are reinforced by a sys-tem of tribunals and penalties, absorb some parts of the sovereignty ofWTOmemberstates,evenoftheUnitedStates.Therealproblem,whichsuchtransnationalgovernmentapproachesanswer,isthata“trulyplane-tarycapitalisteconomy[...]requiresagloballyeffectivelegalandpoliticalform,inwhichatthesametimepublicandprivaterelationsofdomination,

119.CitedinRilling,“Imperialität,”166.120.Wahl,“PR-ShowoderWeltregierung?,”4.121.Wahl,“PR-ShowoderWeltregierung?,”5.


andacorrespondingpositioningoftheirrepresentatives,areexpressedintheglobalpowersphereofpolitics.”122Itisaboveallthetransnationalcor-porationswhomustmakeittheirmissiontostrivefor,asmuchaspossible,ahomogeneousdomainwithuniformrulesforcommerce,guaranteesforprivateproperty,andauthoritiesforconflictsettlement,whichareasglobalinscopeastheirownoperationalfields.Notwithstandingtheirmutualcom-petition,necessitywillsoonerorlaterrequirethemtosecuretheirareaofoperationcollectivelyandasawhole. Theidealofthisnecessaryendeavorforcapitalcanthenbedescribed,followingHardtandNegri,asthe“newglobalformofsovereignty,”orasthe“logicofrule,”whichis“composedofaseriesofnationalandsupranationalorganisms.”Andthedominionofthislogiccanbeconceivedof,incontrasttotheimperialistnation-state,as“decenteredanddeterritorializing.”123Andyet,stillfollowingHardtandNegri,onecanalsosaythatit“progressivelyincorporatestheentireglobalrealm”124andtendsto“ruleovertheentire‘civilized’world.”125Beck’srecommendation,tonationssuchasGermany,fora“policyof ‘goldenhandcuffs’”andthe“creationofadensenetworkoftransnationalinterdependenciesandalliancesfortherecoveryofpost-national national sovereignty and economic prosperity,”126 would then inprinciple apply also to themost powerful among the formally equal, theUnitedStates. Until the outbreak of the crisis, and still under the impression ofAmericanunilateralism,itmayhaveappearedasifthe“essentialformofimperialityinthepresent[...]isthatoftheinformal,pervasive,andexpan-siveempire”oftheUnitedStates,that is,ofanational rulerof theworldwho“isabletotemporarilyandselectivelyswitchtothemodeofformalter-ritorialimperiality,whereasaruleitseems[tohim]necessary,usuallyforgeopolitical,rarely(asinthecaseofIraq)forgeo-economic,reasons.”127Sincethenthecrisishasbroughttolightthatthisvisionof“thego-it-aloneAmerican project of the present”128 is unreal. “The US may be the only

122.Rilling,“WeDon’tDoEmpire,”232.123.HardtandNegri,Empire,xii(emphasisinoriginal).124.HardtandNegri,Empire,xii.125.HardtandNegri,Empire,xiv.ItisquestionablewhereHardtandNegri,inthespiritofpostcommunism,situatethistransnationalsphereofrule“attheendofhistory”(HardtandNegri,Empire,xv).126.Beck,“EineneuekosmopolitischeRealpolitikliegtinderLuft.”127.Rilling,“Imperialität,”207.128.Rilling,“Imperialität,”207.


superpower,butpreponderanceisnotempire.”129AmericanempirewouldmeanUS imperialism,while theonlypossibleempire is thatof transna-tionalcapitalism. “Theworld,”oneoftenheardaftertheoutbreakofthegreatcrisis,“is in transition fromAmericanhegemony toamultipolarorder.”130Butamultipolar order would mean exactly what is inherent in the word itself:order,ratherthanchaos.Likewise,amultilateralorderwouldmeanorderthat would rely on a form of hegemony that I have called “structuralhegemony.”131Butitmustnotbe—andperhapscannotbe—differentfromwhatIearliercalleda“hegemonywithoutahegemon.”132Rather,thehege-mon would have to reflect on the fact that only through the primacy ofleadership in relation tocommanddoeshe “correspond tohisconcept,”asHegelwouldsay.His relativeweaknesscompelshim to lead through persuasion, instead of persuading through dominance.EventhenhestillrequiresatleastsomeelementsofdominanceinordernottoenduplikeAntoinedeSaintExupéry’sLittlePrince,whoatsunriseordersthesuntoriseandatsunsetordersittoset.Intherealworld,puttingsuchagoodfaceonthingsends,asinthecaseofGorbachev,withthedownfalloftheonewhohasnomorethanafaçadeofhegemony. Obamahasbeencalleda“heroofretreat.”133Evenifthisjudgmentseemspremature,his taskmay indeedbedescribedasa “search forapostimperialanswertotheimperialcrisis,therealismofrenovation,self-restriction,andintegration intothecommunityofstates.”134TheoldSan-tiagoCarrillo,onceoneoftheleadersofEurocommunism,waslesspolitebutmaybemorerealisticwhenhedepictedthenearlyimpossibletaskofreshapingapowerthatwaslongsinceorientedtoward“worlddomination”andwhoseunconstitutional “powers that be”were too strong—from thesecretservicesoperatingwithimpunityandthemilitary-industrialcomplexuptothefinance-controlledmedia.135

129. Joseph Nye, “How Obama Leads,” Project Syndicate, February 10, 2009, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/nye67.130.HolgerSeltzner,“DieKriseunddieFolgen,”Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,Novem-ber10,2008,1(editorial).131.W.F.Haug,“StructuralHegemony”(1981),accessedFebruary24,2011,http://www.wolfgangfritzhaug.inkrit.de/documents/struct-hegemony1981.pdf.132.Haug,“StructuralHegemony.”133.MartinKlingstandJanRoss,“HelddesRückzugs,”Die Zeit,January14,2010,5.134.KlingstandRoss,“HelddesRückzugs,”5.135.SantiagoCarrillo, “¿LaguerradeBusho ladeObama?,”El País,December 18,2009,27.


ThequestionofwhetherAmericawillrecoveritshegemonyispar-ticularlydifficultduetoBush’slegacy.ThisistrueeventhoughObamaisviewedsofavorably incontrasttohispredecessorandtriestorepresenttheUnitedStatesvis-à-vis the internationalcommunity—in thewordsofCarlos Fuentes, “from equal to equal,” as a “socius” not as a “boss.”136ThesituationObamamust confront is thequestionofwhetherandhowglobalcapitalismcanberestructuredandregulatedunderhisleadership.Thepathofthe“GreenNewDeal”isarduousforthesamereasonsthatcomplicatetheresurgenceof theglobaleconomy.Theera,abruptlybro-kenbythecrisis,ofcredit-financedoverconsumptionbyAmericancitizensandtheAmericanstatewasthepreconditionnotonlyforChinatorealizeitsoveraccumulation. If theUnitedStatesandChina formedaparadoxi-cal anddynamic symbiosis,whichbecame the keyengineof theglobaleconomy, this engine could not work without, in the longer run, under-miningitsconditionsofexistencewhileatthesametimeblockingitsexitroute,tothedetrimentoftheUnitedStates.PaulKrugmanhasdiagnosedthecrisisas “Revengeof theGlut.”Chinasaved,and theUnitedStatessquandered,China’ssurplus.As longastheUnitedStatescouldabsorbthis surplus—thanks to cheap Chinese credit—accumulation proceededapace.Whentheinner-UScreditchainbroke,firstatitsweakestlinks,theprecariousmortgagesofmillionsofAmericanhomeowners,theeconomycollapsed inquick succession likeahouseof cards.Even in theUnitedStates, the “suddenly impoverished consumers rediscovered the virtuesofthrift.”137WhereasinthepasttheworldlamentedAmericans’ lackofapropensitytosave,theoppositenowbecamethecase.JosephStiglitzhascitedtheincreasedsavingsrateintheUnitedStatesasbeing“disastrousforeconomicgrowth.”138PaulA.Samuelsonhasalsocommented,almostreproachfully, that the “turn towardssavingwillmake investmentgrowthunlikely.”139Theworldisnowsufferingfroma“globalparadoxofthrift”that

136.CarlosFuentes,“Obamanía,”El País,April19,2009,33.IgnacioSoteloalsoviewsObama as an American president “who finally acts as a leader among equals, readytodiscusshisviewsandnotimposethem.TheEuropeansareabouttogetsomethingtheyalwaysdemanded,namelytobeloyalalliesoftheUnitedStates[...]withoutbeingdegradedtomereextras”(Sotelo,“ObamaenEuropa,”8).137.PaulKrugman,“RevengeoftheGlut,”New York Times,March2,2009,A23.138.Stiglitz,“HowtoFailtoRecovertheEconomy.”139.PaulA.Samuelson,“¿PodríaEEUUsufrir‘décadasperdidas’comolasdeJapón?,”El País,March29,2009,16.


isleadingtoaworldwide“bust”:“aroundtheworld,desiredsavingexceedstheamountbusinessesarewillingtoinvest.”140 The“paradoxofthrift”isapseudonymbywhichthe“overaccumu-lation”ofcapitalenters into theconsciousnessofeconomists.Marxsaw“overaccumulation”asthestructuralsourceofcapitalistcrises.Thedecla-rationwithwhichtheG20meetinginLondononApril2,2009,endeddidnoteventakenoticeofthisfundamentaldimensionofthecrisisunderitspseudonym.Theirdiagnosis (strongly influencedby theGermangovern-ment)ofthe“fundamentalcausesofthecrisis”limitedthemto“majorfail-uresinthefinancialsectorandinfinancialregulationandsupervision.”141These aspects are certainly not insignificant. Yet another question thecrisis-ladenglobaleconomyfaces,without itsrepresentativesbeingcon-sciousof it, ishowtoresolvethecrisisofoveraccumulationofhigh-techcapitalism.Thebasicdimensionofthecrisisremainssubterraneaninoffi-cialdiscourse,whichconfirmsthecommonsenseviewthatfinancecapitalisresponsible.Semiconsciously,thecrisisofoveraccumulationhasmadeitselfperceptibleinapanickyinnovativenessthataimsatthe“moraldepre-ciation”(Capital,1:528)ofanentiregenerationofstillviablecommoditiesandproductionfacilities.PartofitcomesforthasagreenKeynesianism,anotherasprojectingafurtherphaseofcomputerizationinthenearfuture.Thedestructionoffictitiouscapital(virtualmonetaryvalue)istobefollowedbythediscardingofmaterially fixedcapital, the innovativedestructionofusevalues.Itssourceisthecontradictionbetweencapital’slimitlessdriveforaccumulationandthelimitedpreconditionsforitsrealization.Itseffectremindsusof thatothercontradiction that “bursts forthwithout restraintintheceaselesshumansacrificesrequiredfromtheworkingclass,intherecklesssquanderingof labour-powers,and in thedevastatingeffectsofsocialanarchy”(Capital,1:618).Bothcontradictionsoperateattheexpenseofpeopleandtheirecosphere,theearth.Regulationofthefinancialsystemandstatesupportfortechnicalinnovationisthereforenotsufficient. The world stands at the crossroads of historical tendencies. Atthisforkintheroad,oneroadleadsinadirectionwhichmightwellbetheunintended result of systemic contradictions, and thus leads away from

140.Krugman,“RevengeoftheGlut.”141. The former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer thus missed “a global andconvincingresponse”tothecrisis:“Thereisnoleadershipinsightforthisbattle.”Why?BecauseAmericafearsdeflationandEuropeinflation.SeeJoschkaFischer,“Laderivadelasrelacionestransatlanticas,”El País,April2,2009,31.


theintendeddirection.AccordingtoDavidHarvey’seconomicandhistori-callyinformedview,itmightleadtoa“breakupoftheglobaleconomyintoregionalhegemonicstructureswhichcouldjustaseasilyfiercelycompetewitheachotherascollaborateonthemiserablequestionofwhoistobearthe brunt of long-lasting depression.”142 A possible American hegemonywouldbelimitedtosucharegionalstructure—albeitincontradictiontoitsglobalmilitarypresence.Thispathwouldbetheconsequenceofthefail-ureofahalfheartedKeynesianism in theUnitedStatesaccompaniedby“fadingUShegemony,”whileanauthoritarianKeynesianismtakesholdinChina. Takingtheotherroad,andpossiblyachievingatendentialglobalUShegemonybyleadingothernationsalongthisroad,wouldrequirethepoli-ticiansoftheWestto“getdowntodoingwhathastobedonetorescuecapitalismfromthecapitalistsandtheirfalseneoliberalideology.Andifthatmeanssocialism,nationalizations,strongstatedirection,bindinginterna-tionalcollaborations,andanewandfarmoreinclusive(dareIsay‘demo-cratic’)internationalfinancialarchitecture,thensobeit.”143Harveyworriesthattherulersarenotuptothetaskandthusthatthenextdecadeswillbe“anotherinterregnumofmulti-polarandconflictualinterestsandpotentialglobalinstability.”144Eveninsuchacase,however,Obamaandthegovern-mentsoftherestoftheworldwillhavetogobeyondcapitalism,at leastpartially,inordertobeabletobepoliticallyeffectiveatthelimitsofcapital-ism.Becauseinthemeantime,allpoliticshasbecomepoliticsatthe“limitsofcapitalism.”145 (Tobecontinued.)146

142.Harvey,“WhytheU.S.StimulusPackageIsBoundtoFail.”143.Harvey,“WhytheU.S.StimulusPackageIsBoundtoFail.”144.Harvey,“WhytheU.S.StimulusPackageIsBoundtoFail.”145.IworkoutthisconceptfurtherinHigh-Tech- Kapitalismus in der Krise,forthcoming.146.Thisarticlewasfinishedin2009.

part one: the hegemonic paradox of transnational high-tech capitalism

Documents