In the era past World War II, America established itself as one of two superpower nations. With the Soviet Union providing counterbalancing power, America waged a diplomatic war (Cold War) to assert and spread its ideological content. This ideological confrontation manifested in two forms: 1. between communism and liberal democracy, 2. between socialism and capitalism. The former belong in the realm of political systems while the latter belong to the realm of economic organization. But even while balance of power existed between the two superpowers, American ideological imposition on the global stage was gaining ground. By the start of 1970s, currents of change were detected in the global economic order, with nationalism and protectionism being replaced by neo-liberalism and free flow of capital. Even as American elites promoted this new economic order, the process was facilitated by respective participant elites from nations across the world. The irony lies in the fact that communist China was at the forefront of the global neo-liberal program, despite claiming its socialist credentials. If the ideological gates of the authoritarian and highly protectionist China could be broken open for free-market capitalism, then it was only a matter of time and strategy before other power bastions of the world are broken through. And this is precisely what had happened. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s and the shift in policy framework of several developing countries, the nature and complexion of geo-economics has taken a different form. Needless to say, America’s position as the sole superpower has been strengthened by this change. The unsavory aspects of this sweeping change include “the appearance of a nearly feral form of entrepreneurship in which black marketers, drug barons, arms merchants, rackets bosses, Mafiosi, and other profiteers are emerging as the economic and political leaders of the social transformations underway in their respective societies.” (Buchanan, 2000, p.1) Before embarking on answering the essay question, understanding what neo-liberal globalization truly entails:
“Globalization is a short form for a cluster of related changes.(1) Economic changes include the internationalization of production, the harmonization of tastes and standards and the greatly increased mobility of capital and of transnational corporations (henceforth “transnationals”). Ideological changes emphasize investment and trade liberalization, deregulation and private enterprise. New information and communications technologies that shrink the globe signal a shift from goods to services. Finally, cultural changes involve trends toward a universal world culture and the erosion of the nation-state.” (Laxer, 1995, p.287)
What is more relevant to this essay, though, is the mode and manner in which this grand transformation in global economics was brought about. It was not as if that different regimes across the world saw the merits of neo-liberal capitalism and assented to join in the party. The truth is much more complex and far less pretty that what propaganda has projected. It is reasonable to say that American military might had been the primary factor in bringing about this transformation. Either the threat of forceful action or direct military involvement has been a coercive factor in the global economic order (the ongoing occupation of Iraq is a prominent recent example). (Grondin, 2005, p.228) There is also the interests of regional elites, who saw the benefits of aligning with the mighty at the cost of disregarding democratic considerations. Now into its fourth decade, neo-liberal capitalism seems to have strongly entrenched, and it is difficult to see how its march could be stopped. It is in this context that the topic question of this essay has to be pondered upon.
The essay topic can be broken down into two components. First, we need to ask if neo-liberal capitalism at the global stage should be accepted without question or challenge. Second, we need to ask if American hegemony (in political and economic realms) is of any good; if so, for whom? And finally, we can synthesize and answer the whole question, namely, “Do we need American hegemony in the global economic system to build and maintain the liberal global capitalist economic order? The rest of this is an endeavor to answer these questions.
One of the points often raised against neo-liberal capitalism is its affect on workers and consumers. Some believe that under this system, workers become helpless pawns of their capitalist masters, compelled to sell their labor power at sub-optimal costs. The only theoretical alternative they have to evading this exploitation is to become destitute, which is a far greater misery. Multi-national corporations (MNCs), which are the facade of the liberal economy are perceived as coercing citizens to unwillingly participate in the capitalist market system, while also leaving consumers with no choice but to buy their products. In the book titled Telling the Truth about History, author Joyce Appleby traces how MNCs came to be the dominant institutions of our age. Here, the author makes some scathing observations about the nature of capitalist enterprise:
“One of the distinguishing features of a free-enterprise economy is that its coercion is veiled. . . . The fact that people must earn before they can eat is a commonly recognized connection between need and work, but it presents itself as a natural link embedded in the necessity of eating rather than as arising from a particular arrangement for distributing food through market exchanges….” (Joyce as quoted in Levite, 2002, p.32)
As the chief promoter of the capitalist order, America is also criticized for promoting ‘wage-slavery’, whereby human beings are reduced to mechanical automatons as they go through the drudgery of work each day. Here too, the slavery is not so much express as it is veiled. Instead of use of violent force, the threat of employment and attendant destitution serves as the whip. Those who support capitalism, on the other hand, have a different take on the subject: “As for employment, accepting the best (or only) offer available, as unattractive as it might be, is not the equivalent of slavery-a situation in which actual violence, or the threat of it, is used to compel people to labor without pay and without the option to seek other work. That circumstances limit one’s choices does not prove that one has neither the capacity nor the opportunity to choose, since everyone’s choices are limited.” (Levite, 2002, p.32)
In the same vein, it is argued that just as competition brings down real wages, thereby applying the squeeze on the working classes, it can also bring down the price of commodities. It is argued that under a free-maket capitalist system, the pressure exerted by competing manufacturers will bring the prices down to an optimal level, which is beneficial to the consumer. This also makes available more choices and models for consumers. But once again, this situation gives the critics more ammunition, as they complain of a profusion of goods leading to a consumerist culture. Hence, there are pros and cons to America’s grand agenda to bring the whole world under capitalist ideology. But there appears to be more critical views than supportive ones as of now. (Harris, 2002, p.3) So, while American hegemony (derived largely from its military and economic power) might be crucial to the sustenance of the prevailing global economic order, there are more fundamental questions that first need to be answered.
It should be remembered that U.S’ commitment to the capitalist ideology does not supersede its self-interest. In other words, where there is conflict between the execution of this system and its effect on major American corporations, it is always the interests of the latter that is looked after. This is nowhere more clearly visible in the history of NAFTA (North American Free-Trade Agreement). The terminology can be a little deceptive here, for despite claims of being a ‘free-trade’ agreement, it has many protectionist provisions in it. A brief survey of the effects of NAFTA on the general population reveals that American, Mexican and Canadian elites have seen most of its benefits. Despite initial promise of creating more jobs for Americans, under the NAFTA regime many industries were moved to Mexico, due to cheaper labor there. (Ciccantell, 2001, p.57) As to the question of how important is U.S’ continued hegemony (both in the region and in the rest of the world), we should remember that Canada and Mexico were not doing badly under the influence of European and Japanese trade links prior to the initiation of NAFTA. Even if the latter were not to be construed and implemented, there would not have been any remarkable decline in the GDPs of the two countries. The key long term goal for the U.S is not so much the establishment of liberal capitalist economies in the neighborhood as it is to reconstruct its hegemony that was formerly seized by Japan and Europe. To put things in perspective,
“The declining competitiveness of U.S. raw materials supply systems badly damaged U.S. hegemony during the 1970s and l980s. The original U.S. strategy was to create a continental energy market to reduce overseas oil imports, guarantee access to oil and natural gas from Canada and Mexico, and reduce price instability. The evolution into broader agreements reflected the interests of other U.S. industries and the efforts of Canadian and Mexican states and firms to capture benefits from restructuring.” (Ciccantell, 2001, p.57)
In the last two decades, the manufacturing sector in the United States has virtually collapsed, leaving tens of thousands of workers unemployed. Similarly, the effects of NAFTA can be partially attributed to the problem of illegal immigration from Mexico to the United States. A salient question at this point is whether such a steep social/national cost worth bearing for the sake of American hegemony? Moreover, as the history of NAFTA succinctly illustrates, the manifestation of U.S hegemony need not have a purpose beyond that of domination and self-interest. Whether it aids or hinders global capitalist economic order can be incidental to the cause. (Worth & Kuhling, 2004, p.31)
One of the strong arguments against continued American hegemony is the growing disparity between the haves and have-nots across the world. The last three decades has seen the rise of multi-billionaires such as
“Ivan Bosky, Tupac Shakur, George Soros, Notorious B.I.G., Rupert Murdoch, Snoop Doggy Dawg, Donald Trump, Don King, … ,Rio favela gang leaders, Chilean arms merchants, Russian disco magnates, Hong Kong real estate barons, the children, grand– and great-grandchildren of European nobilityand self– made Internet entrepreneurs alike, second and third generation Arab royalty, a cross-national section of narcotics kings, and all the other noveau riche prancing around the globe in their Lear Jets, Ultra Yachts and limousines (to say nothing of the wannabes). Their affinity is vulgarity, greed and ostentatious lifestyles. They are neither high cultured, traditional old rich or new innovators, but instead are backbiters and syndicators, currency and stock speculators, arms merchants, hustlers, money launderers, tycoons, spoiled children, carneys for prurient material and intellectual pabulum to the masses.” (Buchanan, 2000, p.1)
In this scenario, questioning the continued hegemony of the United States is a legitimate exercise. The global capitalist order as it exists is defined by consumption rather than productivity. With the motto of the Public Relations industry being ‘Image is Everything’, the real value of commodities get buried. When technological innovation meets power of productivity, as it does in the current economic order, consumption levels go up, standards of living also generally go up. But is this enough, when real incomes for a majority of the population has stagnated or declined? In many developing countries, indigenous culture and social harmony has been disrupted by the invasion of foreign capital, giving rise to increase in corruption. (Grondin, 2005, p.228) The array of corporate and government scams in these regions have multiplied in this period, while civility and culture have also degenerated.
“New forms of ideological extremism and nihilism have entered public discourse. These are in equal part a product of historical amnesia and post- materialist angst, in which the return to primary group identification takes on immediatist, self-absorbed, atomizing, and social Darwinian characteristics in a context of increasing globalization of production. This is a vulgar form of capitalist social organization, one that is highly efficient, highly stratified, utterly competitive and often brutish in its cultural and political dimensions.” (Buchanan, 2000, p.2)
Read in this context, we see American hegemony of the global economic order as not a heroic project intent on raising the standard-of-living of subaltern groups across the world. Instead, it is an opportunistic and exploitative program designed to serve global economic elites. If the general population were to benefit at all, it is purely incidental, with no such deliberate goals being set. It should also be remembered that the newly emerging billionaires in the last three decades are all from developing economies, giving credence to the theory that while neo-liberalism erases national boundaries, it keeps intact boundaries of social class. For example, “as equality among elites is expanded by the simultaneous global promotion of pluralism and markets, inequalities between and within subordinate social groups are increased as well. This serves the interests of the lumpen masters over the short term, but provides little assurance of stability, much less peace and justice, over the long-term.” (Buchanan, 2000, p.3)
Another lamentable tendency in the current global economic order is its apathy toward pressing human concerns. Global warming and the threat of nuclear warfare are two such concerns, with both having the potential to annihilate the entire species – rich and poor alike. In this context, we need to convince ourselves that contined American hegemony will reduce the chances of such catastrophes occuring. But evidence from the ground point in the opposite direction, clearly indicating that the prevailing economic order has negatively impacted a vast majority of human beings. Erosion of national sovereignty, concentration of power in the hands of Mn Cs, declining political stability in many regions, hurdles for democracy promotion are all symptoms of the global affliction. It is clearly in reaction to the excesses of American and capitalistic hegemony that grassroots mass movements are starting to emerge in different parts of the Third World. (Pozo, 2007, p.55)
The global solidarity movement, disparagingly projected as the ‘anti-globalization’ movement is a case in point. Centered on universal human challenges like poverty-reduction, access to basic healthcare, free education for all children, social welfare for the disadvantaged, etc, the global solidarity movement presents an alternative operative framework to the global capitalist project. In a few decades time, it is plausible that this more pragmatic form of social organization might have quelled American hegemony in economic, cultural and political domains and might have eliminated the need for economic globalization. (Zakaria, 1999, p.9) The brewing discontent with the excesses of capitalism have spawned a new ideological alternative – consistent with the Hegelian notion of the dialectic. This promising counter-current has Marxist underpinnings to it, but it would be simplistic to term it as a throwback to the failed experiment with communism or socialism. While retaining the essence of socialism, Third-World solidarity movement attempts to cater to humankind’s basic necessities in an atmosphere of co-operation and collaboration as opposed to exploitation. (Zakaria, 1999, p.9)
The leaders of this movement (most of whom are from the Global South) argue that it is not necessary to just have an alternative ideology to eradicate current injustices. Instead, people across the world need to show great resolution to challenge capitalist power structures and concomitant ideologies. What is also needed are a community of like-minded people who are willing to work conscientiously and in the spirit of social solidarity to usher in the changes. The keywords in this project are organization, mobilization, compassion and solidarity – concepts that are antagonistic to the notion of hegemony (American or otherwise). (Tyvela, 2004, p.156)
It is encouraging to see that parallel grassroots movements are rising in different countries simultaneously. For example, we are witnessing grossroots organizations in India, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, South East Asia, Bangladesh, etc. The recent uprisings in the Arab world, where autocratic regimes that supported and promoted American hegemony were shaken (and in the case of Egypt, overthrown from power). The inspiration for a benign alternative to American hegemony also gets backing from the history of political ideas. While, “Marxists share the assumption that democratic control from below requires unity, the idea of political unity dates back to Plato and was affirmed in Rousseau’s “general will”. This ethos was captured by the French Revolution slogan “A nation one and indivisible.”” (Laxer, 1995, p.287) While modern technological innovations as the Internet have aided easy communication between people, they haven’t yet created a “sense of common destiny, shared memories and continuity between generations, the essential subjective components of national cultures. There is no global state to foster a global identity. Diversity is evident everywhere. Is it possible to develop social solidarities that cut across diverse loyalties and multiple identities? Can there be unity in diversity?” (Laxer, 1995, p.288)
It is only by answering the above set of questions that one an ascertain if a viable alternative to American hegemony could be constructed and sustained. But, going back to the topic question, the answer is plain and obvious. Not only is there any rationale for the continuation of American hegemony in the rest of the world, there are also strong arguments in favor of alternative global economic organization. More broadly, hegemony as a political science term is used with negative connotations. And hence it follows that hegemony of any form and by any agency is to condemned and discouraged, rather then supported and promoted. America might be the only global power capable of dominating other countries directly or indirectly. It is also heavily invested in the neo-liberal project, which in essence is a form of imperialism. But such facts do not qualify as ‘reasons’ for the promotion of either hegemony nor global capitalism.
Works Cited
Bieler, Andreas, and Adam David Morton. “A Critical Theory Route to Hegemony, World Order and Historical Change: Neo-gramscian Perspectives in International Relations.” Capital & Class (2004): 85+.
Buchanan, Paul G. “That the Lumpen Should Rule: Vulgar Capitalism in the Post-industrial Age.” Journal of American and Comparative Cultures 23.4 (2000): 1+.
Carroll, William K., and Robert S. Ratner. “Master Frames and Counter-Hegemony: Political Sensibilities in Contemporary, Social Movements.” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 33.4 (1996): 407-435.
Chang, Ha-Joon. “Kicking Away the Ladder: An Unofficial History of Capitalism, Especially in Britain and the United States.” Challenge 45.5 (2002): 63+.
Chun, Lin. “Is Capitalism China’s Salvation?.” Soundings Summer 2007: 134+.
Ciccantell, Paul. “NAFTA and the Reconstruction of U.S. Hegemony: The Raw Materials Foundations of Economic Competitiveness.” Canadian Journal of Sociology 26.1 (2001): 57.
Grondin, David. “Mistaking Hegemony for Empire: Neoconservatives, the Bush Doctrine, and the Democratic Empire.” International Journal 61.1 (2005): 227+.
Harris, Lee. “The Intellectual Origins of America-Bashing.” Policy Review (2002): 3+.
Hristov, Jasmin. “Freedom and Democracy or Hunger and Terror: Neoliberalism and Militarization in Latin America.” Social Justice 32.2 (2005): 89+.
Laxer, Gordon. “Social Solidarity, Democracy and Global Capitalism.” The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 32.3 (1995): 287+.
Levite, Allan. “Capitalism and Coercion.” Ideas on Liberty Feb. 2002: 32+.
Perrow, Charles. Organizing America: Wealth, Power, and the Origins of Corporate Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002.
Pozo, Luis M. “The Roots of Hegemony: the Mechanisms of Class Accommodation and the Emergence of the Nation-people.” Capital & Class (2007): 55+.
Thomas, Neil. “Global Capitalism, the Anti-globalisation Movement and the Third World.” Capital & Class (2007): 45+.
Tyvela, Kirk. “Cyrus Veeser, A World Safe for Capitalism: Dollar Diplomacy and America’s Rise to Global Power.” American Studies International 42.1 (2004): 155+.
Worth, Owen, and Carmen Kuhling. “Counter-hegemony, Anti-globalisation and Culture in International Political Economy.” Capital & Class (2004): 31+.
Zakaria, Fareed. “The Challenges of American Hegemony, Then and Now.” International Journal 54.1 (1999): 9+.