-The Enlightenment of Panic and Gending on Global Capitalism and American Empire
Zhijun
Pankl and Gending, famous Canadian political scientists, introduced the state theory into the study of capitalist globalization, and demonstrated that today's capitalist globalization was not simply formed spontaneously by the internal expansion of capital, but actually grew and maintained under the influence of the informal American Empire created by American state power in a planned way after World War II. In this process, the historical premise on which the classical imperialism theory is based has undergone substantial changes, and some general conclusions are no longer in line with the reality of capitalism today. The basic feature of contemporary imperialism is no longer the confrontation between imperialists described in classical theory, but that the United States violates the sovereignty of other countries in order to maintain the international capitalist order. On this basis, the author further promotes the understanding of the role of capitalist countries in the international environment, points out that the United States is actually pursuing dual national goals and national roles in the name of "maintaining world order"-the universal goal of global capital accumulation and the special goal of American military dominance, and preliminarily discusses the contradictions caused by this duality.
When the invisible hand of the world market turned into an iron fist of the American empire, when the confrontation between the old powers and the struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union turned into a unipolar empire, the theorists who urgently needed to explain all this felt the confusion brought by the classical imperialist theory helplessly. It is an urgent task to deeply reflect on the classical imperialism theory formed nearly a hundred years ago, transcend its own limitations and explore the essence and characteristics of contemporary imperialism.
In this context, the article "Global Capitalism and American Empire" by Leo Panic and Sam Kinding, a famous Canadian political scientist, was published in the Register of Socialists in 2004. [1] This paper deeply analyzes the problems existing in classical imperialism and makes an enlightening exploration on the essence and characteristics of contemporary imperialism. Soon after the articles of Panic and Gending were published in English, they were translated into French, German, Spanish, Japanese, Korean and Turkish, and published in different languages, with increasing influence.
This paper briefly shows the historical track of "Pan Genwen" on the relationship between the global expansion of capitalism and state functions, and briefly introduces his analysis of the problems existing in classical imperialism theory. On this basis, according to my own understanding, the author made a further theoretical expansion of Pan Genwen's exploration of contemporary imperialism.
First, the relationship between capitalist globalization and state functions.
Pan Genwen pointed out that the inherent tendency of expansion and internationalization of capitalism itself does not mean that today's "globalization" is an irreversible and inevitable result determined by economic logic.
Capitalism has experienced three major structural crises. The first crisis after 19 70 intensified the confrontation among imperialist powers, leading to the First World War and the * * * proletarian revolution. The second crisis in 1930s actually reversed the ongoing process of capitalist internationalization. The reconstruction of the capitalist world order after World War II is a direct response to the failed globalization before the war. The third crisis in 1970s was the deepening and expansion of capitalist globalization. It promoted regional economic competition, but did not produce the old-fashioned confrontation between imperialist powers.
This trajectory with uncertainty caused by the structural crisis of capitalism from19th century to 2 1 century means that the process of globalization is neither inevitable nor impossible to maintain. The problem is that we must distinguish the internal expansion trend of capitalism from its actual historical process. The global capitalist order is usually a random social construction based on various historical conditions that existed at that time. The actual development and continuation of this order is not a simple derivative of abstract economic laws. Fundamentally speaking, whether the globalization trend of capitalism has been realized or frustrated cannot be explained without the role of the state.
The capitalist world was established in history. If European countries do not establish legal and other capitalist economic infrastructure frameworks for property, contracts, currency, competition and wage labor within their respective territories, the rise of capitalism will be unimaginable. Under the industrial capitalist environment in the middle of19th century, countries that implement the so-called "laissez-faire" policy play a highly active role at home and abroad. At home, it formally separates the political system from the economy, and regulates and maintains domestic social relations on the basis of capitalist order; At the same time, the imperialist foreign policy of free trade is pursued internationally, and the domestic functions of the country are promoted to serve international capital. [2]
The first country to create an imperialist form driven by capitalist logic was the British Empire. British imperialism promotes its free trade through two basic types: formal empire and informal empire. A formal empire is a direct colonial rule over conquered territories. The informal empire requires economic and cultural infiltration of these countries with the cooperation of local governments. /kloc-In the middle and late 20th century, when capital expanded beyond the existing borders of European countries, it either flowed within the established capitalist social order of other countries or expanded within a formal or informal imperial framework. However, at this time, Britain was unable to include Germany, Japan and the United States, the emerging capitalist powers, in its category of "free trade imperialism". Without a suitable tool to regulate global capitalism, the international capitalist economy and its accumulation mode split, which intensified the confrontation between imperialist powers and led to the First World War.
America occupies a central position in today's global capitalism, which is based on various historical factors. Only after the Great Crisis in the 1930s and the Second World War (from which the country learned how to deal with the problems of the capitalist economic system) did capitalist globalization gain a new life. And this process depends on a unique agent of globalization-a set of international structures developed under the leadership of the American Empire.
Historically, a basic feature of American national form is that its constitutional structure combines the expansion of empire with the autonomy of conquered territories. [3] It first appeared in the form of expanding to the western territory. Different from the mercantilist empire in form, the American empire did not regard the conquered west as a colony, but made it an autonomous "country". The annexation of Haiti and the establishment of colonies in the Philippines are not typical forms of American imperialism. Usually, the United States prefers to take the form of foreign direct investment and modern companies, which makes the informal empire of the United States have the appearance of non-colonial imperialism.
After World War I, the United States did not have enough strength to assume the responsibility of leading the reconstruction of Europe. It was not until the New Deal that the United States really began to develop the planning ability of modern countries. The United States entered a dead end of national construction in the late 1930s. However, participating in the Second World War not only made the United States walk out of the dead end of domestic problems, but also laid the foundation for American post-war management. The domestic positive orientation of the New Deal was replaced by the international positive orientation.
The end of World War II created unprecedented opportunities for the United States. What Britain could not accomplish in the19th century was accomplished by the informal empire of the United States, that is, it successfully integrated all other capitalist powers into an efficient cooperation system led by itself. By manipulating Britain's debt status, the United States first brought Britain into its own economic system as a subordinate. The free trade between the United States and Britain has further expanded to the whole world through the Commonwealth and the autonomous territories in Latin America. [4] Because of its advantages in science and technology and production, the new American imperialism does not need territorial expansion, nor is it afraid to help industrial rivals rebuild, because industrialization will stimulate rather than restrict international trade. At the Bretton Woods Conference from 65438 to 0944, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, established under the auspices and control of the United States, brought 44 countries into the international economic system led by the United States. The international economic management model of all developed capitalist countries has been established. This institutional connection also includes the NATO institutional network and the security intelligence agencies of countries during the Cold War. Here, the cold war is only one aspect of the problem. In addition to containing capitalism, another strategic purpose of the United States is to open the door to all countries in the world for the expansion of capitalism. This is clearly acknowledged by American strategists themselves.
Through the post-war reconstruction of all imperialist countries, there is now an imperial network and institutional connection between the United States and other major capitalist countries and between the former imperialist countries and their colonies. At the same time, the protected countries in the United States have also changed to the American-style Fordism capital accumulation model. This makes the working class not only the source of expanding surplus value, but also the increasingly important consumption center to realize surplus value. Therefore, the core capitalist countries have increased the possibility of greatly expanding their domestic markets. American direct investment in these countries has also increased significantly. The center of gravity of American imperial network shifted to developed capitalist countries.
Although the United States treats the third world countries equally in form, the huge imbalance between the old imperialist legacy and the Marshall Plan, as well as the development assistance to the third world, has caused global inequality. In sharp contrast to its attitude towards Europe, the United States abhors the "import substitution" industrialization strategy of third world countries. Third world countries' opposition to economic nationalism led the United States to overthrow the governments of many third world countries from Iran to Chile. On the whole, however, the characteristic of the American empire is to penetrate their national boundaries, not to destroy them. Instead, it rebuilt these countries as an integral part of the informal empire. As a part of this informal empire, the nation-state is still the basic carrier. Through this carrier, on the one hand, social relations, property relations and markets can be established and reproduced; On the other hand, it can realize the international accumulation of capital. The huge expansion of foreign direct investment in the world does not mean that capital is out of the control of the state, but that capital has expanded its dependence on more countries.
Associated with it is the internationalization of the country, that is, in order to contribute to the management of the international capitalist order, each country promises to adjust its domestic capitalist order according to the requirements of the former, and assume the responsibility of internationalization of national public functions. [5] For example, stabilize prices, restrict labor struggle, treat foreign capital equally, and do not restrict capital flow, and so on.
However, for the United States, the internationalization of the country has special significance. The document NSC-68, which had been classified as "top secret" of the country until 1975, most clearly expressed the goal of the United States to create a world environment: "The American system can survive and prosper in it. Even if the Soviet Union no longer exists, we will still face huge problems, and the lack of order among countries is becoming more and more intolerable." [6] The national interests of the United States are defined as representing not only the domestic bourgeoisie, but also the expansion and reproduction of global capitalism. The role of the American government is increasingly regarded as ensuring the survival of free enterprises in the United States by promoting free enterprises and free trade internationally.
In less than a generation, the inherent contradictions of the Bretton Woods Agreement have been exposed. The fixed exchange rate established by the agreement depends on capital controls, but it is the internationalization of trade and foreign direct investment promoted by the agreement that leads to the reappearance of global financial markets, the corresponding erosion of capital controls and the increasingly fragile fixed exchange rate. There is a gap in the system of linking the dollar to gold established by the Bretton Woods Agreement.
When the old capital accumulation model was in crisis, it was the neo-liberal policy orientation of American countries that reshaped the global capitalist system. 197 1 the Nixon administration decoupled the dollar from gold, which was a decisive step and restored the autonomy of the American economy. The financial liberation in the 1970s greatly enhanced the strength of Wall Street, the financial center of the United States, which was decisive for the extensive changes that took place later. The decisive turning point of policy orientation came from the structural adjustment plan implemented by the American government from 65438 to 0979. The Federal Reserve decided to establish a domestic economic order and allow interest rates to rise to unprecedented levels in history, thus rebuilding industrial and working conditions. Coupled with the more widespread neo-liberal policy in the 1980s, the finance strengthened by American national policy laid the foundation for the so-called "globalization" later, that is, to accelerate towards a unified world of capital accumulation.
The mechanism of neo-liberalism (expanding and deepening the pressure of market and competition) may be economic, but neo-liberalism is essentially a political response to the achievements previously won by the ruling class through democratic means, which have now been regarded as obstacles to capital accumulation. Including the decline in the status of important departments in the American national system during the New Deal, and the rise in the status of the Ministry of Finance and the Federal Reserve. Once American countries move in this direction, capitalism will operate under a new form of social rule. The American economy not only reversed the decline in the 1980s, but also set an example for the capitals of Europe and Japan. Neo-liberalism strengthens material and ideological conditions through North American Free Trade Agreement, European Economic and Monetary Union and WTO, ensures that all social forms treat capital equally, and legalizes the free flow of goods and capital.
G7 has become a place where finance ministers of various countries reach consensus on important issues and decide on necessary exchange rate adjustments. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have also been restructured. The former changed from adjusting the balance of payments to focusing on the structural economic crisis in the third world, and forced the recipient countries to make changes according to the global capital demand in exchange for providing loans. The latter supports this and focuses on building a country that can make capital operation "effective".
However, instability and contingency have been systematically integrated into the reconstruction form of the empire. Neo-liberalism strengthens the characteristics of competition and the excessive liquidity of financial liberalization, and intensifies the unbalanced development and inherent extreme volatility of the global order. This instability is further amplified because the United States (as an informal empire) can only rule this order through other countries, but it is not easy to turn all these countries into "effective" countries for global capitalism.
The current crisis facing imperialism lies not in the confrontation between imperialists caused by excessive accumulation, but in the limitations of the economic cooperation growth strategy set by an informal empire based on the rule of other countries. In liberal democratic countries, democratic social forces limit the adoption of neoliberalism. For example, Germany's labor market reform and Japan's banking system reconstruction. In any case, the full implementation of the neo-liberal policy may lead to a stronger class struggle from the bottom up. However, the most serious problem comes from the relationship between the United States and countries outside the core of capitalism. No matter to the third world, the former Soviet bloc countries, international financial institutions and core capitalist countries, they have all joined the "economically correct" neoliberal structural reform. Under the background of financial liberalization, this means a continuous economic crisis. Because of the abstract universality of neo-liberal economic therapy, these economic interventions not only solved the problem, but also made it worse. As for those so-called "rogue countries", that is, those countries that are not on the track of global capitalism, so that external economic forces cannot penetrate and international institutions cannot be effectively reconstructed, the United States is increasingly inclined to directly intervene unilaterally. In this process, the United States felt the "loneliness of power." Feeling its ultimate responsibility for the global capitalist order, the United States is eager to maintain complete "sovereignty" to take action. This is the reason behind why the imperialist nature of the United States is becoming more and more undisguised. Only the United States has the right to interfere in the sovereignty of other countries, and only the United States reserves its sovereignty when necessary and rejects international rules and norms. In this sense, only the United States is an active imperialist.
The role of the United States in maintaining the global social order has multiplied the problems it faces. In order to maintain the global social order, neoliberalism has strengthened the external compulsory institutions of the country. From the Clinton administration to the Bush administration, perhaps the most important change in the state administrative structure is that the department that controls and uses violence in the government replaced the Ministry of Finance and took the position of national machine driver. This reflects that it is increasingly difficult to manage a global informal empire in a more moderate way.
It is the central issue of the United States to cultivate all countries in the world into countries at least suitable for the United States to manage the global order, which is now regarded as the general condition for the reproduction and expansion of global capitalism. However, it is too difficult to shape those underdeveloped countries into the relationship between the core capitalist countries and the United States by relying solely on economic ties. This explains that the United States used its post-war military occupation of Germany and Japan to rebuild Iraq. The logic of this solution has already surpassed Iraq and pointed to all countries that refuse to accept globalization and integration. [7] The trouble with this strategic orientation is that even if these countries are occupied by the US military, few countries can rebuild like Germany and Japan because of their existing economic and political structures and social forces.
Among the core capitalist countries, an increasingly acute contradiction facing the United States is that the more it exposes its imperialist nature through military intervention, the less dare other countries in its imperial system to identify with the power and behavior of the United States, so as not to lose the legitimacy of their own power among their own people. It is one thing to safeguard the security of global capitalism, and it is another to mainly safeguard the interests of the United States under the banner of safeguarding the security of global capitalism. The United States integrates the general imperial function of coordinating the capitalist order with its defense and promotion of its own national interests, which contains profound contradictions.
In the United States, an old question is back on the agenda: can an expanded empire be compatible with freedom and freedom? As part of the more blatant foreign aggression of the United States, it may become more authoritarian at home. However, a naked imperialism that has lost its disguise at home and abroad means that the global struggle against imperialism will become stronger and stronger.
The historical review and current situation analysis of "Pan-Genwen" clearly show the key role played by the American Empire in the actual process of capitalist globalization. Today's capitalist globalization process is not simply formed spontaneously by the evolution of capitalist economy, as many people think. In fact, it is promoted, protected and regulated by the informal American empire created by the American state power in a planned way, and it can grow and maintain. The characteristics of contemporary imperialism are formed in this process. The "Pan-Genwen" makes people have a deeper understanding of imperialism and globalization.