EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Decline and Fall of Just About Everyone
The West and the Rest in a One-Model-Fits-All World
More than 10 years ago, before 9/11, Goldman Sachs was predicting that the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) would make the world economy’s top ten -- but not until 2040. Skip a decade and the Chinese economy already has the number two spot all to itself, Brazil is number seven, India 10, and even Russia is creeping closer. In purchasing power parity, or PPP, things look even better. There, China is in second place, India is now fourth, Russia sixth, and Brazil seventh.
No wonder Jim O’Neill, who coined the neologism BRIC and is now chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, has been stressing that “the world is no longer dependent on the leadership of the U.S. and Europe.” After all, since 2007, China’s economy has grown by 45%, the American economy by less than 1% -- figures startling enough to make anyone take back their predictions. American anxiety and puzzlement reached new heights when the latest International Monetary Fund projections indicated that, at least by certain measurements, the Chinese economy would overtake the U.S. by 2016. (Until recently, Goldman Sachs was pointing towards 2050 for that first-place exchange.)
Within the next 30 years, the top five will, according to Goldman Sachs, likely be China, the U.S., India, Brazil, and Mexico. Western Europe? Bye-bye!
A System Stripped to Its Essence
Increasing numbers of experts agree that Asia is now leading the way for the world, even as it lays bare glaring gaps in the West’s narrative of civilization. Yet to talk about “the decline of the West” is a dangerous proposition. A key historical reference is Oswald Spengler’s 1918 essay with that title. Spengler, a man of his times, thought that humanity functioned through unique cultural systems, and that Western ideas would not be pertinent for, or transferable to, other regions of the planet. (Tell that howler to the young Egyptians in Tahrir Square.)
Spengler, of course, captured the Western-dominated zeitgeist of another century. He saw cultures as living and dying organisms, each with a unique soul. The East or Orient was “magical,” while the West was “Faustian.” A reactionary misanthrope, he was convinced that the West had already reached the supreme status available to a democratic civilization -- and so was destined to experience the “decline” of his title.
If you’re thinking that this sounds like an avant-la-lettre Huntingtonesque “clash of civilizations,” you can be excused, because that’s exactly what it was.
Speaking of civilizational clashes, did anyone notice that “maybe” in a recent TIME cover story picking up on Spenglerian themes and headlined “The Decline and Fall of Europe (and Maybe the West)”? In our post-Spenglerian moment, the “West” is surely the United States, and how could that magazine get it so wrong? Maybe? After all, a Europe now in deep financial crisis will be “in decline” as long as it remains inextricably intertwined with and continues to defer to “the West” -- that is, Washington -- even as it witnesses the simultaneous economic ascent of what’s sometimes derisively referred to as “the South.”
Think of the present global capitalist moment not as a "clash," but a “cash of civilizations.”
If Washington is now stunned and operating on autopilot, that’s in part because, historically speaking, its moment as the globe’s “sole superpower” or even “hyperpower” barely outlasted Andy Warhol’s notorious 15 minutes of fame -- from the fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of the Soviet Union to 9/11 and the Bush doctrine. The new American century was swiftly throttled in three hubris-filled stages: 9/11 (blowback); the invasion of Iraq (preemptive war); and the 2008 Wall Street meltdown (casino capitalism).
Meanwhile, one may argue that Europe still has its non-Western opportunities, that, in fact, the periphery increasingly dreams with European -- not American -- subtitles. The Arab Spring, for instance, was focused on European-style parliamentary democracies, not an American presidential system. In addition, however financially anxious it may be, Europe remains the world’s largest market. In an array of technological fields, it now rivals or outpaces the U.S., while regressive Persian Gulf monarchies splurge on euros (and prime real estate in Paris and London) to diversify their portfolios.
Yet, with “leaders” like the neo-Napoleonic Nicolas Sarkozy, David (of Arabia) Cameron, Silvio (“bunga bunga”) Berlusconi, and Angela (“Dear Prudence”) Merkel largely lacking imagination or striking competence, Europe certainly doesn’t need enemies. Decline or not, it might find a whole new lease on life by sidelining its Atlanticism and boldly betting on its Euro-Asian destiny. It could open up its societies, economies, and cultures to China, India, and Russia, while pushing southern Europe to connect far more deeply with a rising Turkey, the rest of the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa (and not via further NATO “humanitarian” bombings either).
Otherwise, the facts on the ground spell out something that goes well beyond the decline of the West: it’s the decline of a system in the West that, in these last years, is being stripped to its grim essence. Historian Eric Hobsbawm caught the mood of the moment when he wrote in his book How to Change the World that “the world transformed by capitalism,” which Karl Marx described in 1848 “in passages of dark, laconic eloquence is recognisably the world of the early twenty-first century.”
In a landscape in which politics is being reduced to a (broken) mirror reflecting finance, and in which producing and saving have been superseded by consuming, something systemic comes into view. As in the famous line of poet William Butler Yeats, “the center cannot hold” -- and it won’t either.
If the West ceases to be the center, what exactly went wrong?
Are You With Me or Against Me?
It’s worth remembering that capitalism was “civilized” thanks to the unrelenting pressure of gritty working-class movements and the ever-present threat of strikes and even revolutions. The existence of the Soviet bloc, an alternate model of economic development (however warped), also helped. To counteract the USSR, Washington’s and Europe’s ruling groups had to buy the support of their masses in defending what no one blushed about calling “the Western way of life.” A complex social contract was forged, and it involved capital making concessions.
No more. Not in Washington, that’s obvious. And increasingly, not in Europe either. That system started breaking down as soon as -- talk about total ideological triumph! -- neoliberalism became the only show in town. There was a single superhighway from there and it swept the most fragile strands of the middle class directly into a new post-industrial proletariat, or simply into unemployable status.
If neoliberalism is the victor for now, it’s because no realist, alternative developmental model exists, and yet what it has won is ever more in question. Meanwhile, except in the Middle East, progressives the world over are paralyzed, as if expecting the old order to dissolve by itself. Unfortunately, history teaches us that, at similar crossroads in the past, you are as likely to find the grapes of wrath, right-wing populist-style, as anything else -- or worse yet, outright fascism.
“The West against the rest” is a simplistic formula that doesn’t begin to describe such a world. Imagine instead, a planet in which “the rest” are trying to step beyond the West in a variety of ways, but also have absorbed that West in ways too deep to describe. Here’s the irony, then: Yes, the West will “decline,” Washington included, and still it will leave itself behind everywhere.
Sorry, Your Model Sucks
Suppose you’re a developing country, shopping in the developmental supermarket. You look at China and think you see something new -- a consensus model that’s turning on the lights everywhere -- or do you? After all, the Chinese version of an economic boom with no political freedom may not turn out to be much of a model for other countries to follow. In many ways, it may be more like an inapplicable lethal artifact, a cluster bomb made up of shards of the Western concept of modernity married to a Leninist-based formula where a single party controls personnel, propaganda, and -- crucially -- the People’s Liberation Army.
At the same time, this is a system evidently trying to prove that, even though the West unified the world -- from neocolonialism to globalization -- that shouldn’t imply it’s bound to rule forever in material or intellectual terms.
For its part, Europe is hawking a model of supra-national integration as a means of solving problems and conflicts from the Middle East to Africa. But any shopper can now see evidence of a European Union on the verge of cracking amid non-stop inter-European bickering that includes national revolts against the euro, discontent over NATO’s role as a global Robocop, and a style of ongoing European cultural arrogance that makes it incapable of recognizing, to take one example, why the Chinese model is so successful in Africa.
Or let’s say our shopper looks to the United States, that country still being, after all, the world’s number one economy, its dollar still the world’s reserve currency, and its military still number one in destructive power and still garrisoning much of the globe. That would indeed seem impressive, if it weren’t for the fact that Washington is visibly on the decline, oscillating wildly between a lame populism and a stale orthodoxy, and shilling for casino capitalism on a side street in its spare time. It’s a giant power enveloped in political and economic paralysis for all the world to see, and no less visibly incapable of coming up with an exit strategy.
Really, would you buy a model from any of them? In fact, where in a world in escalating disarray is anyone supposed to look these days when it comes to models?
One of the key reasons for the Arab Spring was out-of-control food prices, driven significantly by speculation. Protests and riots in Greece, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Austria, and Turkey were direct consequences of the global recession. In Spain, nearly half of 16- to 29-year-olds -- an overeducated “lost generation” -- are now out of jobs, a European record.
That may be the worst in Europe, but in Britain, 20% of 16- to 24-year-olds are unemployed, about average for the rest of the European Union. In London, almost 25% of working-age people are unemployed. In France, 13.5% of the population is now officially poor -- that is, living on less than $1,300 a month.
As many across Western Europe see it, the state has already breached the social contract. The indignados of Madrid have caught the spirit of the moment perfectly: “We’re not against the system, it’s the system that is against us."
This spells out the essence of the abject failure of neoliberal capitalism, as David Harvey explained in his latest book, The Enigma of Capital. He makes clear how a political economy “of mass dispossession, of predatory practices to the point of daylight robbery, particularly of the poor and the vulnerable, the unsophisticated and the legally unprotected, has become the order of the day.”
Will Asia Save Global Capitalism?
Meanwhile Beijing is too busy remixing its destiny as the global Middle Kingdom -- deploying engineers, architects, and infrastructure workers of the non-bombing variety from Canada to Brazil, Cuba to Angola -- to be much distracted by the Atlanticist travails in MENA (aka the region that includes the Middle East and Northern Africa).
If the West is in trouble, global capitalism is being given a reprieve -- how brief we don’t know -- by the emergence of an Asian middle class, not only in China and India, but also in Indonesia (240 million people in boom mode) and Vietnam (85 million). I never cease to marvel when I compare the instant wonders and real-estate bubble of the present moment in Asia to my first experiences living there in 1994, when such countries were still in the “Asian tiger,” pre-1997-financial-crisis years.
In China alone 300 million people -- “only” 23% of the total population -- now live in medium-sized to major urban areas and enjoy what’s always called “disposable incomes.” They, in fact, constitute something like a nation unto themselves, an economy already two-thirds that of Germany’s.
The McKinsey Global Institute notes that the Chinese middle class now comprises 29% of the Middle Kingdom’s 190 million households, and will reach a staggering 75% of 372 million households by 2025 (if, of course, China’s capitalist experiment hasn’t gone off some cliff by then and its potential real-estate/finance bubble hasn’t popped and drowned the society).
In India, with its population of 1.2 billion, there are already, according to McKinsey, 15 million households with an annual income of up to $10,000; in five years, a projected 40 million households, or 200 million people, will be in that income range. And in India in 2011, as in China in 2001, the only way is up (again as long as that reprieve lasts).
Americans may find it surreal (or start packing their expat bags), but an annual income of less than $10,000 means a comfortable life in China or Indonesia, while in the United States, with a median household income of roughly $50,000, one is practically poor.
Nomura Securities predicts that in a mere three years, retail sales in China will overtake the U.S. and that, in this way, the Asian middle class may indeed “save” global capitalism for a time -- but at a price so steep that Mother Nature is plotting some seriously catastrophic revenge in the form of what used to be called climate change and is now more vividly known simply as “weird weather.”
Back in the USA
Meanwhile, in the United States, Nobel Peace Prize laureate President Barack Obama continues to insist that we all live on an American planet, exceptionally so. If that line still resonates at home, though, it’s an ever harder sell in a world in which the first Chinese stealth fighter jet goes for a test spin while the American Secretary of Defense is visiting China. Or when the news agency Xinhua, echoing its master Beijing, fumes against the “irresponsible” Washington politicians who starred in the recent debt-ceiling circus, and points to the fragility of a system “saved “ from free fall by the Fed’s promise to shower free money on banks for at least two years.
Nor is Washington being exactly clever in confronting the leadership of its largest creditor, which holds $3.2 trillion in U.S. currency reserves, 40% of the global total, and is always puzzled by the continued lethal export of “democracy for dummies” from American shores to the Af-Pak war zones, Iraq, Libya, and other hot spots in the Greater Middle East. Beijing knows well that any further U.S.-generated turbulence in global capitalism could slash its exports, collapse its property bubble, and throw the Chinese working classes into a pretty hardcore revolutionary mode.
This means -- despite rising voices of the Rick Perry/Michele Bachmann variety in the U.S. -- that there’s no “evil” Chinese conspiracy against Washington or the West. In fact, behind China’s leap beyond Germany as the world’s top exporter and its designation as the factory of the world lies a significant amount of production that’s actually controlled by American, European, and Japanese companies. Again, the decline of the West, yes -- but the West is already so deep in China that it’s not going away any time soon. Whoever rises or falls, there remains, as of this moment, only a one-stop-shopping developmental system in the world, fraying in the Atlantic, booming in the Pacific.
If any Washington hopes about “changing” China are a mirage, when it comes to capitalism’s global monopoly, who knows what reality may turn out to be?
Wasteland Redux
The proverbial bogeymen of our world -- Osama, Saddam, Gaddafi, Ahmadinejad (how curious, all Muslims!) -- are clearly meant to act like so many mini-black holes absorbing all our fears. But they won’t save the West from its decline, or the former sole superpower from its comeuppance.
Yale’s Paul Kennedy, that historian of decline, would undoubtedly remind us that history will sweep away American hegemony as surely as autumn replaces summer (as surely as European colonialism was swept away, NATO’s “humanitarian” wars notwithstanding). Already in 2002, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, world-system expert Immanuel Wallerstein was framing the debate this way in his book The Decline of American Power: the question wasn’t whether the United States was in decline, but if it could find a way to fall gracefully, without too much damage to itself or the world. The answer in the years since has been clear enough: no.
Who can doubt that, 10 years after the 9/11 attacks, the great global story of 2011 has been the Arab Spring, itself certainly a subplot in the decline of the West? As the West wallowed in a mire of fear, Islamophobia, financial and economic crisis, and even, in Britain, riots and looting, from Northern Africa to the Middle East, people risked their lives to have a crack at Western democracy.
Of course, that dream has been at least partially derailed, thanks to the medieval House of Saud and its Persian Gulf minions barging in with a ruthless strategy of counter-revolution, while NATO lent a helping hand by changing the narrative to a “humanitarian” bombing campaign meant to reassert Western greatness. As NATO’s secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen put the matter bluntly, “If you’re not able to deploy troops beyond your borders, then you can’t exert influence internationally, and then that gap will be filled by emerging powers that don’t necessarily share your values and thinking.”
So let’s break the situation down as 2011 heads for winter. As far as MENA is concerned, NATO’s business is to keep the U.S. and Europe in the game, the BRICS members out of it, and the “natives” in their places. Meanwhile, in the Atlantic world, the middle classes barely hang on in quiet desperation, even as, in the Pacific, China booms, and globally the whole world holds its breath for the next economic shoe to drop in the West (and then the one after that).
Pity there’s no neo-T.S. Eliot to chronicle this shabby, neo-medievalist wasteland taking over the Atlanticist axis. When capitalism hits the intensive care unit, the ones who pay the hospital bill are always the most vulnerable -- and the bill is invariably paid in blood.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


26 Comments so far
Show All"... Washington is visibly on the decline, oscillating wildly between a lame populism and a stale orthodoxy, and shilling for casino capitalism on a side street in its spare time."
That's an interesting way of expressing it. I would have thought that "shilling for capitalism" was Washington's full-time occupation and that being "number one in destructive power and still garrisoning much of the globe" was the corollary of that fiduciary responsibility to its paying sponsors rather than the other way round.
What is happening is not decline. It is the revelation of a truth long hidden and ignored. This is that Western wealth was built on tactics of the nature we are witnessing now. They are the tactics of piracy but neo-mediaeval is something I did not think of.
The word has merit in that the USA and its acolytes has long been developing into segments of influence like castles each ultimately in the name of God which/who is largely expressed as Democratic or Republican and is realised in thousands of opportunistic sub-sets in order to hide the truth that all the identities mean the same thing, which is me!
We must not underestimate the apt stupidity of this word me. The US media and much if not most commentary might as well boil all words in the English language down to me. It makes typing easy--memememememememememememe
See!
"the Chinese version of an economic boom with no political freedom may not turn out to be much of a model for other countries to follow"
The Chinese one party system may appear to Escobar as a loss of freedom, but the reality is that a one party system allows the government the freedom to pursue policies designed to raise the economic well being of the whole population.
Capitalist multiparty "democracies" (the freedom that Escobar alludes to), is the freedom of every party to beg for money from corporations so they can compete in elections. The inevitable end result is the rise of a totalitarian neo-feudal society in which a nation of slaves work for a handful of wealthy free capitalists.
The U.S. already has a one party system, although many people seem confused by its dual facade, both of which do indeed "pursue policies designed to raise the economic well being of the whole population" -- provided, of course, that you understand the corporate personhood requirements for inclusion.
You're right about the US being a one party system, but the difference is that the corporations control the parties in the US while the party controls the corporations in China.
The difference in who is in control makes an enormous difference for the working man. The corporations do well in both systems, but the working people's lives improve every year in China while the working people in the US are being driven more into poverty each year.
I'd be interested in seeing some documentation there. The best sources I have indicate that the very small class that retains power from the prior regimes has centralized the wealth even more completely than in the States--quite an accomplishment, in its way.
Both of the points raised by you are debatable. Does China's government really control the corporations? Do China's poor live in gradually improving conditions while the conditions of the poor in the States continue to deteriorate by comparision?
In China the political class of powerholder has been corporatised itself. They conrolled the so called "state owned enterprises" as if they were their private assets. The so called "prvate corporations" came into existence by way of having political linkage with the power elite in the power grid of politics, public banks, party apprachicks.
The poor Chinese people may have more meat to eat than they did in the time of Mao Zedong, but they pay for this privilege with sickness and death from pollutions, untimely death from lack of healthcare, lost of sense of security in the face of the tyranny of the rich and powerful, life without justice in law when they became victims of injustice, totally stripped of their dignity as a human being. They children live in hell compared to the children of the privilege classes.
"as long as it remains inextricably intertwined with and continues to defer to “the West” -- that is, Washington "
you mean, "the West" -- that is, Wall Street
"Who can doubt that, 10 years after the 9/11 attacks, the great global story of 2011 has been the Arab Spring..."
I'd like to raise my hand and be counted as a doubter. How about the Fukushima meltdowns?
Remember Japan? Not so long ago the West was in a panic because Japan's economy would soon dominate the world, because Japan was unstoppable.
Japanese real estate was the most expensive on earth back then — so exhorbitant GM could only afford second-floor (not ground-floor) space on the Ginza. That all came to an end last March, so there's apparently no need to even include Japan in a discussion of the world political and economic future — "Japan" doesn't appear a single time in this post. (Okay, "Japanese" shows up once.) Despite the deafening silence, that's big news, big history.
Pepe, if you think the Arab Spring is going to be remembered after Fukushima is forgotten, you're not paying attention. As a journalist you know that just because there's nothing on the news, it doesn't mean nothing is happening — it can also mean something so big is going on the media is afraid to touch it.
(Also, although I'm a loyal fan, Pepe, a quibble in protest against the dumbling down of our age. Describing Spengler's two volume, nearly 1,000 page work, probably the dullest, most difficult-to-read text ever written, as an "essay" is akin to, well, admitting you haven't read it either.)
Pepe left out a couple "alleged"s in his references to 9-11.
Agreed. Rather than "9/11 (Blowback)" the author should have written "9/11 (Inside Job)"
The sentence should be: The new American century was swiftly throttled in three hubris-filled stages: 9/11 (inside job); the invasion of Iraq (preemptive war); and the 2008 Wall Street meltdown (casino capitalism).
Agreed too.
Still, I think Escobar has questioned the official version of 911 for quite awhile. I remember him calling for a real investigation of 911 and listing 50 questions that need to be answered.
To me, this post isn't quite like most of his journalism I've read. Some parts of it seem odd. Really odd.
Most parts of it seem good. Really good.
I agree with Pepe Escobar about most things, but here he writes, “American anxiety and puzzlement reached new heights when the latest IMF projections indicated that, at least by certain measurements, the Chinese economy would overtake the U.S. by 2016.”
Actually the West no longer has an “economy.” Not a real one, anyway. In terms of a REAL economy (not the financialized “economy”) China surpassed the USA in 1986. Since that year the USA has had a massive and growing trade deficit with the rest of the world.
In 2001 the US trade deficit with China alone was $194 billion. By 2010 it reached $278.3 billion, and it keeps growing.
Today, Western “economies” are casinos where bankers and investors gamble with debt. When they win, they collect billions. When they lose, they dump trillions in losses onto the masses. This is not an “economy,” or even capitalism. It is piracy, and it is rapidly destroying the West. Such destruction happens to any nation or empire when bankers and creditors take absolute power.
The solution, therefore, is to have genuinely pubic banks, subject to democratic control, or at least government control. Of course, private international bankers make war on any nation whose central bank is under government control (e.g. Libya or Syria or Nazi Germany).
I think from a marxist POV, the casino of pirates is indeed capitalism, capitalist imperialism in an advanced state of decay..
A lot of interesting remarks in the article. But its style bugs me.
It's also partial, for it does not take into consideration the energetic predicament, the ecological crisis, and the natural disasters that have hit the planet over the last two or three years. Escobar is still too economically oriented.
I like Pepe. But you're right.
Who of us now has the full picture? - Only all of us together, I suspect. Or getting to it. We're going to need all our brains and understanding soon, to figure out this new movable situation, with climate extreming changing all the premises even as we figure them out. Then we must figure them out again, and figure out the new, deeper variables of human existence. That's the price of rapid cultural "innovation" changing the natural premises we all spring from, continously. - Better get pretty spiritual about it, quick.
Pepe Escobar is obviously knowledgeable, but short articles like this and short sound bite interviews often give the impression that he doesn't give a damn about the environmental implications or sustainability or even economic inequality. However, I have come across Escobar talking about the other, darker side of China's phenomenal economic growth, pollution, treatment of ethnic minorities, inequalities within the country, etc. But since he is such a prolific journalist, these other aspects tend to get hidden or one comes across such posts only accidentally.
But you're right: his exuberance about the BRIC countries' economic growth should be balanced somewhat by at least a mention of some serious, serious concerns about the heavy environmental price, extreme inequalities and the displacement of large numbers of people in the name of "development" within these countries. Escobar is right when he says "Sorry, Your Model Sucks". But none of the other models discussed here offers much comfort either, from a sustainability point of view. It is frightening to see other countries repeating the blunders of the western countries in their headlong rush to development.
What a sour comment you give on an article that deals globally with the world's economic present and future. Yes, this is a traditional style of analysis but is it therefore wrong? Also there are also plenty of environmentalists such as Mr. Gore who worship or else tolerate capitalism hence are insensitive to "economic inequality" no matter what they trumpet. So, next time there is a fine article here about the abuse of the environment I expect you to criticize the likes of Gore if that article does not do so. I, who support efforts to reduce and minimize the effects of six billion humans wanting to live well, have frequently warned that these efforts must not hurt the powerless and thereby actually increase their "economic inequality" because of the danger of unintended consequences.
All in all, a good summary of the world as some of us see it, with some reservations, that is. As I see it, the Golden Age of capitalism is not coming back with or without Messrs. Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy, Perry, The Golden Age of "Democracy", built on the foundation of the riches from foreign conquests and colonization has never been real, (except in the imagination of some, including Pepe Escobar) and will never be real, (except in the imagination of naive men fed on the propaganda of the West).
The so called Beijing Concensus is an invention of Western imagination. It has never been officially accepted by China to be her developmental model, underpinned by an ideology or even a theory. It is at best a work in progress. We must all be ready to see changes taking place over there, in the short term even. The left-ism left-over (from another age, as some Chinese sees it), maybe down but not out.
Brilliant article from one of the best writers that appears regularly here. I agree completely with this article. Especially the part about the West declining but Western ideals being so enmeshed in the East that Western ideas will continue to live on. The Palestine statehood issue before the UN will be a good way to see the decline of the erstwhile powers in reality. The G7 being sidelined by the G-20 is more evidence of shifting power structure. What the decline of the West means in terms of more opportunities for working class and progressive movements is unclear. While Asian capitalism may offer offer fairer terms to other nations wishing to trade, it's still capitalism after all and consolidates wealth in the hands of a privileged elite while keeping the masses at subsistence level. The leveling of nations seems like a positive development to allow for a leveling of inequality between persons of the same nation.
To me the most "brilliant" aspect of Escobar's analysis is the role that the social-democratic labor movement and the Soviet Union played in developing a more just and decent society. Until 1941 when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, the fear of revolutionary uprisings kept the powerful owning class from doing what it is doing today namely destroying everything that was achieved by the working class until Reagan became President. Although Reagan knew well that the Soviet Union of his days was no longer the Soviet Union of Lenin and Stalin, he concluded that the Soviet Union as such had to be destroyed because one could never know what the Russian People would do. He also knew that the social-democratic labor and U.S. Progressive movements were moribund everywhere in the "West". The reactionary Mitch McConnell's of today were conceived in 1941 by Adolf Hitler (the WW2 alliance was an alliance of convenience only) and were born during Reagan's presidency.
The only criticism I have is the fact that the Chinese Revolution was potentially a greater threat to capitalism in the colonial world than is often understood. By Reagan's presidency, Chinese communism had essentially been defanged. However, a renewed uprising of the Chinese people might completely alter any predictions made today for the future political, economic, social, and environmental structure of the world.
CD: Thanks for publishing this fine article. It is also available on Asian Times on Line which publishes more of Escobar's articles than CD. Escobar's series on Afghanistan which I have saved is priceless.
"As the West wallowed in a mire of fear, Islamophobia, financial and economic crisis, and even, in Britain, riots and looting, from Northern Africa to the Middle East, people risked their lives to have a crack at Western democracy."
You mean to tell me that the people in Northern Africa and the Middle East did not risk their lives because the CIA told them to? I'll be! I guess the 'Left' lied to us about that, eh? And here I was thinking that the Arabs were actually facing tanks and machine guns only because they were following CIA's instructions on Facebook. I'll be...
He he he...
Why do you belittle the Company's efforts to manipulate events in the arab world?
Authentic rebellion in no way precludes conceted effort to manipulate that rebellion.
You are talking gibberish
Facebook is a Company operation. It's a valued component of the free market version of Poindexter's Total Information Awareness.
A reply to poster, Caleb Abell.
Both of the points raised by you are debatable. Does China's government really control the corporations? Do China's poor live in gradually improving conditions while the conditions of the poor in the States continue to deteriorate by comparision?
In China the political class of powerholder has been corporatised itself. They conrolled the so called "state owned enterprises" as if they were their private assets. The so called "prvate corporations" came into existence by way of having political linkage with the power elite in the power grid of politics, public banks, party apprachicks.
The poor Chinese people may have more meat to eat than they did in the time of Mao Zedong, but they pay for this privilege with sickness and death from pollutions, untimely death from lack of healthcare, lost of sense of security in the face of the tyranny of the rich and powerful, life without justice in law when they became victims of injustice, totally stripped of their dignity as a human being. They children live in hell compared to the children of the privilege classes.