TO THE EDITOR OF STRATFOR.) CAUTION I agree with the value of hegemony. And I ag

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/anarchy-and-hegemony(LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF STRATFOR.)

CAUTION

I agree with the value of hegemony. And I agree that the developed world pays tribute to the USA by purchasing debt for petrodollars, which is then inflated away. And I agree that this is a beneificial system for all, since the USA enforces consumer capitalism worldwide – which while it is an unnatural system in human history, is a beneficial one.

The following factors trouble me:

1) the great divergence between the west and asia appears in no small part to be the result of the intellectual class attempting to find a solution to the thirty years war. And china perpetuated stagnation in exchange for stability.

2) The USA is an international hegemon, and we may argue in favor of the aggregate value of that function. But Washington is arguably also a domestic empire engaged in the cultural occupation and oppression of the middle and south of the country by the coastal immigration centers.

3) While we tend to think of states as neutral, the fact is that all states have been, and remain, some form of oligarchy supporting internationally dominant industries – in effect, extended corporations/. And wars between the small states of Europe were trivial by comparison to the wars conducted by the states. It is easy to forget, in this time, where states primarily function as insurers of last resort, and liquidity providers, that the purpose of banking and central credit was to finance war. Including Napoleon, The Civil War, the world wars and the cold war.

As a political economist I have to argue that I am a ‘Stratforian’ in the sense that I understand the primacies of geography and demographics. And I also understand the economic value of hegemony as a reduction against trade friction. I’m just not certain that from those statements we can deduce that hegemony produces greater goods than the balance of power. In fact, I’m pretty sure that economic history suggests otherwise.

I realize that Stratfor is a voice of reason, making an argument for stability. I realize that the problem of torn states cannot be solved peacefully without our hegemonic influence.

I question however, that, especially given the fragility of the western civilization due to demographic and economic changes, that this hegemony will produce net ‘goods’. In fact, like Spengler, I’m pretty sure it won’t.