Niall Ferguson's dishonest "War of the World"

[nino_savatte]

But you are simply asserting he is "right wing" without even saying what it is specifically that he thinks or advocates that makes you say this (specific quotes or references are not needed - just a comment about what he was talking about that made you think thgis). Just saying "right wing" doesn't say anything about his actual views - for example he isn't a head-banging nationalist, socially right-wing or a hang-em-and-flog-em type.

Having said that, you are probably right to say he is "right wing" (ie "centre right" or "neo-liberal") - here is a whole wikipedia entry that outlines some of his views: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson

It is a good place to start even if you take the usual 'wikipedia caveat' into account.

I am currently reading his "Empire - How Britain made the modern world" book, which I assume is his 'previous series' you are talking about. It is entertaining enough, even tho' it is in the 'populist/history light' genre - aimed at a very general audience and like most TV history series has a simple (simplistic) 'story' and not much depth of argument.

Well, it is obviuous that some have chosen to read Ferguson in a particular way. I still maintain that he is right wing nd I do not need to give a specific example; this is my reading of his work.

Anyone who makes the claim that Empires are good things and that the new US empire will bring long lasting world peace is either in the service of the US state or holds right wing views. His work is lionised by neo cons because of the way he puts his argument across.

Pax Americana? The US has been involved in at least one military adventure in each decade since 1898.

 

[TeeJay]

Well, it is obviuous that some have chosen to read Ferguson in a particular way. I still maintain that he is right wing nd I do not need to give a specific example; this is my reading of his work.

I said you don't need to give a specific example - just a general idea (like you do above when you say:

Anyone who makes the claim that Empires are good things and that the new US empire will bring long lasting world peace is either in the service of the US state or holds right wing views. His work is lionised by neo cons because of the way he puts his argument across.

He doesn't really say "Empires are good things"...

...he goes into a lot of detail about the bad things the British Empire did, and he doesn't claim that all empires are identical.

He has also been critical of various aspects of American policy while supporting others.

The Soviet Union was an 'empire' ... would Communists be right wing if they supported it?

Charicaturing a position undermines and weakens the process of rebutting and refuting it. Ferguson's arguments are nowhere near as simplistic as you are making out.

 

[nino_savatte]

I said you don't need to give a specific example - just a general idea (like you do above when you say:He doesn't really say "Empires are good things"...

...he goes into a lot of detail about the bad things the British Empire did, and he doesn't claim that all empires are identical.

He has also been critical of various aspects of American policy while supporting others.

The Soviet Union was an 'empire' ... would Communists be right wing if they supported it?

Charicaturing a position undermines and weakens the process of rebutting and refuting it. Ferguson's arguments are nowhere near as simplistic as you are making out.

Actually, towards the end of Empire he talks of a US empire with a great deal of enthusiasm. Indeed, it was at that point when he uttered the phrase "Pax Americana".

I will agree that he was scathing about the British Empire but then I suspect this selectivity has its ideological roots. The way in which he discusses the issues are informed by a kind of conservatism.

 

[RHOQ]

Now that the "Is he or is he not right wing" discussion appears to have run its course, what about the substantive point? Given the stakes that Ferguson himself raises at the end of his series, and also outlined in my first posting, is American "empire" what we need to avert a repeat of the global catastrophe of the 20th Century, or will it in fact be the cause of it?

 

[nino_savatte]

Now that the "Is he or is he not right wing" discussion appears to have run its course, what about the substantive point? Given the stakes that Ferguson himself raises at the end of his series, and also outlined in my first posting, is American "empire" what we need to avert a repeat of the global catastrophe of the 20th Century, or will it in fact be the cause of it?

An American Empire can only lead to catastrophe; those who support the US's imperial ambitions have no interest in fostering freedom or democracy but are only interested in exploiting others for their resources. The US empire doesn't assimilate nor does it have colonial adminstrators who genuinely love the country they are in. This is how it differs from the British Empire. I mean, where is the US equivalent of the Raj?

 

[RHOQ]

An American Empire can only lead to catastrophe; those who support the US's imperial ambitions have no interest in fostering freedom or democracy but are only interested in exploiting others for their resources.

Holding that view, as you do, how would you combat the power vacuum argument alluded to by TeeJay earlier (and I believe suggested by Ferguson's overall argument), that "if Britain hadn't lost its comparative advantage over its rivals, or had America stepped up to plate much sooner, the world wars of the 20th C might have been averted", because this appears to be the substance of the case for "pax Americana" made by its advocates.

 

[nino_savatte]

Holding that view, as you do, how would you combat the power vacuum argument alluded to by TeeJay earlier (and I believe suggested by Ferguson's overall argument), that "if Britain hadn't lost its comparative advantage over its rivals, or had America stepped up to plate much sooner, the world wars of the 20th C might have been averted", because this appears to be the substance of the case for "pax Americana" made by its advocates.

Sorry, I think the idea of "empires" is somewhat outdated and belongs in the same bin as "the divine right of kings". Our view of the present has been coloured by thoughts of Rome and its 'glories'... but much of what we know about the Roman Empire comes from Roman propaganda.

Empires don't exist for good; they never have and they never will. They exist solely to exploit the resources that lay under the ground of another country. It's better to have a confederation of states...or to do away with nation states altogether.

 

[TeeJay]

Sorry, I think the idea of "empires" is somewhat outdated and belongs in the same bin as "the divine right of kings". Our view of the present has been coloured by thoughts of Rome and its 'glories'... but much of what we know about the Roman Empire comes from Roman propaganda.

Empires don't exist for good; they never have and they never will. They exist solely to exploit the resources that lay under the ground of another country. It's better to have a confederation of states...or to do away with nation states altogether.

In some ways what an empire exists "for" or how the people involved "feel" about things is less important than the end result: ie outbreaks of war, civil war and conflict or alternatively 'peace and prosperity'...

Take the example of the Balkans/Yugoslavia: we could discuss the motivations of the communists and of various post-communist groups and factions but separate from the issue of what Yugoslavia (or the now separate states) existed "for" or what was motivating individuals and groups within these there is the wider issue of whether an empire (ie yugoslavia) maintained peace...

Using the logic that "it is better to have a confederation of states" - would this mean Yugoslavia = bad, new states = good? Is this simply because they are smaller? Are they any more democratic? Is it better to have more mono-ethnic states? Are their "motivations" (as far as states or empires actually have motivations) different?

I don't think you can deal with this using absolutes - there are so many different principles that can actually conflict and don't give a clear "right answer". Surely while democratic and progressive governments can be welcomed whether they are big or small, joined up or separate, there is still an important issue of whether an "empire" (or "hegemony" - ie a single dominating power that prevents any smaller groups or regions from breaking away or factional groups from trying to grab power and create their own 'region of dominance') can in some circumstances "keep the peace" and prevent a free-for-all which can often turn into ethnic cleansing, displacement and civil war.

You talk about 'doing away with nation states altogether' but I can't think of where this has been successful. Where states have ceased to exist the usual outcome is "rule by gangsters", a complete lack of infrastructure or public services and some very grim conditions for anyone who can't fall back on the 'proto/mini-state' of their village or tribe.

 

[nino_savatte]

In some ways what an empire exists "for" or how the people involved "feel" about things is less important than the end result: ie outbreaks of war, civil war and conflict or alternatively 'peace and prosperity'...

Take the example of the Balkans/Yugoslavia: we could discuss the motivations of the communists and of various post-communist groups and factions but separate from the issue of what Yugoslavia (or the now separate states) existed "for" or what was motivating individuals and groups within these there is the wider issue of whether an empire (ie yugoslavia) maintained peace...

Using the logic that "it is better to have a confederation of states" - would this mean Yugoslavia = bad, new states = good? Is this simply because they are smaller? Are they any more democratic? Is it better to have more mono-ethnic states? Are their "motivations" (as far as states or empires actually have motivations) different?

I don't think you can deal with this using absolutes - there are so many different principles that can actually conflict and don't give a clear "right answer". Surely while democratic and progressive governments can be welcomed whether they are big or small, joined up or separate, there is still an important issue of whether an "empire" (or "hegemony" - ie a single dominating power that prevents any smaller groups or regions from breaking away or factional groups from trying to grab power and create their own 'region of dominance') can in some circumstances "keep the peace" and prevent a free-for-all which can often turn into ethnic cleansing, displacement and civil war.

You talk about 'doing away with nation states altogether' but I can't think of where this has been successful. Where states have ceased to exist the usual outcome is "rule by gangsters", a complete lack of infrastructure or public services and some very grim conditions for anyone who can't fall back on the 'proto/mini-state' of their village or tribe.

You are thinking in an unreconstructed fashion when you express horror at my suggestion that nation-states be abolished. The truth is that the sovereignty of the vast majority of nation-states has been compromised and superceded by the inexorable rise of the multi-national corporation. You say "I can't think of where this has been successful" but that's because it has never been done. Nation states have been around since a strongman or a group of strongmen first decided to come together and run a region or district by force or coercion and give that place a name.

Your view of confederations appears to have been tainted by the Yugoslavian experience, but one must remember that this entity was successful until the death of Tito. Furthermore Yugoslavia was a federation and not a confederation. Switzerland is a confederation of cantons and no one would suggest that that country is about to fall apart. Empires are run from the centre not from the outlying regions. Independent states are often forced to make choices when faced with aggression from an empire: they can either submit and co-operate or they can resist.

Where there is an empire there is also a resistance.

 

[RHOQ]

To explain, my starting position is that empires don't work, as I've stated in an earlier post:

"If you coerce your trading partners in to dealing with you on your own terms, to engrandise yourself at their expense (take away all the bullshit, that's what empire is about) the outcome is ultimately less productive and is politically unsustainable."

They are particularly counter-productive if you hold democratic values (protection under the law, genuine access to power, respect for individual and cultural rights), because exercising imperial power inevitably compromises such values. To the extent that these values are tangible in the world today, how power is exercised in their defence is vital to their survival in the 21st Century. American "empire" will fuck all that up. If/When "Democracy" (and its values) becomes synonymous with American nationalism and "empire" in political imaginations, then democracy kind of dies, and who knows what would emerge from that failure.

But opponents of empire need to come up with better arguments than "Empires don't exist for good" if people like Teejay are to be convinced.

 

[nino_savatte]

But opponents of empire need to come up with better arguments than "Empires don't exist for good" if people like Teejay are to be convinced.

Why? What is the alternative to empires? No empires at all.

I can think of no empire in history that existed for 'good'...despite the propaganda that has been produced in defence of empires, past and present.

 

[RHOQ]

Why? What is the alternative to empires? No empires at all.

I can think of no empire in history that existed for 'good'...despite the propaganda that has been produced in defence of empires, past and present.

So how to address the propaganda for empire?

I wish the powerful would listen to historians, or guys declaiming good or bad on a disucssion threads. But they don't. They make plans. Propaganda is devised to help them make their plans a reality. My concern is, how would you win such a propaganda war. To my mind its done by constructing better arguments than the other side. "Empires are bad" won't cut it.

 

[nino_savatte]

So how to address the propaganda for empire?

I wish the powerful would listen to historians, or guys declaiming good or bad on a disucssion threads. But they don't. They make plans. Propaganda is devised to help them make their plans a reality. My concern is, how would you win such a propaganda war. To my mind its done by constructing better arguments than the other side. "Empires are bad" won't cut it.

You address it with education and resistance.

 

[TeeJay]

To explain, my starting position is that empires don't work, as I've stated in an earlier post:

"If you coerce your trading partners in to dealing with you on your own terms, to engrandise yourself at their expense (take away all the bullshit, that's what empire is about) the outcome is ultimately less productive and is politically unsustainable."

What about the example of America and Japan?

America provides a defensive shield with its nuclear missiles (which Japan does not have) and a vast number of military assets in Japan, South Korea and the Pacific regional generally. This sets the context of the US-Japan trade relationship.

This seems to be working fairly "sustainably" - productive, sustainable (economically and politically) and working in many people's eyes.

I don't see how this arrangement compromises democracy in Japan or America - in fact America enforced it on Japan. The same argument can be extended to some degree to South Korea (although less perectly as it had a long period of non-democratic military government) and Taiwan and generally to the whole Pacific Rim region, where the US has been the dominant hegemonic power rather than Japan, China, Russia or any of the old European colonial powers (who have all been powerful at some point) or any smaller states.

 

[TeeJay]

...I can think of no empire in history that existed for 'good'...

It doesn't matter what an empire exists "for". What is more important is the end result, and if this is peace rather than civil wars, conflicts and suffering then this is a lesser evil and can be supported. Your romantic "anti-imperial" struggles can in fact lead to vast amounts of human misery and only end up benefoitting a handful of thugs and tin-pot dictators who carve out little domains in the name of 'struggle'. Ironically in some situations the vast empire that exists "for" nothing more than trade or its own glory may well end up being far better for the ordinary people than any number of "liberation fighters" whose high flown ideals only lead to death, misery and decay.

Of course there are examples and counter-examples on both sides. Which means that when discussing the current "American Empire" (more accurately US military and economic hegemony backed up and in coillaboration with by wider "western" (eg OECD, NATO etc) support, it is necessary to discuss details and specifics because the 'empire' versus 'anti-empire' argument by itself with no context is just a stalemate.

 

[nino_savatte]

It doesn't matter what an empire exists "for". What is more important is the end result, and if this is peace rather than civil wars, conflicts and suffering then this is a lesser evil and can be supported. Your romantic "anti-imperial" struggles can in fact lead to vast amounts of human misery and only end up benefoitting a handful of thugs and tin-pot dictators who carve out little domains in the name of 'struggle'. Ironically in some situations the vast empire that exists "for" nothing more than trade or its own glory may well end up being far better for the ordinary people than any number of "liberation fighters" whose high flown ideals only lead to death, misery and decay.

Of course there are examples and counter-examples on both sides. Which means that when discussing the current "American Empire" (more accurately US military and economic hegemony backed up and in coillaboration with by wider "western" (eg OECD, NATO etc) support, it is necessary to discuss details and specifics because the 'empire' versus 'anti-empire' argument by itself with no context is just a stalemate.

Of course it matters. Are you an imperialist TeeJay, or are you nitpicking for the sake of it?

It's no wonder the world is in such a mess, when there are people like you prepared to apologise for the excesses of empires and come out with shit like "Your romantic "anti-imperial" struggles can in fact lead to vast amounts of human misery and only end up benefoitting a handful of thugs and tin-pot dictators". In other words, shut the fuck up and submit to your oppressors. You forget that empires also cause human misery and suffering - perhaps more than any struggle waged in opposition to the colonising force. But then you are being somewhat selective I suspect.

Are you suggesting that the struggles of the former British colonies were a waste of time? Would you like to see all those countries remain under the imperial yoke?

Your next reply should be interesting, if this one was anything to go by.

 

[revol68]

to be honest, he may well be right wing, but his dissection of history is alot more honest than most.

His conclusions are bullshit, but he atleast has the decency not to sugar coat it.

 

[nino_savatte]

to be honest, he may well be right wing, but his dissection of history is alot more honest than most.

His conclusions are bullshit, but he atleast has the decency not to sugar coat it.

He gives great comfort to the revisionist neo cons, who are no great lovers of history - unless it has been conscripted to serve their cause and even then, they are far more willing to accept narrativised versions of history.

 

[revol68]

Well the fact that he recongises the US's military industrial complex, explodes the myth that WW2 was a "good fight", and feels no need to run to the "spreading of democracy" myth makes him more honest than 90% of the shit out there in mainstream popular history.

In regards the narration of history, it is unavoidable, the question is who narrative and to what end.

 

[RHOQ]

What about the example of America and Japan?

America provides a defensive shield with its nuclear missiles (which Japan does not have) and a vast number of military assets in Japan, South Korea and the Pacific regional generally. This sets the context of the US-Japan trade relationship.

This seems to be working fairly "sustainably" - productive, sustainable (economically and politically) and working in many people's eyes.

By debating "American Empire" I'm not referring to a current situation, but a future prospect. I would imagine the Japanese regard themselves as "partners/allies" not "imperial subjects". Japan could have its own bomb if it chose to, and its economy was larger than America's over 20 years ago.

But you point to a possible justification for "empire". It could be argued that Empires can be justified when self preservation can not be assured. Therefore Britain's 19th/early20thC imperial growth made sense because if it didn't stay ahead of France and Germany, due to the context of European nation-state competition, Britain's national security could expect to be threatened (Napoleon and Hitler both threatened invasion).

But that argument doesn't fit the 21stC, largely because of nuclear weapons. No great, or medium sized power can seriously be threatened. Talking up the War on Terror won't do the trick. So why empire? Especially given our knowledge of the catastrophic end to the last cycle of great power competition (reference my first posting). Proponents of empire need to justify themselves.

Ferguson ends his series with his 4 significant revolutions of late 20thC (Rise of Neo-liberalism in the West, Dung Shoa Ping's economic reforms in China, the Iranian revolution, and the Arab population explosion). By doing so he's placing his bets on what the causes of future significant conflict will be. And he may well be right. I'm of view that, given that the runes can be read, we need to try and avoid these strands of history coming in to conflict. I suspect if you're an imperialist, you can't wait for the big crunch, because its a zero-sum game, and its all about winning.

 

[TeeJay]

By debating "American Empire" I'm not referring to a current situation, but a future prospect. I would imagine the Japanese regard themselves as "partners/allies" not "imperial subjects". Japan could have its own bomb if it chose to, and its economy was larger than America's over 20 years ago.

Sorry but I don't quite understand what your criteria for "an empire" is in that case.

What would this future American (or any other) empire consist of then, and how exactly would it be different to what we see today (ie where the US is the dominant military and economic power and exercises massive influence in all parts of the globe)?

 

[RHOQ]

Sorry but I don't quite understand what your criteria for "an empire" is in that case.

What would this future American (or any other) empire consist of then, and how exactly would it be different to what we see today (ie where the US is the dominant military and economic power and exercises massive influence in all parts of the globe)?

I think you overestimate where America's at right now. The International Community and domestic politics still constrains to some degree its full potential to project power. Typically Empires begin when influence (economic/trade etc) becomes direct rule. When subordinate regimes don't play the game, you invade and set up compliant rulers or do it yourself. Iraq II is the first such experiment. Some will argue that the US has been doing this for years, for example in Latin America. But the covert actions in "spheres of influence" during the cold war are not directly analagous, as evidenced by the current leftists political reactions to neo-liberalism on that continent. What empire would stand for such an open challenge to its will? Or take the UK for example. Right now we have a choice, join the EU, or stay out. A hypothetical American Empire, if it wanted us to stay out, would make sure we did. It might be signalled by language, by phrases like "the International community wants...", if people actually understand that to mean "America wants..." then we know we're pretty much there. So its the transition from indirect to direct rule, covert to overt power. This would be a change to how we currently perceive and experience American power (apart from in the middle-east). What would cause the change? The logic of power. The endeavour to stay top dog, whatever the cost etc

 

[Cerberus]

This is a great thread.

With reference to the above point. I think he has underestimated the American Empire by talking about it ias a future phenomena. The empire is a reality and we are living in it (well most of us anyway). It might not seem so when compared to past empires but times change and people learn from history. I would agree that as far as Iraq and possibly Afghanistan are concerned its the 'empires' first foray into direct military rule. Here America is flexing its muscles and finally ascending to the position of the 'global enforcer' it has threatened to become for the past hundred or so years. Whether these actions are the beginning of the end is a moot point....

Where the Romans once had legions stationed all over its empire, often against the will of local inhabitants, the Americans have personnel, equipment and nuclear weapons in many countries all over the globe. During the cold War many societies welcomed US forces and many governments are still grateful for their presence. Furthermore, The US has two huge fleets. One in the Pacific and one in the Atlantic, that have the capability to wipe any country off the face of the earth. Until Iraq, it hasnt needed to militarily over-impose itself upon any given country because of the massive threat it poses. Additionally, and perhaps taking the example of the british empire to its logical next step, it has fostered strong economic relations through a combination of investment and 'soft power'. Soft power being the promotion of American goods and services across the world - Hollywood, music, sports, Nike, MacDonalds, Microsoft etc etc...

In short, I would argue that America's indirect power is as much an indication of empire as its direct. And furthermore, its the deployment of its direct military power which just might be its Achillies Heal.

I also don`t think the international community constrains the United States at all. the UN is fucked and just as impotent as the League of Nations was. the only constraint America has faced in projecting its power has come from within the US itself - many in America are still isolationists, a familiar position all throughout the C20. American voters are not comfortable with the sight of bodybags coming home. And also the idea (as opposed to the reality) that the United States has become an 'empire' is still abhorent to many Americans whose identities are firmly entwined with and connected to the battle for Independence from the Britsih Empire.

There is some credence to the notion that without an empire and in a power vacuum the world may be an even harsher and more violent place....although i`m still to be convinced *(despite what i`ve written above which must look pretty pro-imperial!)

 

[ICB]

I've not watched more than 10 minutes of this as I much preferred the old World at War with Larry Olivier darling.

Not read the book, not read Empire either. Did hear a review of it the other day. Was rather put off by Digby fucking Jones going on about liking it because he'd always been rather proud of "his" country but rather more inclined to give it a reading by Martha Kearney being positive about it as I rather like her.

That's all.

Not quite all, you can listen again to A Good Read here to see what you think.

 

[RHOQ]

I think he has underestimated the American Empire by talking about it ias a future phenomena. The empire is a reality and we are living in it (well most of us anyway).

OK, I'm easy on that point. Not that I give him too much credence, but I'm reminded of Blair's address to Congress, the "this is your time" phrase, as if he was egging on the "America" that could be. Alot depends on how the Democrats play it, and how much power they'll get in the next 20 or so years. They're more likely to accept complaints about "unilateralism", which are really complaints about imperial style behaviour.

But what do we think about the character of this American empire in the 21st C, compared to say the British one?

 

[RHOQ]

Martha Kearney...I rather like her.

Yup, Martha's an attractive woman.

 

[RHOQ]

I think this threads drawing to a close. By way of conclusion a la Jerry Springer.

International conflicts may be inevitable, and sometimes necessary, but what makes them bearable is knowing that the side your on is fighting for the values you believe in. If it is to be "American Empire", then the Republican neo-mercantilist vision of the 21st C doesn't get my vote. It remains to be seen whether the Democratic tradition will do any better.

"The mercantilist idea that all trade was a zero sum game, in which each side was trying to best the other in a ruthless competition, was integrated into the works of Thomas Hobbes. This dark view of human nature also fit well with the Puritan view of the world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilist

 

[nino_savatte]

I think this threads drawing to a close. By way of conclusion a la Jerry Springer.

International conflicts may be inevitable, and sometimes necessary, but what makes them bearable is knowing that the side your on is fighting for the values you believe in. If it is to be "American Empire", then the Republican neo-mercantilist vision of the 21st C doesn't get my vote. It remains to be seen whether the Democratic tradition will do any better.

"The mercantilist idea that all trade was a zero sum game, in which each side was trying to best the other in a ruthless competition, was integrated into the works of Thomas Hobbes. This dark view of human nature also fit well with the Puritan view of the world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilist

Aren't you supposed to say "take care of yourselves...and each other"?

 

[david dissadent]

the Republican neo-mercantilist vision of the 21st C doesn't get my vote. [/url]

What is neo mercantilist?

Mercentalism was heavily influenced by possesion of gold or spicie. And the current republicans very clearly believe in grown not zero sum games. They believe in it enough to believe it will out weigh massive debt incursions.

 

[slaar]

Their revealed view of energy (read: oil) markets is pretty mercantilist.