NationStates Jolt Archive

This topic came up a while ago but died because no one wanted to read the massive block of text. It was interesting though so I'll try to make this as painless and short as possible.

Is America a hegemonic power?

I think it is arguable either way, especially if you are looking at different areas of the world. For Europe, I would say no. Even though the U.S. maintains a military presence, they do not enforce American policies, in fact, the soldiers essentially become locals, learning the language, the customs, etc. . . The Germans consider the U.S. soldiers there part of the economy.

On the other hand, we have the middle east, most notably, Iraq. In this situation, I would say the U.S. is acting as a hegemonic power. 'We' are trying to institute an American style democracy in a land which knows nothing other than theocracies. We enforce U.S. policies where the have never had anything similar. Is this good or bad? Well, we have yet to see.

hegemony requires moral and political authority and a postion of accepted leadership, not merely military superiority. As the US is deeply unpopular in many parts of the world, the term hegemony is a misnomer for the current state of world affairs.

This topic came up a while ago but died because no one wanted to read the massive block of text. It was interesting though so I'll try to make this as painless and short as possible.

Is America a hegemonic power?

I think it is arguable either way, especially if you are looking at different areas of the world. For Europe, I would say no. Even though the U.S. maintains a military presence, they do not enforce American policies, in fact, the soldiers essentially become locals, learning the language, the customs, etc. . . The Germans consider the U.S. soldiers there part of the economy.

On the other hand, we have the middle east, most notably, Iraq. In this situation, I would say the U.S. is acting as a hegemonic power. 'We' are trying to institute an American style democracy in a land which knows nothing other than theocracies. We enforce U.S. policies where the have never had anything similar. Is this good or bad? Well, we have yet to see.
It is bad. The world would be a seriously boring place without all the different forms of human existence on the planet. Despite their oftentimes cruel methods, even theocracies or dictatorships have some reason to exist, otherwise they would not exist. Democracy as tried in Iraq cannot function because it is the will of the people who must freely install this form and create it's own constitution, be it after civil war or from peaceful revolution. There is no way Iraq will have a functioning democracy out of nowhere with the chaotic situation there.

The Germans consider the U.S. soldiers there part of the economy.
Just those directly affected by their presence or the lack of it. I for one don't view them that way. As for the question, they aren't yet. But both democrats and republicans are trying to stear them into that direction.

I'd have to say yes. Not in just the sense that the US is a military power, but it is far deeper. While the US has just 5% of the world's populatiion, the US has 25% of the world's economy. We also have a very vast pool of money, and are currently the business kingpins. In cultural terms, like it or not, we are the engine of the world. The US finds itself in a similar position as Spain in the 16th century, but unlike Spain, we have no real rivals. At least Spain had Britain and the Ottoman Empire to balance it.

I've been holding off posting because I can't remember the filmmakers name or the name of the film....starts with W, and it's not Herzog....anyway, it's about two Germans touring the country setting up either radio or film...I forget that, too.....alright, so the only real thing I remember about the film is a scene when they camp in an abandoned guardpost. Inside there is a bunch of graffiti written by the American soldiers and rock lyrics that the Germans recognize. One of them turns to the other and notes, "The Americans are colonizing our minds."

It's not with guns, or invasions, or hostile take overs-those are distractions. We're doing it the same way we handled WWII, mass-production. This time it is the mass-production of culture. There is not general in charge, no comanding entity. Just one expanding blob reaching out across the globe. The only way it is managed is by being aware of it.

The US is certainly trying hard to achieve a cultural and economic hegemony. There is not even any point denying it, because for the US, it makes sound business sense. But it remains to be seen whether the world will ultimately reject it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLARGistania
This topic came up a while ago but died because no one wanted to read the massive block of text. It was interesting though so I'll try to make this as painless and short as possible.

Is America a hegemonic power?

I think it is arguable either way, especially if you are looking at different areas of the world. For Europe, I would say no. Even though the U.S. maintains a military presence, they do not enforce American policies, in fact, the soldiers essentially become locals, learning the language, the customs, etc. . . The Germans consider the U.S. soldiers there part of the economy.

On the other hand, we have the middle east, most notably, Iraq. In this situation, I would say the U.S. is acting as a hegemonic power. 'We' are trying to institute an American style democracy in a land which knows nothing other than theocracies. We enforce U.S. policies where the have never had anything similar. Is this good or bad? Well, we have yet to see.


It is bad. The world would be a seriously boring place without all the different forms of human existence on the planet. Despite their oftentimes cruel methods, even theocracies or dictatorships have some reason to exist, otherwise they would not exist. Democracy as tried in Iraq cannot function because it is the will of the people who must freely install this form and create it's own constitution, be it after civil war or from peaceful revolution. There is no way Iraq will have a functioning democracy out of nowhere with the chaotic situation there.

Absolutely dead on accurate.

After the Iraqi civil war, the re-pacification, the second civil war, the "purge", and finally the enlightenment (aka "the tiring"), only then will Iraq be anywhere near a sensible place in potential.

Then, they'll have to deal with the foreigners.

The artificial boundaries of Iraq will shatter, and new boundaries, not established for the specific purpose of "triangulation control of the minorites", will be drawn "in the sand".

Then they'll have the pleasure of convincing other nations "who they are" and "why they should help them".

At which point Iran will have fallen into chaos as well, though a much more orderly one.

But that's an entirely different question.

And where will be the US "hegemon"..?

Sitting back and watching the ants scurry about. While protecting the flows of oil out of the earth. All our oil. The "worlds" oil.

And no one will lift a finger.

I'd have to say yes. Not in just the sense that the US is a military power, but it is far deeper. While the US has just 5% of the world's populatiion, the US has 25% of the world's economy. We also have a very vast pool of money, and are currently the business kingpins. In cultural terms, like it or not, we are the engine of the world. The US finds itself in a similar position as Spain in the 16th century, but unlike Spain, we have no real rivals. At least Spain had Britain and the Ottoman Empire to balance it.

I'd have to agree with you here. The United States, while it is the world's leading military power, does not use that military to conquer and enforce. The American economic machine has been very busy since WWII moving in on the rest of the world. An example: McDonalds. Despite how disgusting it is, how horrible for your body, and how obviously fake it is, there is a McDonalds every where in the world.

World franchises such as these are the American Hegemonic power. We do not need the power to destroy when we have the power to destroy a culture. These companies move into other nations and slowly begin to erode what the culture was built on. Instead of things like tea and seafood in japan, its now coke and McDonalds.

I'd have to agree with you here. The United States, while it is the world's leading military power, does not use that military to conquer and enforce. The American economic machine has been very busy since WWII moving in on the rest of the world. An example: McDonalds. Despite how disgusting it is, how horrible for your body, and how obviously fake it is, there is a McDonalds every where in the world.

World franchises such as these are the American Hegemonic power. We do not need the power to destroy when we have the power to destroy a culture. These companies move into other nations and slowly begin to erode what the culture was built on. Instead of things like tea and seafood in japan, its now coke and McDonalds.
You can learn a lot about a society from the diet it eats. The Roman Republic, for example, was filled with subsistence farmers who were citizen-soildiers. The Roman Empire, in contrast, had plentiful food, but it was grown on huge farms manned by hundreds of slaves.

The U.S. has been a hegemonic world leader for half of the world for the last 60 or so years, but in the last few it has lost much of the power it once had. Many in Western Europe would simply follow the lead of the U.S. but recently, as those who remember WWII are dying and those who have lived in the shadow of the U.S. their whole lives are becoming more and more annoyed with the actions of the current administration the U.S.'s hegemonic power is dwindling. If it keeps up much longer it will be entirely gone.

The U.S. has been a hegemonic world leader for half of the world for the last 60 or so years, but in the last few it has lost much of the power it once had. Many in Western Europe would simply follow the lead of the U.S. but recently, as those who remember WWII are dying and those who have lived in the shadow of the U.S. their whole lives are becoming more and more annoyed with the actions of the current administration the U.S.'s hegemonic power is dwindling. If it keeps up much longer it will be entirely gone.
The "hegemonic" power in economics is not designed to last forever. Even the US suffer from outsourcing of jobs. Multinational corporations have no loyalty towards one country or another. They want money and they go where it is. The US have alot of money, thus a high concentration of the corporations. However the corporations themselves who are the real powers today, do not have any loyalties or obligations towards their "host" country.

The "hegemonic" power in economics is not designed to last forever. Even the US suffer from outsourcing of jobs. Multinational corporations have no loyalty towards one country or another. They want money and they go where it is. The US have alot of money, thus a high concentration of the corporations. However the corporations themselves who are the real powers today, do not have any loyalties or obligations towards their "host" country.
Agreed. Currently, the state is more powerful than the corporation, but I expect that the private sector will dominate everything in our lives except law enforcementm and other security measures. But anyhow, I fail to see why the rise of multinationals is a bad thing. They have a moral responsibility to return to their investors, or else they crumble. The invisible hand of the market is often far better than the clumsy hand of the government. Besides, they lead to more economic growth than can ever happen in a state-controlled economy. How are corporations a bad thing?

*bumpsie*

On the issue of US hegemony you should ask Condolenca Rice (the Rottweiler as I like to call her).

How are corporations a bad thing?

If you don't mind working in a sweatshop for 12+ hours a day, they aren't bad at all.