Anonymous Comrade writes

"American Empire and the Emergence of a Global Ruling
Class"

Joe R. Golowka

Traditionally, the radical left has viewed international relations in
the past 50 years through a paradigm of the American empire.
The United States is viewed as the latest and most powerful
imperialist power, dominating over the rest of the globe. During
the cold war this was sometimes viewed as a dual-empire
scenario; with the American empire competing with the Soviet
empire. An alternative view has been put forth in recent years,
which argues that there are no more empires but that the world
is instead ruled by a global ruling class that emerged in the
1970s. The United States is viewed not as an empire in its own
right, but as the chief enforcer of the will of the global ruling
class. Neither theory is entirely correct. We are in the middle of a
transition from the American empire to the rule of a global ruling
class that has emerged from within the American empire.

In their book Empire Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri put forth a
theory that essentially argues that a global ruling class has
evolved over the past half-century, which now rules the globe.
Their basic hypothesis is that sovereignty has taken a new form,
composed of a series of national and supranational organisms
united under a single logic of rule. "This new global form of
sovereignty is what we call Empire." In contrast to imperialism,
Empire establishes no territorial center of power and does not
rely on fixed boundaries or barriers. It is ... decentered and
deterritorializing

This is different from the traditional and more common view
which "locate[s] the ultimate authority that rules over the
processes of globalization and the new world order in the United
States." Capitalism no longer has a center but is a truly global
phenomenon. They believe "that a new imperial form of
sovereignty has emerged." The United States does not, and
indeed no nation-state can today, form the center of an
imperialist project. Imperialism is over".
The United States is not an empire, but merely the chief enforcer
of the transnational ruling class.

In their article "Towards a Global Ruling Class" William I.
Robinson and Jerry Harris put forth a similar theory. They argue
that "a transnational capitalist class (TCC) has emerged as that
segment of the world bourgeois that represents transnational
capital, the owners of the leading worldwide means of
production as embodied in the transnational corporations and
private financial institutions. This TCC is a global ruling class.
This is basically a variant of the same theory later put forth by
Hardt & Negri in Empire, although they manage to express it
without most of the difficult to understand academic language
used by Hardt & Negri.

The idea that international capitalism might eventually evolve a
global ruling class is not a new one. A hundred years ago
Alexander Berkman speculated that, "when each country will
have developed its own industries -- then some powerful
capitalistic group will become the international trust of the whole
world. In the conclusion of his book The Grand Chessboard
Zbigniew Brzezinski discusses the same possibility:

In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly
uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the
hands of a single state. Once American leadership begins to
fade, America's current global predominance is unlikely to be
replicated by any single state. In the course of the next several
decades, a functioning structure of global cooperation, based on
geopolitical realities, could thus emerge and gradually assume
the mantle of the world's current "regent," which has for the time
being assumed the burden of responsibility for world stability
and peace. Geostrategic success in that cause would represent
a fitting legacy of America's role as the first, only and last truly
global superpower.

Unlike Hardt & Negri, Brzezinski is a member of the ruling class.
He is co-founder of the Trilateral Commission and national
security advisor under Jimmy Carter. As national security advisor
he initiated the policy of training Islamist terrorists (which later
included Bin Laden) to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. He
is an ardent supporter of the American Empire, which he
explicitly identifies as an empire, unlike most of the empire's
paid apologists (the first chapter of The Grand Chessboard is a
historical comparison of the American empire with previous
empires including Rome, Britain, Germany and others). His
defense of the American Empire is that "the only real alternative
to American global leadership in the foreseeable future is
international anarchy."

The Grand Chessboard is basically an analysis of geopolitics
and strategy on the Eurasian continent. One of his main
conclusions is that the United States must expand its influence
in central Asia in order to continue to dominate the globe. He
further claims that it might require a major attack on the US,
similar to Pearl Harbor, to rally the American public around such
a project. The Grand Chessboard was first published in 1997.
The conquest of Afghanistan and the stationing of US troops
throughout central Asia have now completed this goal.

Brzezinski claims that Empire will not come about for at least
several more decades, after the American empire has fallen.
Hardt & Negri claim that Empire already exists. It is my
contention that they are both right (or both wrong). We are in a
transitional period between the American empire and the reign
of a global ruling class. Empire exists, but in embryonic form
within the American empire.

The problem with Hardt & Negri's view is that the UN and similar
bodies are not truly global but rather dominated by the old
imperialist powers. The main powers have a veto over effective
UN actions and the US has effective veto power over IMF actions.

Every World Bank president has been a US citizen and the US
frequently over-rides world opinion (as in the case of UN
resolutions concerning Israel). The US government's rejection of
the Kyoto accord not only conflicted with the interests of the
rulers of the rest of the world and was explicitly justified by
appealing to national interest (Bush claimed it threatened the US
economy). Military interventions frequently take place along
national imperialist lines and not solely to enforce the will of the
transnational elite. A recent example of this is the Afghan war
which, in addition to bringing with it `America first' sentiments on
a wide scale, "turned almost instantly into a national war with the
Afghan government (the Taliban) squarely in the bombsights
rather then the `de centered' Al-Qaeda. At the time of writing that
war [is] turning into yet another colonial style-occupation using a
local government heavily dependant on imperialist ? troops.

On the other hand, there is too much evidence in favor of Empire
to dismiss the idea entirely. Although Hardt and Negri use
relatively little empirical evidence to back up their theories (one of
the main weaknesses of their book), Robinson & Harris present
considerable empirical evidence to show that a global ruling
class is coming into existence. This centers around the spread
of Multi-National corporations, "the sharp increase in foreign
direct investment, the proliferation of mergers and acquisitions
across national borders, the rise of a global financial system,
and the increased interlocking of positions within the global
corporate structure.Today production is not organized along
national lines but is transnational ? run by multi-national
corporations controlled by the Transnational Capitalist Class.

This can also be seen in the drift towards a tripolar global
economy. After World War Two the US was dominant not only
politically and militarily but also economically with 50% of the
world's wealth. This has been changing since the mid-1970s as
the US's percentage of the world's wealth has been slipping and
other parts of the world rising ? mostly Europe and parts of East
Asia (Japan, South Korea, etc.). This is a symptom of the
transition from the American empire to Empire.

The traditional view of the American empire as singularly
dominating the rest of the world simply cannot hold up in view of
the multilateral nature of much of the American empire. For
example, the World Trade Organization makes decisions on the
basis of consensus of the rulers of all participating countries. It
has also delivered rulings against the US. Other international
institutions are increasingly becoming independent and coming
into conflict with the desires of the American government. In the
process of building it's Neocolonial Empire the US has created
a transnational elite to help run its empire. That elite controls the
WTO and is taking over other international institutions.

We are in a transitional stage between the American empire and
the globalized ruling class described in Empire. This is why we
can see characteristics of both Empire and the American empire
in the contemporary world.

Much of contemporary international politics can be explained by
viewing the situation as a conflict between the American empire
and the global ruling class emerging from within it. The current
plans on the part of the US to invade Iraq are clearly driven by the
imperialist interests of a faction of the US ruling class. The rest
of the world is overwhelmingly opposed to such a war and even
the rulers of many US client states are opposed to it. Even those
rulers who are supportive of the United States are generally quite
reluctant about it. Fifty years ago this would not have been the
case. When the US installed dictatorships in Latin America,
invaded Vietnam
and performed other acts of aggression just as deplorable as
the invasion of Iraq there was little elite opposition from within
the American empire. The rulers of America's client states went
along with whatever their boss wanted. Like other international
institutions, the UN was wrapped around its finger ? even
supporting the US side in the Korean War. This is very different
from today where the same international institutions have taken
on a life of their own and are coming into conflict with their
creator. This is what is happening in the current Iraq crisis ? the
transnational elite created by the American empire is coming
into conflict with the American empire.

A substantial portion of opposition to the war is motivated by the
fact that it does not have UN backing. In most countries
opposition to the war would drop dramatically (often by half) if the
UN approved it. Polls show that over 70% of Britons are opposed
to the war but that number would drop to 40% if the UN approved
it. Similar numbers are true for most countries. Many elite figures
have stated that the US's violation of international law motivates
(in part or in whole) their opposition to the war.

In an editorial published in the New York Times Jimmy Carter
cites the need to have "legitimate authority" (approval of the UN &
international community) as one of several reasons to oppose
the war. Nelson Mandela has given similar reasons for
opposing the war but said he would support it if the UN backed
it. Robin Cook cited the inability of Blair to gain the backing of the
UN as his reason for resigning from his position as leader of the
British House of Commons.

This conflict between the American empire and Empire is
manifested not only in the conflict over Iraq but also in many
other parts of international politics. It can be seen in the United
States rejection of the International Criminal Court. It can be
seen in Bush's rejection of the Kyoto accords. Most of the
clashes over Bush's unilateral policies are examples of this
conflict between the American empire and the rising global
ruling class. Fifty years ago the conflicts we see now between
the United States and the international community would not
have happened; the countries within the US empire would
simply have gone along with what the US wanted. There was no
shortage of opposition from outside the American Empire --
mainly from the Soviet empire and Chinese -- but the US had
much tighter control of those regions within its empire. The
American Empire is much larger today, covering most of the
globe, but has less control over the regions it controls.

The comparatively extreme strategies advocated by Bush and
his cronies (such as a military occupation of Iraq) at first appear
to be something new; "the official emergence of the United
States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility
and authority as planetary policeman." The strategies laid out in
"The National Security Strategy of the United States" published
by the Bush administration are certainly a plan for empire
building. This report lays out a newly aggressive military and
foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived
enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American
internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits
U.S. interests. ? In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent
U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the
globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make
that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global
military presence.

These strategies are actually quite old. In its younger years the
United States frequently practiced this kind of formal
imperialism. Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama and many other
countries all suffered under US military occupations for years in
the first decades of the twentieth century. These policies were
eventually abandoned in favor of the more informal forms of
imperialism practiced by the American Empire for the past 50
years. The Bush administration is essentially reverting to an
earlier form of imperialism practiced during the so-called "dollar
diplomacy" of the late 19th and early 20th century. As the US
loses control of its empire it must resort to increasingly unilateral
methods in order to achieve it's goals and maintain control of its
empire. This conflict between the American empire and the
emerging global ruling class (reflected in the present crisis over
Iraq) will continue to exist, on and off, until the American empire
ceases to exist.

The completion of the transition from the American empire to
Empire will require the creation of a transnational state to
enforce the rule of the global ruling class. Robinson and Harris
claim that a transnational has already been created in the form
of elite talking shops like the WEF, but these organizations aren't
really transnational states as they do not have their own armed
bodies of people. Every ruling class, transnational or otherwise,
requires its own state to enforce its will. Without a transnational
state to enforce it's will the global ruling class would be unable
to rule as it would be unable to maintain it's rule in the face of
any kind of rebellion or instability. If you're going to maintain an
Empire you can't just let pieces of it drift off. Presently the
American empire serves this role as chief enforcer of the global
ruling class but its structure brings it into conflict with that same
global ruling class.

As the contradictions between Empire and the American empire
resolve and the global ruling class fully emerges the American
empire will dissolve and some kind of transnational state take
its place as global enforcer. This transnational state will
probably take the form of an international institution (like the
WTO, EU, NAFTA, UN, etc.) with direct control over it's own
military forces. It would use that military to act as a global cop,
suppressing any resistance to the global ruling class and
ensuring it can continue to rule. Nation-states would be demoted
to local administrators and enforcers, subordinated to the rule of
international institutions. They will probably continue to exist for
some time after the complete emergence of Empire, as the
division of the working class into different nationalities is far too
helpful to the ruling class for them to give it up without a fight.
The transnational state would be used to ensure that each
nation-state does not get out of line, suppress any kind of
popular rebellion, destroy non-state organizations that threaten
the global ruling class, and generally diffuse any other situation
that could threaten the rule of the transnational capitalist class
(civil wars, chronic instability, etc.).

The transnational state can be created by either giving a
presently existing international institution control over it's own
military forces or by creating a new institution to fulfill the role.
The UN does not act as a transnational state because it doesn't
have it's own military forces ? it only authorizes nation-states to
use force ? and because it is incapable of deploying force rapidly
and decisively enough to ensure Empire continues to run
smoothly. There have already been proposals for giving
international institutions their own militaries. There have been
proposals in Europe to give the European Union it's own army.
There have also been proposals for NATO to be given direct
control over it's own military forces -- a "rapid reaction" military
intended to "fight terrorism" globally. Because terrorism is such
an amorphous word this could be used to justify any kind of
military intervention and in practice would just enforce the will of
the transnational capitalist class.

The complete transition from American empire to Empire will
obviously require the elimination of the American empire in favor
of the unfettered rule of the global ruling class. The end of the
American empire could come about either gradually or rapidly.
The US could theoretically decline gradually, slowly losing its
military domination to a newborn transnational state until it
becomes just another nation-state. Alternatively, the
transnational capitalist class could decide to end the American
empire rapidly (perhaps as a result of the American empire's
refusal to gently die) through some kind of global revolt or
revolution. This would probably involve the rapid expulsion of US
forces from around the globe, mass rebellion of US client states
(and the overthrow of loyal ones), boycotts of American goods,
culture icons, formation of diplomatic alliances against US
power, and other anti-American acts which would result in the
destruction of the American empire.The contradictions between
the American empire and the emerging global ruling class open
up new opportunities for anti-authoritarian revolutionaries. The
transition from American empire to Empire will probably involve a
good deal of instability as institutions are altered, destroyed and
created which we can take advantage of.

It is to our advantage if the American empire falls rapidly rather
then gradually. If the empire falls before the formation of a
transnational state, or when it is still new and weak, then it
becomes much easier to overthrow capitalism. Without a
transnational state to enforce the rule of the global ruling class
global capitalism will become unstable and relatively easy to
topple. The suppression of revolutions in one part of the world
would become extremely difficult and they can potentially spread
globally.

The fall of the American empire can be accelerated by pressure
from below. Many members of the transnational elite will be
reluctant to rebel against the US, especially before the
establishment of a transnational state (since, without one, the
end of the American empire would seriously jeopardize their own
positions). If the danger of a rebellion from below is equal to or
greater then the danger of defying the US then many will choose
to rebel prematurely. Those outside the US should pursue a
strategy of using their government's support for the US's latest
imperialist adventure (war in Iraq or whatever) to delegitimize
that state and push for it's overthrow. In countries where the
majority of the population opposes the Iraq war but the
government supports it this should be used to delegitimize that
state (and representative democracy in general) and build a
revolutionary movement against it. If the government does not
support it then that state should be pressured to expel all US
bases & military forces from its territory and take a generally
uncooperative stance against the US. The system of US foreign
bases is essential to the operation of US imperialism; its
destruction is a key element in the fall of the American empire.

Delaying the formation of a transnational state is also important.
There are already moves to establish one by giving NATO its
own `rapid reaction' military; we should do everything in our
power to stop or delay this. The pressure to form a transnational
state will probably accelerate during the last days of the
American empire and immediately after its fall (if a transnational
state has not already been set up by then) as the global ruling
class will increasingly feel the need for one. We should
encourage the formation of neighborhood assemblies and the
expropriation of the means of production; bringing down
capitalism and the state. If we can bring about the fall of the
American empire prior to the formation of a transnational state
this will become much easier since there will be no
transnational enforcer to suppress such rebellions. The
formation of popular assemblies has already started in
Argentina and Algeria, a good sign.

The transition from American empire to Empire presents an
important opportunity to anti-authoritarian revolutionaries. The
prospects for an international anarchist revolution in the next
several decades are probably greater then they have been for
seventy years. The popular rebellions happening right now in
Argentina and Algeria may well be the start of a global anarchist
revolution. If we play our cards right we could bring capitalism
tumbling down and initiate the first global revolution in history.