# (U.S.) Imperialism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 3, 2002, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162 "2002-12-03T05:48:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162/101 "2002-12-10T03:42:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > **No, it was the ruling class of the U.S. When I speak of “the U.S.” I use it to mean the ruling class. It is not us whose interests are being looked after, but the 1% of the population which owns and runs the country. Their interests are not our interests.** Are you suggesting that Democracies like the USSR :rolleyes: ever had more than 1% of its population in control of things? I would suggest that it was far less than that. Please name any other society where the majority controlled things. It has always been a small group of people who ran things. That is the nature of Chiefs and Indians. There are always more Indians than Chiefs (except in the company I work for, of course). The difference being in the US is that you, a peasant, can become one of the 1%! ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162/102 "2002-12-10T03:44:19Z")
> [@](#): > > Here and there? So, for example, blacks were only denied rights here and there? It was just some minor events that happened once in a while? > [@](#): > > It is the case that every progressive change has only come after decades of bitter popular struggle. This is true with every liberty we enjoy today. It is always struggle against the ruling classes that brings liberty and justice. Well there is where you got it wrong. You see, those “masses vliantly fighting against the ruling class” ain’t so noble. In fact, those low-class people were just as complicit in racism and segregation as the upper classes - in fact, often more so. Guess who really was at the forefront of the intergration movement? College students. You know, those college students who have every reason to to protect their own upper-class interests. Guess who ended segregation? The Supreme Court. You know, those nine wealthy white guys. Once again, the forces of ignorance are crushed! > [@](#): > > The ruling classes of the U.S. serve their interests only. Why is that so surprising? Why would they work against their own interests? Ah, so here we come to the heart of it. Your ignorance is astounding. You think of everything in terms of classes. Obviously, anyone richer than you must be in the ruling class. Well, I have news for you. There IS NO RULING CLASS! Theres just a bunch of people who happen to have money right now. Half of them didn’t have it 25 years ago, and some won’t have it 25 years from now. They don’t have the same interests. Some of them are old money, some new. Some of them have investments (most, actually) and some own businesses. Some have good jobs, and some are retired. More importantly, they don’t agree on anything at all. Some are liberal, some libertarian, some conserative, and some fall into that lovely category of “other”. > [@](#): > > We are talking about the most concentrated power that has ever existed? Apparently you’ve never taken a history class. Perhaps Imperial China, Japan, Rome, and Britain mean nothing to you but names on a book. ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162/103 "2002-12-10T04:08:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by smiling bandit \* > **Well there is where you got it wrong. You see, those “masses vliantly fighting against the ruling class” ain’t so noble.** There is nothing so ignoble as blaming the victim. > [@](#): > > **In fact, those low-class people were just as complicit in racism and segregation as the upper classes - in fact, often more so.** The ruling classes have worked very hard to create dissension and hatred in the lower classes. Sometimes it works, but not always. In the days of slavery and Jim Crow, poor whites and blacks would often unite together in common cause. > [@](#): > > **Guess who really was at the forefront of the intergration movement? College students. You know, those college students who have every reason to to protect their own upper-class interests. Guess who ended segregation? The Supreme Court. You know, those nine wealthy white guys.** You mean the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee? Yes, this was a very important group that accomplished a lot of good. The students who worked for desegration and for civil rights sometimes came from the upper classes, but usually they did not. There were a lot of students from poor backgrounds, as well as minorities who pressed for their rights. Oh, and you may have heard of a little thing called the “civil rights movement” where, I hear, quite a number of black people got together to press for their rights. The rich white guys who made up most of the SCOTUS have never worked for civil rights, but have always lagged far behind the populace. It was only after mass popular pressure forced the state to change the laws that they were changed. The SCOTUS went along just fine for 170 years denying rights to black people, as long as there was no popular resistance. > [@](#): > > **Ah, so here we come to the heart of it. Your ignorance is astounding. You think of everything in terms of classes. Obviously, anyone richer than you must be in the ruling class.** No. Anyone who is a part of the ruling class is in the ruling class. > [@](#): > > \*\*Well, I have news for you. There IS NO RULING CLASS! Theres just a bunch of people who happen to have money right now. Half of them didn’t have it 25 years ago, and some won’t have it 25 years from now. They don’t have the same interests. \*\* Sure they do. They all share an interest in protecting their position of privilege. They are protected by a very powerful state, and are always trying to use it to further their own ends. They are _always_ waging a vicious class war, and will put you in a soccer stadium and torture you to death if you threaten their wealth. Here is an excellent overview of class structure in capitalism: [What classes exist within modern society?](http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secB7.html) ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162/104 "2002-12-10T04:18:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Uzi \* > **Please name any other society where the majority controlled things.** [Revolutionary Spain](http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secI8.html) > [@](#): > > \*\*There are always more Indians than Chiefs (except in the company I work for, of course). The difference being in the US is that you, a peasant, can become one of the 1%! \*\* The same was true in the USSR. The fact that there can be some movement between classes in a hierarchical structure does not mean that it is not highly oppressive and exploitative. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162/105 "2002-12-10T15:00:12Z")
I am still awaiting proof of practically anything you have ever claimed. Dogmatic reassertion of a claim does not establish it. You claim that we had to go back to WWII to find an example of a positive US intervention in world affairs. This after the Gulf War was already cited. > [@](#): > > In the days of slavery and Jim Crow, poor whites and blacks would often unite together in common cause. Please give some examples. > [@](#): > > The students who worked for desegration and for civil rights sometimes came from the upper classes, but usually they did not. Please cite your source on the socio-economic backgrounds of those who worked for desegregation. > [@](#): > > I don’t think Germany was better off as a divided nation, as opposed to a united, un-aligned nation as the Soviets proposed. Please explain the economic, environmental, and social disparities between East and West Germany, and how they demonstrate the superiority of East Germany. Also, please explain the Berlin blockade by the Soviets as a demonstration of their desire for a neutral, un-aligned nation. > [@](#): > > They are always waging a vicious class war, and will put you in a soccer stadium and torture you to death if you threaten their wealth. Please explain how the mind rays are penetrating your tinfoil hat. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Soup\_du\_jour](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@Soup\_du\_jour](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soup_du_jour)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162/106 "2002-12-10T15:40:53Z")
> [@](#): > > The ruling classes of the U.S. serve their interests only. Why is that so surprising? Why would they work against their own interests? We are talking about the most concentrated power that has ever existed? You don’t think they very carefully think about what they are doing? They have a lot to lose, and they don’t want to take chances: of course they work for their own interests! The black civil rights leaders worked partially in their own self-interest, too. Does that make it a bad thing on face? ---
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162/107 "2002-12-10T16:15:00Z")
On a positive note, I would like to thank Chumpsky for one of the most entertaining threads I can remember reading. If nothing else I now have a more complete understanding of the various viewpoints held on this subject. I apologize for having nothing else to offer - carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Beaker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Grim\_Beaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Beaker)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162/108 "2002-12-10T17:34:18Z")
This is all well and good but I’d like to see Chumpsky address the points brought up by **Dewey**. Well Chumpsky? ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162/109 "2002-12-10T19:48:36Z")
> [@](#): > > There is nothing so ignoble as blaming the victim. > [@](#): > > The ruling classes have worked very hard to create dissension and hatred in the lower classes. Sometimes it works, but not always. In the days of slavery and Jim Crow, poor whites and blacks would often unite together in common cause. In the holy name of JESUS CHRIST?! Will you please read some books rather than spitting on them since they were "obviously creatiosn fo the “ruling class”?! > [@](#): > > and will put you in a soccer stadium and torture you to death if you threaten their wealth. Are you talking about the Taliban now? Are you insane? > [@](#): > > The rich white guys who made up most of the SCOTUS have never worked for civil rights, but have always lagged far behind the populace. It was only after mass popular pressure forced the state to change the laws that they were changed. The SCOTUS went along just fine for 170 years denying rights to black people, as long as there was no popular resistance. Law. History. Two subjects Chumpsky has repeatedly proven he knows nothing about. > [@](#): > > Anyone who is a part of the ruling class is in the ruling class. ROFLAO! This is one for the record books. Which I would record, but its too depressing. Chumpsky, may I ask what education you have? I’m very interested… I’ll even be willing to respond. ---
**Author:** ![Daoloth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/82dd89/32.png) [@Daoloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daoloth)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162/110 "2002-12-10T21:08:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > \*\* In the days of slavery and Jim Crow, poor whites and blacks would often unite together in common cause. > \*\* Revisionist tripe. Most whites during the slavery era, regardless of class membership, were hostile towards black and harbored one degree of racism or another. Many notable abolitionists thought blacks inferior, for instance (i.e. Hinton Helper). Even many northern Republicans considered blacks to be inferior, and many considered abolitionism no more than a mere political tool (cite: historian Carl Van Woodward). ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162/111 "2002-12-10T21:23:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Grim\_Beaker \* > \*\*This is all well and good but I’d like to see Chumpsky address the points brought up by **Dewey**. Well Chumpsky? \*\* As would I, but that would require actual knowledge about the corporate form vs. other business forms instead of a knee-jerk hatred for business. I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162/112 "2002-12-10T23:51:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Most whites during the slavery era, regardless of class membership, were hostile towards black and harbored one degree of racism or another. While this is only a slight nitpick, I’d say that there was less hostility in the slave era than in the later Jim Crow era. ---
**Author:** ![Daoloth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/82dd89/32.png) [@Daoloth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daoloth)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2002, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162/113 "2002-12-10T23:53:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by smiling bandit \* > \*\*While this is only a slight nitpick, I’d say that there was less hostility in the slave era than in the later Jim Crow era. \*\* At least in the South, that’s true. However, to assert that in those two periods blacks and whites voluntarily worked together for their causes is largely ludicrous and unfounded. ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162/114 "2002-12-11T06:12:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by smiling bandit \* > \*\*While this is only a slight nitpick, I’d say that there was less hostility in the slave era than in the later Jim Crow era. \*\* I took a black history course in college and was taught that absent Jim Crow, the poor southern whites really weren’t any better off than the poor southern blacks. One of the important functions of Jim Crow was to take the pressure off the white southern elite; should the poor whites question their crappy position, the elite could always say, “Well, at least y’all ain’t niggers.” That jibes with an earlier comment, that the southern working class so bitterly opposed the death of Jim Crow: whether it was schadenfreude, or a desperate desire to remain (barely) above the bottom of the social ladder, the poor southern whites did have something to lose. The irony, of course, is that they were too ignorant to see what they had to gain. Unfortunately, many in the world, including many Americans, are still gripped in the same sort of ignorance. Pat Buchanan and his protectionist policies are a prime example. That is where **Chumpsky** is at least partially right: there are a lot of ignorant boobs who are still stuck in the mercantalist paradigm. Hundreds of millions suffer because of it. I once read an anti-trade pamphlet that complained that free trade both increased the disparity between rich and poor, _and_ exported manufacturing jobs out of the U.S. Go figure…exporting jobs from the richest country in the world to the poorest increases the disparity between rich and poor. The logic behind that is not obvious. The second irony is that **Chumsky** is stuck in that paradigm as well. Firmly ensconced in a world view that was killed in the 18th century (not to mention an apparent adherence to an ideology that has been dead for a century as well), he blasts those who are still stuck in the same world view–all the while mistaking it for something else altogether. That’s the third irony: capitalism may be the first ism that explicitly recognizes that when others do well, you do well, but so many still advocate anti-capitalist and neo-mercantalist policies because they can’t understand that simple fact. The economy is no longer a zero-sum game. If South America were rich, we Americans would be richer than we are today. If the contrary were true, we would have never had the Marshall plan–whether is was a capitalist tool, or democratic coup–because a poor Europe means a rich America. But the opposite is the case. Unfortunately, realpolitik, ignorance, and the cold war have thrown a wrench in the works. Now that the cold war is dead, we only have two more demons to slay. But there are so many without the balls and intelligence to do the right thing that the future looks glum. Eight-hundred million people don’t get enough to eat. We could have lowered that by eight million, but the administration decided to give a tax cut to dead people instead. We could be lowering trade barriers, yet some continue to insist that people from other nations shouldn’t be allowed to trade with us simply because they’re not Americans. How racist! Even my cousin the anthropologist has said that NAFTA has been good for Mexico, not to mention the political benefits for Mexicans. I guess breaking the strangle hold of the PRI was not a victory. That’s not to say that there aren’t corrupt capitalists. Heck, there’s corrupt everything. The whole function of Tibetian Buddhism was to get more Lamas, to get more money, to build more opulent structures, to get more students, to get more Lamas, to get… Yet capitalism is the first ism I’ve heard of where the corruption is not inherent in the system. Some, such as communists, say it is–but that’s because they’re too busy proselytizing to apply calculus to a calculus problem; arithmetic won’t do. Do the math and the class conflict dissolves into the fiction it is. That’s not to say that greed doesn’t play a role: sweatshops in America were real, and it took labor unions to get labor what it deserved. But that’s a _human_ failing, not an _institutional_ failing. Unfortunately, that is just too difficult for many people to understand. It’s a damn shame. ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162/115 "2002-12-11T06:26:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by js\_africanus \* > \*\*That’s the third irony: capitalism may be the first ism that explicitly recognizes that when others do well, you do well, but so many still advocate anti-capitalist and neo-mercantalist policies because they can’t understand that simple fact. The economy is no longer a zero-sum game. If South America were rich, we Americans would be richer than we are today. \*\* The exact opposite is the case. You may have noticed that quite a lot of wealth has been generated in the U.S. in the last two decades, and that, concurrently, a lot of poverty has been created in the Third World. In fact, U.S. policy is dedicated to maintaining this position. They understand exactly what they are doing, and plan very carefully how to go about it. For example, George Kennan, one of the most important policy planners in the post-WWII era, wrote, in [an internal planning document](http://www.firethistime.org/georgekennanpps23.htm) in 1948: “Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity…” It IS a zero-sum game. The only way there can be fabulous wealth is if there are a lot of miserably poor people. The luxurious lifestyles of the slave-holder in the mansion could only exist when there were slaves working dawn-to-dusk creating his wealth. The robber barrons on Wall Street only amass their huge amounts of wealth when there are millions of people in the Third World working dawn-to-dusk creating that wealth. I mean, JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THE FREAKING WORLD, MAN! Poverty and wealth grow side by side. One cannot exist without the other! ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162/116 "2002-12-11T13:24:20Z")
> [@](#): > > That’s the third irony: capitalism may be the first ism that explicitly recognizes that when others do well, you do well Most of the time. Capitalism may be the first “-ism” that doesn’t guarrentee you anything beyond your own luck, skill, and talent. > [@](#): > > You may have noticed that quite a lot of wealth has been generated in the U.S. in the last two decades, and that, concurrently, a lot of poverty has been created in the Third World. By any material standard, the third world is doing better than ever. CMpared to the rest of the world, no. But then, much of the 3rd world lacked, by chance or fate, the tools with which to build themselves up economically. Essentially, they haven’t had till recently the human capital (i.e., educate citizenry) and the science and the Well, before AIDS came along, which may yet kill them all off, sad to say. Looking at the numbers for some Asian and African countries, I see some of them ay cease to exist some years from now. > [@](#): > > “Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity…” I.E., he wanted to keep being the top dog. If we (pick one Asian state and America) were to grow our economies at the same rate, we’d always be richer, and increasingly so. Chumpsky, loking at the rest of your post, you remind me of a philosophy techer I once had. His tagline: " ‘They’ think there is something seriously wrong with the world." He liked to advance this opinion without really giving any evidence. You do the same. Your thesis requires several assumptions to be proven: 1. There is finite “wealth” quotient available. 2. The Rich become so by taking more than their even allotment. 3. This is morally wrong. > [@](#): > > I mean, JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THE FREAKING WORLD, MAN! Poverty and wealth grow side by side. One cannot exist without the other! Why? Thre is no iron law of history which states this. Despite impending doom-and-gloom liberal fears about the supposedly expanding gap between rich and poor, there remains over a macroeconomic scale an ever decreasing difference. America dumps huge portions of money overseas into other countries’ economies. We import more than anywhere else. Yet these countries remain “poor”. We’re practically giving them wads of cash, and it does not help them. Or does it? Many Asian countries are slowly or more quickly becoming high-tech powers. Others are manufacturing giants. Africa has not prospered, but is this due to pernacious economic deeds or to their own inadequate adaptation? I know what answer you’ll give, so there is no point in answering that. I get the feeling as well that Chumpsky, once again, ignores history in favor of an arbitrary time standard. In other words, he does not look at trends over time and ignores any reasons for things not being perfect (in his view) immediately. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162/117 "2002-12-11T16:24:22Z")
**smiling bandit** : > [@](#): > > - By any material standard, the third world is doing better than ever.\* Cite? > [@](#): > > - Compared to the rest of the world, no. But then, much of the 3rd world lacked, by chance or fate, the tools with which to build themselves up economically. Essentially, they haven’t had till recently the human capital (i.e., educate citizenry) and the science…\* Cite? > [@](#): > > - Your thesis requires several assumptions to be proven: > > 1. There is finite “wealth” quotient available. > 2. The Rich become so by taking more than their even allotment. > 3. This is morally wrong. \* I’m not sure what you mean by the phrase ”wealth quotient.” But think about it like this: at any given moment, in a given society, there exists a finite amount of wealth. At that given moment, this wealth is distributed within the society according to the rules of its economy. Granted, in the next moment, or month, or year, that amount of wealth may increase. But how is it going to be distributed to the members of the society that have participated in producing it, in the next moment, or month, or year? That is the central issue. **Chumpsky** is trying to argue that capitalism, by its very nature, structures the distribution of wealth in an ”inequitable” manner. The fundamental idea here is that capitalism stratifies society into classes – workers, small businessmen, intelligensia, and owners. Although all of them participate in the production of wealth, the system is predicated on the right of the ”owners” to skim ”a little off the top” of the wealth being produced by the workers. This is done by selling products for more than they cost to produce, the difference of which is then pocketed by the owners as profits. In a recent thread on this topic, I calculated in a somewhat off-the-cuff manner that for the employees of Wal-Mart, the owners skim off about a 1000 bucks per employee and year. The subject isn’t too difficult, really, and is taken for granted in, for example, modern marketing and advertising practices, which are themselves based on a kind of limited class analysis. If you accept this first, fundament proposition, then it is not to difficult to take a step back and apply it in a larger context, such as that of the global economy. Here we see that in addition to impacting on the internal structure of societies, global capitalism also impacts on the overall structure of international relations. To simplify somewhat, certain societies play the role of ”exploited worker,” while others, particularly the US, play the role of ”wealthy owner.” Of course, that’s a vast oversimplification, but maybe it communicates the gist of the model. I agree with you, however, that the question of the morality of such a system is a major stumbling stone. ”Inequality” and ”exploitation” are clearly not empirical concepts, but value judgements. Even granting that, however, it is not hard to understand how someone observing such a system from the outside, and noting the astounding inequalities in income it seems to produce, might feel that it is an unjust, or immoral, method of distributing the wealth produced by a society – or, in this case, by the global economy. As far as I can tell, **Chumpsky** has been given a lot of grief in this thread merely because he is acutely aware of this dynamic and its influence on US foreign policies. One of the most formidable proponents of the view **Chumpsky** advocates in this thread is Immanuel Wallerstein, an old-time Africanist gone neo-Marxist. [**World System Theory**](http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/wallerstein.html) is still to this day one of the most influential paradigms in the field of Development Studies, despite some weaknesses. In a nutshell, Wallerstein argues that capitalism represents a ”world system,” and a rather unique one, as well; the first world system based on an economic, rather than a political, order. In its historical development, capitalism has structured societies into a three primary categories: core, semi-periphery, and periphery. Wallerstein argues that the core has developed and maintained its ascendancy by expropriating wealth from the periphery: > [@](#): > > - The core regions benefited the most from the capitalist world economy. For the period under discussion (1450-1670), much of northwestern Europe (England, France, Holland) developed as the first core region. Politically, the states within this part of Europe developed strong central governments, extensive bureaucracies, and large mercenary armies. This permitted the local bourgeoisie to obtain control over international commerce and extract capital surpluses from this trade for their own benefit…. > > On the other end of the scale lay the peripheral zones. These areas lacked strong central governments or were controlled by other states, exported raw materials to the core, and relied on coercive labor practices. The core expropriated much of the capital surplus generated by the periphery through unequal trade relations. Two areas, Eastern Europe (especially Poland) and Latin America, exhibited characteristics of peripheral regions. In Poland, kings lost power to the nobility as the region became a prime exporter of wheat to the rest of Europe. To gain sufficient cheap and easily controlled labor, landlords forced rural workers into a “second serfdom” on their commercial estates. In Latin America, the Spanish and Portuguese conquests destroyed indigenous authority structures and replaced them with weak bureaucracies under the control of these European states. Powerful local landlords of Hispanic origin became aristocratic capitalist farmers. Enslavement of the native populations, the importation of African slaves, and the coercive labor practices such as the encomienda and forced mine labor made possible the export of cheap raw materials to Europe…. > > The capitalist world economy, as envisioned by Wallerstein, is a dynamic system which changes over time. However, certain basic features remain in place. Perhaps most important is that when one examines the dynamics of this system, the core regions of northwestern Europe clearly benefited the most from this arrangement. Through extremely high profits gained from international trade and from an exchange of manufactured goods for raw materials from the periphery (and, to a lesser extent, from the semi-peripheries), the core enriched itself at the expense of the peripheral economies.\* Naturally, such an economic system would also produce a specific political dynamic – if you accept this argument, it seems clear that states at the core of the system will act to safeguard their status, regardless of how such acts affect the periphery. This implies, for example, that in many instances, the US government will act to _maintain the system_, even if such action might be detrimental to populations at the edge of the world economy. Certainly, at the very least, important economic actors in the core will apply pressure on the US state to act in their interests, and that pressure will make itself felt in a variety of ways, even if doesn’t always win the day. From this perspective, one can understand the US government as the political, and strategic, arm of the current economic order. **Chumpsky** argues that one can make sense of, or better understand, US foreign policies in terms of such a perspective, and although I might disagree with some of the specifics he’s posted, in general I think he has a valid point. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162/118 "2002-12-11T17:48:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by smiling bandit \* > > ## quote: > > ## and will put you in a soccer stadium and torture you to death if you threaten their wealth. > > Are you talking about the Taliban now? Are you insane? I think he might be refering to Chile… ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162/119 "2002-12-11T18:42:40Z")
That isn’t a whole lot better, **clairobscur**. If **Chumpsky** wants to be taken seriously, he better start talking like it. The US “ruling classes” aren’t the root of all evil in the world. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2002, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162/120 "2002-12-11T19:14:26Z")
> [@](#): > > Cite? -by Mr. Svinlesha Oh boy. I am not going to go digging through a thousand web pages to find support. Nor am I going to go digging through history texts located some 30 miles away for it. Simply put, the 3rd world has less infant mortality, more high-tech material goods, and are exporting more goods (and importing more money…) than ever before. That they are not as wealthy as the West has been a given for at least 300 years. This actually has created the second-tier problem: there are a lot more people in the 3rd world (more births, fewer deaths) and that means thourhg various means they are getting manufacturing jobs no longer economical in the 1st world. That capitalism does not guarrantee everyone economic equality is obvious; whether this is bad thing is not. There are successful 3rd world states. > [@](#): > > think about it like this: at any given moment, in a given society, there exists a finite amount of wealth. All waelth is not money. Money is finite. Wealth at any one time may be finite, but IT CHANGES! And often very rapidly. The US has been growing in wealth very quickly over the past 200 years. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-imperialism/140162.md?page=7)