Global hegemony

[Azarkon]

Power politics would have us believe that nations are locked in an endless struggle for regional and global dominance. The US policy for permanent global dominance, which I believe will be played out in the coming decades, will attest to the strength of this belief among leaders. However, one cannot but help wonder why global hegemony is so important. Certainly, the feeling of insecurity - of not wanting to become a victim of global forces - is a rational justification for grand mastery. With that, I can sympathize.

 

However, surely those who desire absolute power over the world can see that the imperial apparatus necessary for that level of control would be more likely to create instability than promote peace and prosperity. When you forcibly take control of another people's destiny, exploitation is the natural result: the hegemony of any singular state for its own benefits will inevitably result in imperial inequity, which in turn sews the seeds of rebellion and necessitates a neverending string of preemptive strikes in order to keep the enemy from growing.

 

On the other hand, economics would have us believe that the quest for global hegemony is a quest for limited natural resources. This philosophy would certainly fit with the Iraqi War. However, possession of natural resources like oil in this day and age seems rather pointless, as the projection of resource consumption indicates that any such attainment would be strictly temporary, and cannot be sustained. Moreover, one cannot imagine a stable world in which one nation would be allowed to simply extort resources from another. A return to the days of imperialism would mean forgetting decades of exploitation; I do not consider this sort of amnesia a plausible outcome.

 

Postcolonial discourse suggests that the nature of all empires is to further the goals of a specific ethnic group, whose quest for dominance is the age-old, genetically coded desire to become the "master" race (whether through exterminating and enslaving "lesser" races as the Nazis attempted, or through the much simpler task of exploiting them economically). Therefore, the ascension of the US and Europe is a codified attempt to assert Western dominance, which is defined as the triumph of the Caucasian, property-owning male. The issue here, however, is that a world in which the Caucasian male dominates cannot be sustained, and is indeed not imaginable, since the average person would have little to gain from "racial superiority" barring exploiting/enslaving other races, which gets us back to the original problem of instability.

 

One last argument remains - which is that global hegemony is simply the apparatus through which an elect group of society, ie those who hold political and economic power, protects their personal priviledges. That is, global hegemony is not a national goal but one shared by a group of individuals who managed to convince the nation otherwise. I cannot speak for the accuracy of such statements in respect to modern politics, but it seems to be true insofar as the beneficiaries of war have traditionally been restrictive. One would think that the US would never fight a war that would place it in such dramatic deficits, but there you have it.

 

My question, as stated in the title, is as follows: what's the point of global hegemony? What is its ultimate end explained in the sense of a vision for the future? If living conditions in the US compared to Europe/Japan is of any indication, global dominance is not necessary for the maintenance of priviledge, and at any case militarly dominance certainly has little to do with it. So - what's the point?

[Fenghuang]

I dunno, Peter Wiggin did a pretty good job of it.

[astr0creep]

[Atreides]

I'm sure the sociologists, spliced with a healthy dose of evolution theory can rationalise how the apes found it useful to either form communities while being hostile to others. It's all because of the _____.

[Arkan]

I'm sure the sociologists, spliced with a healthy dose of evolution theory can rationalise how the apes found it useful to either form communities while being hostile to others.  It's all because of the _____.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Well, there are "tribes" of gorillas and other apes that "wage war" against others. So sayeth National Geographic, at least.

[Walsingham]

I would misquote various people here by saying

 

"The only thing worse than having a global hegemony is someone else having it"

 

It's that simple. Resources my foot.

[Rosbjerg]

I believe Walsingham said it best..

but leaders of nations have never been known (in general) to be particularly wise or humble!

maybe it has something to do with vanity and the desire of proving your malehood (on an extreme scale) .. my argument is that if every male in history was suffienciently satisfied, no wars would've ever been fought!

[Azarkon]

I would misquote various people here by saying

 

"The only thing worse than having a global hegemony is someone else having it"

 

It's that simple. Resources my foot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The natural counter-argument, then, is that a multi-polar world would be ideal... But that's clearly not acceptable by the movers of the world, or else the League of Nations & UN would have been successful. So I would argue that the desire for hegemony far exceeds the desire for a multi-polar world.

[Calax]

eh the only way for somthing like the UN or the League to actually have anything akin to power is to give them a standing army that ANYONE can join.

 

otherwise it's only as powerful as the most powerful member who's agenda the UN supports.

[Colrom]

I would misquote various people here by saying

 

"The only thing worse than having a global hegemony is someone else having it"

 

It's that simple. Resources my foot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Walsingham,

 

Let me know when you achieve global hegemony.

 

In anticipation of your future status, your servant,

 

Colrom :D

Edited April 20, 2006 by Colrom

[Blank]

Global hegemony, What's the point?

The point is to fulfill the prophecy of the AntiChrist.

Edited April 20, 2006 by Blank

[WITHTEETH]

I dunno, Peter Wiggin did a pretty good job of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

2+ cool points for you!!! I love the Enders series!

 

They are my favorite set.

[metadigital]

My question, as stated in the title, is as follows: what's the point of global hegemony? What is its ultimate end explained in the sense of a vision for the future? If living conditions in the US compared to Europe/Japan is of any indication, global dominance is not necessary for the maintenance of priviledge, and at any case militarly dominance certainly has little to do with it.  So - what's the point?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr Orwell thought that tripartite hegemony was the best model for a totalitarian society that controls her members for the betterment of the society, at the expense of the individuals. "

 

I think you are advocating Anarchsim as a viable alternative government, and your choice ...

[Walsingham]

Rosbjerg, as any married man will tell you, wars are started to win women and keep them. Zam, zamin, zamun. :D If women behaved like bonobos and did not demand shiny things men would be utterly peaceful fat creatures. Of course, then we'd all be gorram hippies...

 

Colrom, since you asked so politely you may have colonelcy in one of my Highland regiments. Best get practicing your sporran swinging.

[Fenghuang]

I dunno, Peter Wiggin did a pretty good job of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

2+ cool points for you!!! I love the Enders series!

 

They are my favorite set.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I liked the Bean series best, though it's probably just because Orson Scott Card's writing got better over time.

 

I even got my dad hooked on them, though it wasn't that hard what with him being a SciFi/Fantasy nerd anyway. I borrow bits of his collection on a regular basis.

[Atreides]

Gorram hippies!

[Blank]

I liked the Bean series best, though it's probably just because Orson Scott Card's writing got better over time. 

 

I even got my dad hooked on them, though it wasn't that hard what with him being a SciFi/Fantasy nerd anyway.  I borrow bits of his collection on a regular basis.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ha, I could've truthfully posted that. We are like... TWINS! (w00t)

[metadigital]

Who is Arnold and who Danny? "

[Fenghuang]

I liked the Bean series best, though it's probably just because Orson Scott Card's writing got better over time. 

 

I even got my dad hooked on them, though it wasn't that hard what with him being a SciFi/Fantasy nerd anyway.  I borrow bits of his collection on a regular basis.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ha, I could've truthfully posted that. We are like... TWINS! (w00t)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

[Calax]

you realize that bean is a Mormon right?

 

well... orson is a born again mormon and often gives his characters mormon traits. Especially in "folk of the fringe" where he's got the mormons in utah living in a utopian society while everyone else decends to barbarism of a sort.

[Fenghuang]

I thought Mormons believed in God?

 

Ender's mother was a Mormon, his father was Catholic though so they cancelled each other out.

Edited April 24, 2006 by Fenghuang

[Blank]

you realize that bean is a Mormon right?

 

well... orson is a born again mormon and often gives his characters mormon traits. Especially in "folk of the fringe" where he's got the mormons in utah living in a utopian society while everyone else decends to barbarism of a sort.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ha, you realize that you sound as if you've never read the book, right?

 

Bean didn't have a religion, and if he did, it would've probably been Catholicism, since Sister Carlotta was a mother to him when he was young, and although he didn't care about it then, he eventually appreciated what she did for him when he got older.

 

On a side-note, although Orson is Mormon, I rarely saw him try to slide his religion into his books. All I saw was that Ender's mother was Mormon. However, in Speaker for the Dead, the book is heavy with Catholic characters.

 

Just because Orson is Mormon, don't mean he automatically puts his religion in le books. He's an author, not an evangelist. Some can do both at the same time, but he aint seemin to be doin that, he's just a good author from what I can tell.

[Fenghuang]

Don't forget that Bean's real family was Greek, so they were probably Eastern Orthodox Catholics.

[Walsingham]

And this is related to global hegemony how?

[Blank]

Card's "Bean" series of books include a hegemon, Ender's brother Peter, that is successful. He creates a world-democracy, and when that is accomplished, he steps down, and no further hegemon are needed.