The American Empire and the Emergence of a Global Ruling Class

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 [1]

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” [2] (emphasis in original). 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.” [3] 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.” [4] 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. [5]

Unlike Hardt & Negri, Brzezinski is a member of the elite. 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). The Grand Chessboard is basically an analysis of geopolitics and strategy on the Eurasian continent. His defense of the American Empire is that “the only real alternative to American global leadership in the foreseeable future is international anarchy.”

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 but 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.” [6]

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.” [7] 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 invasion and conquest of Iraq were 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 [8] 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. That is what happened with the Iraq crisis – the transnational elite created by the American empire came into conflict with the American empire.

A substantial portion of opposition to the war was motivated by the fact that it did not have UN backing. In most countries opposition to the war would drop dramatically (often by half) if the UN approved it. Prior to the start of the war, polls showed that over 70% of Britons were 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 cited the need to have “legitimate authority” (approval of the UN & international community) as one of several reasons to oppose the war. Nelson Mandela gave 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.

Elements of this conflict between the transnational elite and the American empire can be seen even in events following the invasion, during the occupation. The US has been facing more resistance than it expected in Iraq and so is trying to get the transnational elite to help out. Bush has pressured other countries and the U.N. to send troops to assist the occupation. Fifty years ago this would not have been a problem, many countries within the empire would have sent troops. But now, as the global ruling class is rising, they are more reluctant. They demand that the transnational elite be given more power, giving the U.N. greater say over Iraq, in exchange for helping the US empire out. This is another conflict between Empire and the American empire, the transnational elite will only do what the U.S. wants if the U.S. will cede some power to it.

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 outright 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. [9]

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 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. Some have proposed the creation of an "international peacekeeping force" to patrol around the world. Some proposals would place this under the control of the UN. Some even go so far as to give the UN it's own standing army under the command of the General-Secretary. 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 American government has supported the proposals for an “international peacekeeping force” and NATO “rapid-reaction” force because they initially would serve the interests of the American empire. An international peacekeeping force would help the US by relieving it of global "policing duties" and transferring part of it to transnational organization(s). A NATO "rapid-reaction" force would act as an "assassination force" capable of rapidly containing and defeating resistance to the US empire. While they would initially serve the interests of the American empire, because they are controlled by a transnational organization they would be under the control of the transnational elite. Just as the UN, WTO, etc. have all drifted out of US control and developed interests of their own against their former master, so too would these organizations. Power would thus transfer, either gradually or rapidly, from the American empire to the transnational ruling 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), 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 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, Algeria and elsewhere may well be the precursor to a global anarchist revolution. If we play our cards right we could bring capitalism tumbling down and initiate the first global revolution in history.

Notes
[1] Empire, p, xii
[2] Empire, p. xiii - xiv
[3] Global Ruling Class, p. 1-2 http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/8908/transnational.html
[4] What is Communist Anarchism, ch. 6
[5] Grand Chessboard, p. 215
[6] Is the Emperor wearing clothes? P. 2 http://struggle.ws/pdf/empire.html
[7] Global Ruling Class, p. 1
[8] Although there were eventually large mobilizations against US aggression in Vietnam this did not happen until long after the US had invaded and been unable to completely subdue the Vietnamese. In addition, those opposed to the US aggression were generally not the rulers of American client states but ordinary people.
[9] “The President’s Real Goal in Iraq” by Jay Bookman at http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html

Home