In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

100 The Age of Multilateralism The World after 1850 I n a R i s e o f t h e R i c h p a r a d i g m i n t e r p r e tat i o n , the period from 1850 to the present, i.e., contemporary history, is the age of multilateralism , a period during which one sees the banding together of a growing number of the world’s dominant elements in an increasing interdependency as they seek to promote market capitalism. It is a period in which one sees the rise and decline of several great powers, but at the same time one sees a new type of dispersion of power, one often drawing the great powers into conflicts or confrontations with each other in remote corners of the world as the alliance systems grow larger and more formalized. One thinks of Sarajevo. A century earlier the assassination of an archduke visiting Serbia would scarcely have caused a world war. The Rich, it appears, can escape neither their roots in the nation-states nor the problems inherent in their class character. The result on the world scale is that they have become a class in themselves but not for themselves, while at the same time by virtue of the wealth and power they have accumulated they are confronted with ever increasing challenges. Competition among nations has also been ruthless. International law has sometimes been not much of an arbiter; dominant elements have often flouted it or redefined it in ways that defied the intent of its framers. The only real help likely to be proffered to countries in need is aid to sustain the market and stave off the rise of populism or nationalism. In the absence of much apparent capacity for collective action, the Rich have evolved on an ad hoc basis, almost accidentally coming up with coping techniques in response to crises. Two of these techniques stand out and will 4 the age of multilater alism   |   101 be discussed in what follows. The first is rule by state of emergency. Worldwide over the past century, more and more emergency legislation has been enacted and today is in use. The second involves anointing a great power, today notably the United States, as world policeman. Neither strategy has met with wide acceptance or enjoyed particular success. Critics claim that on a political level, these strategies represent desperation, that capitalism has run out of ideas. Although this opinion may overstate matters, there is some truth in it. If collective action is required even for the sake of human survival, at some point there may not be much that will be forthcoming as there will be no collectivity beyond that which would perpetuate the market . Where that leaves the perpetuation of the species is not clear. One might well ask, how has humanity fallen into its present condition ? How has opposition to capitalism and to the world market failed so abysmally? Humanity’s situation in early modern history was by no means this uncertain. As I have already argued, the reasons for the present condition are essentially political ones, the result of a long series of political mistakes made by opposition movements. What I found was that if one starts from the premise that the only counterhegemonic struggle is the struggle of organized labor, then one has made a historiographical choice and an incorrect one at that. As a result of this choice, the historian would likely concentrate on the gains and losses of organized labor. However, as modern history has shown, this approach has repeatedly failed. Even the Russian Revolution was ultimately such a failure. The workers’ state arose, but the political stratification of Russia remained in place because it was never challenged. So one way, then, to explain humanity’s current situation— here to repeat—is as the consequences of a series of bad choices when it comes to matters of emancipation historiography as part of the problem. Still, the reader might ask, why approach the subject in this fashion? The subject of contemporary history is one we all know. Why not use some more familiar formulation out of the Hegelian tradition, such as “late capitalism ”? Why multilateralism?1 Here one needs to recall that capitalism, though unable to redistribute wealth to the poor, has given back some of it to Third World ruling classes in acknowledgment of their power and the services they render to the market. Keeping this...

Share