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

94 CHAPTER SEVEN HISTORY, WAR, AND IDEOLOGY IN AFRICA’S CONTEXT In theoretical perspective, the mapping of a truly hegemonic global capitalist World Order actually started in earnest in the period immediately after World War Two, the beginning of the era of what Ernst Mandel called “late capitalism.” The concerted efforts toward a strong bloc of capitalist States with overwhelming political, economic and military power involved the incorporation of colonial and post-colonial social formations as reproducible capitalist entities into the system. In this regard the creation of an international capitalist class alliance equipped with modernization theory anchored on Social Darwinism was indispensable. As the leader of the “free World” the United States assumed the greatest role in the implementation of the hegemonic strategy for the purpose of capital accumulation through its military, economic and political might. Attempting to understand and to address the New World Order and all of its contradictions, forced many to revisit classical theories of imperialism and introduced various theories on capitalist states and state in capitalist societies. In both cases an analysis of systemic contradictions took the center stage. However, systemic contradictions as they relate to accumulation have been addressed by classic and most recent theories of imperialism, dependency/world system argument, internationalization of capital, global capitalist class alliance, and the transnational “historical bloc.” A very useful angle of revisiting imperialism and global class conflict is the “transnational historical materialism” (Murphy 1994; Augelli and Murphy 1998; Cox 1981, 1983, 1993; Gill 1990, 1993, 1995; Rupert 1995; Robinson 1998, 2001). The proponents posit a World in which the global or transnational class supported by a transnational political apparatus and military power expands its interest on a global scale and at the expense of the international proletariat’s interests. Therefore, the class conflict on a national level is transformed into an international class conflict. Embedded in this analysis is a touch of Gramsci (1999) and his concept of hegemony, where the new alliance is sustained and its interests expanded through the production and reproduction of ideology of the dominant class and their cultural leadership (hegemonic ideas). Gramsci, pointed out that the Western ruling classes ensure the consolidation of their dominant position by manipulating institutions such as the media, schools, churches, and so on. 95 The “historical bloc” composed of the capitalists, state apparatus and the “organic intellectuals”, negotiates as a bloc with subordinate classes to ensure the structure of domination and its reproduction. Although the bloc seeks to maintain total hegemony, occasionally it is confronted by challenges from the subordinates (the struggling masses). To confront these challenges, the bloc attempts at cooption of the anger and opposition by changing slightly the social and economic arrangements. Although not referred to by name, social imperialism has been historically the “bloc’s” strategy of dealing with challenges to its domination. The strength of the bloc in this contemporary period is immense and enjoys the assistance of a new breed of organic intellectuals well versed in theorizing and structuring a transnational hegemonic order. Ideologically loaded words such as “freedom and democracy”, “free trade”, “free enterprise system”, “free market” (and a host of other free this and free that) are embedded in a language which aims at structuring the World in the image of the hegemon. The new bloc as Eagan (2003:3) argues, of course, seeks the “institutionalization” of the concept of “new constitutionalism” proposed by Gill (1995) in the three components, namely: “disciplinary neo-liberalism”, “panopticism”, and “market civilization” (commodification) of everyday life. But it is essential that the process of “internationalization of the state”, that is to say, the conversion of the state into a “transmission belt,” (Robinson 1996) and an “agency” for the adjustment of the internal structure of the state to policy implementation needs of the global order (Cox, 1987: 254) is in place and reproducible. Cox (1987:109) identifies three distinct world orders, each having its own hegemonic strategy, beginning with the liberal international economy (1789-1873); the era of imperialist rivalries (18731945 ) and that of the post World War II or the era of internationalization of capital and production led by the United States called the “Pax Americana” period . There is a contemporary debate surrounding the concept of globalization in its historical and structural context and impact. In fact, the two main opposing camps regarding “globalization”, “capital enclosure” or World Order have used these concepts to mean any one or various combinations of internationalization, westernization, democratization, transnationalization , civilization, humanization, enculturation, universalization, polarization, modernization and as...

Share