Lethargy
Sept. 11, 2001: Four planes traveling from the U.S. Northeast to Los Angeles and Pittsburgh were hijacked in flight by 19 al-Quaida terrorists.
The hijackers were divided into three groups of four, and one of five. Each group had one hijacker, trained in airplane hijacking, who then took control of a plane. His objective: to crash the plane into a prominent building, causing mass casualties and destruction.
Over time, this horror remained outside the radar of public opinion, although for years, there were persistent doubts over the government’s reports and dozens of theories about what had happened.
It was incredible that the greatest technological power had not anticipated 19 men whose feat was at kindergarten level.
At the extreme was a hypothesis that the George W. Bush government was the author of the attacks. Its objective would have been twofold: to create the largest, most far-reaching surveillance system of the country's citizens — which is what happened — and to launch a large-scale military attack against the Middle East.
Regarding the second objective, Ignacy Sachs* has argued that, over the past 30 years, U.S. military and intelligence actions have been part of a long-term plan driven by Israel to secure its dominance in the Middle East. Employing a broader context, Sachs argued that the U.S. has tried in vain to preserve a unipolar world order under its control.
In 2002, one year after 9/11, Immanuel Wallerstein wrote a lengthy article in Foreign Policy entitled, “The Eagle Has Crash Landed.” Wallerstein describes the decline of the U.S., linking it to the economic crisis of the early 1970s and, in large part, to the Vietnam War: “The United States’ success as a hegemonic power in the postwar period created the conditions of the nation’s hegemonic demise. This process is captured in four symbols: the war in Vietnam, the revolutions of 1968, the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the terrorist attacks of September 2001. Each symbol built upon the prior one, culminating in the situation in which the United States currently finds itself — a lone superpower that lacks true power, a world leader nobody follows and few respect, and a nation drifting dangerously amidst a global chaos it cannot control.”
Since 2002, the situation has worsened for the United States, because history is cumulative, especially in economic and geopolitical spheres. History may fail in effecting change in 1,000 arenas, but in many others, it is of tremendous significance — with cumulative effects, change and, at times, irreversible transformations. Capital accumulation occurs each day, building on the previous day; there are no independent events. Transformations result from accumulation.
The U.S. gross domestic product grew rapidly during the postwar period, but in 1972–1973, growth came to a halt. It stopped because the rate of increase in labor productivity slowed. This slowdown led capital to make decisions to eliminate unions as much as possible and to crush wages; thus, the system produced the highest levels of social inequality ever seen. Capital also produced an unprecedented form of mind control through digital technology. Large segments of society became consumers of everything, especially images. History and memory were outlawed through this control. Will it stay this way?
According to Wallerstein, “Vietnam was not merely a military defeat or a blight on U.S. prestige. The war dealt a major blow to the United States’ ability to remain the world’s dominant economic power. The conflict was extremely expensive and more or less used up the U.S. gold reserves that had been so plentiful since 1945. Moreover, the U.S. incurred these costs just as Western Europe and Japan were experiencing significant economic upswings. These conditions ended U.S. preeminence in the global economy. Since the late 1960s, members of this triad have been nearly economic equals, each doing better than the others for certain periods but none moving far ahead.”
Furthermore, he wrote, “The collapse of communism in effect signified the collapse of liberalism, removing the only ideological justification behind U.S. hegemony, a justification tacitly supported by liberalism’s ostensible ideological opponent.” And then, “The real question is not whether U.S. hegemony is in decline, but whether the United States can devise a way to step down with dignity.”
Decline is not catastrophe. Former hegemonic powers fell but found their place among others, as have the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
The situation has worsened for the U.S. because of China’s spectacular growth in the 21st century. The decline that Wallerstein foresaw in the U.S. in 2002 is now greater, more intense and deeper. The U.S. will survive by becoming less.
Things are going badly because the old bird has been drugged — with images from a cell phone. Nothing lasts forever; the old bird will emerge from its slumber.
*Editor’s note: Ignacy Sachs is a Polish economist.
The hijackers were divided into three groups of four, and one of five. Each group had one hijacker, trained in airplane hijacking, who then took control of a plane. His objective: to crash the plane into a prominent building, causing mass casualties and destruction.
Over time, this horror remained outside the radar of public opinion, although for years, there were persistent doubts over the government’s reports and dozens of theories about what had happened.
It was incredible that the greatest technological power had not anticipated 19 men whose feat was at kindergarten level.
At the extreme was a hypothesis that the George W. Bush government was the author of the attacks. Its objective would have been twofold: to create the largest, most far-reaching surveillance system of the country's citizens — which is what happened — and to launch a large-scale military attack against the Middle East.
Regarding the second objective, Ignacy Sachs* has argued that, over the past 30 years, U.S. military and intelligence actions have been part of a long-term plan driven by Israel to secure its dominance in the Middle East. Employing a broader context, Sachs argued that the U.S. has tried in vain to preserve a unipolar world order under its control.
In 2002, one year after 9/11, Immanuel Wallerstein wrote a lengthy article in Foreign Policy entitled, “The Eagle Has Crash Landed.” Wallerstein describes the decline of the U.S., linking it to the economic crisis of the early 1970s and, in large part, to the Vietnam War: “The United States’ success as a hegemonic power in the postwar period created the conditions of the nation’s hegemonic demise. This process is captured in four symbols: the war in Vietnam, the revolutions of 1968, the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the terrorist attacks of September 2001. Each symbol built upon the prior one, culminating in the situation in which the United States currently finds itself — a lone superpower that lacks true power, a world leader nobody follows and few respect, and a nation drifting dangerously amidst a global chaos it cannot control.”
Since 2002, the situation has worsened for the United States, because history is cumulative, especially in economic and geopolitical spheres. History may fail in effecting change in 1,000 arenas, but in many others, it is of tremendous significance — with cumulative effects, change and, at times, irreversible transformations. Capital accumulation occurs each day, building on the previous day; there are no independent events. Transformations result from accumulation.
The U.S. gross domestic product grew rapidly during the postwar period, but in 1972–1973, growth came to a halt. It stopped because the rate of increase in labor productivity slowed. This slowdown led capital to make decisions to eliminate unions as much as possible and to crush wages; thus, the system produced the highest levels of social inequality ever seen. Capital also produced an unprecedented form of mind control through digital technology. Large segments of society became consumers of everything, especially images. History and memory were outlawed through this control. Will it stay this way?
According to Wallerstein, “Vietnam was not merely a military defeat or a blight on U.S. prestige. The war dealt a major blow to the United States’ ability to remain the world’s dominant economic power. The conflict was extremely expensive and more or less used up the U.S. gold reserves that had been so plentiful since 1945. Moreover, the U.S. incurred these costs just as Western Europe and Japan were experiencing significant economic upswings. These conditions ended U.S. preeminence in the global economy. Since the late 1960s, members of this triad have been nearly economic equals, each doing better than the others for certain periods but none moving far ahead.”
Furthermore, he wrote, “The collapse of communism in effect signified the collapse of liberalism, removing the only ideological justification behind U.S. hegemony, a justification tacitly supported by liberalism’s ostensible ideological opponent.” And then, “The real question is not whether U.S. hegemony is in decline, but whether the United States can devise a way to step down with dignity.”
Decline is not catastrophe. Former hegemonic powers fell but found their place among others, as have the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
The situation has worsened for the U.S. because of China’s spectacular growth in the 21st century. The decline that Wallerstein foresaw in the U.S. in 2002 is now greater, more intense and deeper. The U.S. will survive by becoming less.
Things are going badly because the old bird has been drugged — with images from a cell phone. Nothing lasts forever; the old bird will emerge from its slumber.
*Editor’s note: Ignacy Sachs is a Polish economist.
Previous article![]( "Donald Trump Is Less Interested in Ireland than in Creating Mayhem")
Next article![]( "America’s Last Hope: Try To Starve Iran")
