Rationalization vs Reason
Rationalization vs Reason
One mistake that most analysts make, as rational, informed, and engaged people is to assume that others are as they are. That’s “normal” I guess.
This causes them to look for rationality in commonly accepted assumptions about the world which in fact are irrational expressions of cultural belief systems. The result is not so much Reason as Rationalization.
Excerpt from Special Article Part 2
You will own nothing….?
I was just finishing off this Special Article-which I will leave overnight to ferment, before proof-reading tomorrow and sending— when I ran across an article by Richard Wolf published (I think) yesterday. I decided to add it. It’s a good example of reason and rationalization and connects to a lot things in Part 2.
It is easier to understand my comments, of course, if you read “You will own nothing”, especially the part on Arrighi’s theory of hegemony and empire— but even without that— I think you should read Wolf’s article in entirety — and think about it. You can find it on Naked Capitalism or Asia Times.
My comments only deal with the conclusion of the article.
It’s a good example of rationality become rationalization.
Richard Wolf: The Decline of the U.S. Empire – Where Is It Taking Us All?
In the past, one empire often supplanted another. That may be our future with this century becoming “China’s” as previous empires were American, British, and so on. However, China’s history includes earlier empires that rose and fell: another unique quality.
What’s wrong here?
Yes, China had emperors. But their empires were really just China and a few border areas. They were in no way comparable to European empires or that of the US, which were clearly extraterritorial. We know, for example, that Chinese ships traveled to North America –major expeditions—in the early 14th Century during the Ming Dynasty but they made no attempt to colonize the New World and enslave its peoples.
Might China’s past and its present hybrid economy influence China away from becoming another empire and rather toward a genuinely multipolar global organization instead? Might the dreams and hopes behind the League of Nations and the United Nations achieve reality if and when China makes that happen?
Wolf states what the Chinese themselves say” the do not seek empire or hegemony and a form of global democracy.
Or will China become the next global hegemon against heightened resistance from the United States, bringing the risk of nuclear war closer?
He goes on to advocate a kind of rational compromise.
A rough historical parallel may shed some additional light from a different angle on where today’s class of empires may lead. The movement toward independence of its North American colony irritated Britain sufficiently for it to attempt two wars (1775–83 and 1812–15) to stop that movement.
Now we part from history. Britain did not want either war although it could have prevented them. Those were American wars. The first military engagement of the Revolutionary War was American militias attacking British troops in Concord in 1775. In 1812, the Americans tried — and failed— to invade Canada. It was the Americans who declared this war. So the British “did not attempt wars”. Not that it may have not contributed provocations.
Both wars failed. Britain learned the valuable lesson that peaceful co-existence with some co-respective planning and accommodation would enable both economies to function and grow, including in trade and investment both ways across their borders. That peaceful co-existence extended to allowing the imperial reach of the one to give way to that of the other.
It clearly wasn’t that simple. I don’t think that anyone in the 19th and even early 20th Century —much less just Britain-governments —had concepts of “peaceful coexistence” which appeared in the Cold War days of the 20th Century, when “total war” meant the extinction of humankind. Nor did anyone talk about “co-respective planning and accommodation"—which is neoliberal, WEF language.
Back in the 19th Century colonial powers (which included the US) just didn’t want war that might interfere with their different policies and practices of colonial exploitation is all.
Notice the suggestion of American some moral superiority – that America taught Britain” a lesson”. It didn’t.
Why not suggest a similar trajectory for U.S.-China relations over the next generation?
Umm…because there is no similarity at all?
Except for ideologues detached from reality, the world would prefer it over the nuclear alternative.
As I explained earlier—and as most people know intuitively – there is no “nuclear alternative.” It is not a valid possibility.
Dealing with the two massive, unwanted consequences of capitalism—climate change and unequal distributions of wealth and income—offers projects for a U.S.-China partnership that the world will applaud.
Indeed, but only China is addressing both issues. Only China has a political system that allows it to so—and indeed prioritizes response to the challenges as part of what Xi calls “ecological civilization” If you want to know more, check out Godfree Roberts’ site.
Capitalism changed dramatically in both Britain and the United States after 1815. It will likely do so again after 2025. The opportunities are attractively open-ended.
Yes, it changed. It went from bad to worse. Wolf envisions some kind of global capitalism with both West and East on equal terms.
Aint happenin’. Just saying.
It is rational solution. But Western hegemony is not only a zero-sum game it is also irrational. And the doesn’t do “equal”; only un-equal.
“Those who the Gods would destroy, they first make mad”.
The world is not ending with either a bang or a whimper. That’s western civilization — showing cracks already. Still,
sometimes rebirth comes from unexpected places.
Special Report Part 2 Coming Tomorrow!
Buy us a coffee to get on the mailing list for Part 2. If you didn’t get Part 1 , or American Borg or Are you normal? let me know when you buy the coffee and I will send you the article or articles. Remember that these files are large. Part 2 is almost 4700 words unless I can prune it a bit tomorrow. The zip file you will recieve will contain the report in docx, pdf, and epub formats.
Click here to to go to the buymeacoffee website. Or on the photo above.
Also, thank you for all your supportive comments and messages !
Julian
Capitalism has gotten such a bad name, but this is understandable given that it has become a blanket term. But free market capitalism hasn’t existed for many decades. The idea that an agreement between two parties to exchange something each finds valuable is not only not evil, but propels people out of poverty and into deep prosperity unlike any other system that has existed, including and especially centrally planned economies.
Interested in learning more about Austrian economics? Read, Man, Economy, and State, with Power and Market, by Murray Rothbard
clicking on those 2 things did not work