THE AGE OF IMPERIALISM: SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM RESPONSES

Harry Targ

In 1969, the Monthly Review Press published Harry Magdoff’s impactful book, The Age of Imperialism. It diagnosed the connections between the capitalist system and the global foreign policy of the United States. Earlier, diplomatic historian William Appleman Williams published narratives of the United States role in the world from the end of the Civil War until the early 1960s in The Tragedy of American History and The Contours of American History. 

What we learned from these ground-breaking books was that capitalism, economic expansion, colonialism and neo-colonialism, wars, racism, and the ideology of American exceptionalism were inextricably linked. Imperialism was a phase in history that involved particular economic processes, political institutions, militarism, and a political culture that celebrates war and violence.

Even though history is complicated and the features of  imperialism have changed over time, in part due to  global resistance, one can see a continuity of foreign policies of imperial states, particularly in the case of the United States. Three enduring United States policies remain preeminent as we approach the 2020 election:

First, military spending, particularly in new technologies, continues unabated. A 2019 Council on Foreign Relations report raises the danger of the United States “falling behind” in military technology, the same metaphor that was used by defense analysts in the past. These included the NSC-68 document distributed just before the Korean War began that advocated unlimited spending on the military. Similar warnings appeared in Gaither and Rockefeller Reports composed in the late 1950s to challenge President Eisenhower’s worry about a military/industrial complex. And in the 1960s, to further military superiority and to fight the Vietnam War, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara employed techniques of scientific management to make the Pentagon more efficient. And President Reagan’s huge increase of armaments in the 1980s was justified by an inaccurate claim that a “window of vulnerability” had developed as the United States was “falling behind” the former Soviet Union. The Trump Administration and members of both parties have recently endorsed a $740 billion defense budget. Trump is launching a “space force” and is spurring research and development of drone technology, biometrics, and other cyber security weapons.

 

Second, the United States continues to engage in policies recently referred to as “hybrid wars.” The concept of hybrid wars suggests that while traditional warfare between nations has declined, warfare within countries has increased. Internal wars, the hybrid wars theorists suggest, are encouraged and supported by covert interventions, employing private armies, spies, and other operatives financed by outside nations like the United States. Also, the hybrid wars concept refers to the use of economic warfare, embargoes, and blockades, to bring down adversarial states and movements. The blockades of Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran are examples. In short, the hybrid war concept suggests that wars are being carried out by other, less visible, means.

Third, much of the discourse on the US role in the world replicates the bipolar, super-power narrative of the Cold War. Only now the enemy is China. And imperialism needs an enemy or enemies to mobilize the citizenry to support militarism and war.

These are problems peace and justice movements will have to address beyond the 2020 election, irrespective of which candidate wins the presidency. In short, the outcome of the 2020 election will not determine whether “the age of imperialism” continues or not.

BUT, there are still reasons for peace forces to participate in the upcoming election and to oppose the reelection of Donald Trump. Along with the differences in the presidential candidates and those running for federal, state, and local offices--on domestic issues and on the ability of progressives to apply pressure on key decision-makers--there have been differences between foreign policy elites over the years that bear remembering.

One sector of the foreign policy elite, the neo-conservatives, have historically prioritized the use of military force to a greater degree than diplomacy to achieve imperial goals. From the original Committee for the Present Danger in 1950 to its rebirth in the 1970s, to the formation of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in the 1990s, these key political elites have advocated the use of military force as a primary tool to achieve US hegemonic goals in the world. Further, they have de-emphasized in their advocacy of policy the traditional tools of diplomacy to achieve national goals, tools such as cooperating with alliance partners, and utilizing international institutions such as the United Nations, regional international organizations, or specialized organizations such as the World Health Organization. Finally, and perhaps most critically, President George W. Bush articulated what was always just below the surface in terms of neo-conservative military thinking, the doctrine of preemption. This doctrine, as President Bush articulated it in 2002, indicated that the United States reserves the right to unilaterally and militarily act against enemies when they are expected to aggress against US interests, even before perceived enemies engage in aggressive acts.  In other words, military force might be used to stop an action perceived as a threat to national security before it occurs. This is a doctrine that reverses the old ideas of maintaining a military force to deter aggression from abroad or to contain adversaries.

Another sector, of the foreign policy elites, the pragmatists, take different positions on these matters which could have consequences bearing on the probability of war or peace. First, the pragmatists prioritize using diplomacy to achieve US goals. The use of force or related tools of violence are regarded as second to using diplomatic interaction to maintain US interests. Therefore, the pragmatists say, the United States should pursue common policies with allies, participate in international organizations, and even, from time to time, negotiate with adversaries. Also, the historic role of diplomacy, they say, has been to deliberate and negotiate with those nations with which disagreements exist, in addition to maintaining consensus with friends. Finally, military preparedness, while critical to national security, should be used to deter threats to US security, not to launch preemptive strikes. Again, both foreign policy factions seek to maximize the continuation and enhancement of US imperialism. But their tactical approaches vary. And it is this variation that provides an opening for peace forces to begin to reverse “the age of imperialism.”

Looking at the 2020 Democratic Platform (while recognizing the limited value of party platforms), it can be seen that several points raised fit what has been characterized as “the pragmatist” position. Along with the conventional appeals to American Exceptionalism in the document the Democratic Party Platform declares “Diplomacy should be our tool of first resort” and it calls for:

--Rejoining and “reforming” international institutions

--Ending “forever wars” in Afghanistan and Yemen

--Maintaining military capabilities “for less.” “We spend 13 times more on the military than we do on diplomacy”

--Rejoining and funding the work of the World Health Organization, particularly as it promotes world health in general and fighting the pandemic specifically

--Returning to the Paris Accords, working with others to reverse climate change

--Extending non-proliferation of nuclear weapons  including the START treaty

--Reversing Trump administration policies toward Cuba and Venezuela

--Resuming participation in the nuclear agreement with Iran

--Respecting the rights of Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East

Again, we know that platforms represent words, not promises, And we know that platforms represent compromise language designed to bring competing factions in political parties together. And we know also  that the “better nature” of these promises bely the long history of imperialism described by writers such as Magdoff and Williams. But they constitute a set of potential promises that peace forces can mobilize around if the Democratic Party wins the November, 2020 elections. No such programmatic promises have been articulated by the Trump Administration and, in fact, for most of the last four years Trump foreign policy more closely fits the neo-conservative approach to international relations.

So peace forces must come together to defeat Trump in November and mobilize to demand that the new administration act in ways to honor their promises. At the same time, the peace movement must build on opposition to continued military spending and militarism, so-called hybrid war strategies, and vehemently oppose the establishment of a new Cold War. These broader goals will inevitably lead to a reconceptualization of the historic United States role in the world which would reintroduce the theory and practice of imperialism to public discourse (much as Bernie Sanders re-popularized discussions of socialism). And, finally, developing an anti-imperial agenda could/should be conceptualized as central to the fight for social and economic justice in the United States as well as the rest of the world.

****************************************************************************

For a discussion of a possible Twenty-First Century Peace Charter see below:

https://heartlandradical.blogspot.com/2015/06/a-twenty-first-century-peace-charter_29.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

United States Foreign Policy and the 2020 Elections: a webinar

https://www.globaljusticecenter.org/videos/united-states-foreign-policy-and-2020-elections-anti-imperialist-struggles-years-ahead

A power point accompanying the talk

US Foreign Policy in the Years Ahead1 (2).pptx

FROM THE MIDDLE EAST TO PURDUE UNIVERSITY: WAR AND UNIVERSITIES

Harry Targ

In a joint statement issued by the governments of Israel, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the United States on August 13, the two Middle East countries agreed to normalize their relations. Thus, following Egypt and Jordan, the UAE is the third country in the region (in this case in the Persian Gulf) to establish relations with Israel. The agreement, known as the Abraham Accords, include establishing telephone communications, commercial flights, and most importantly military cooperation.

While Israel, in exchange, promised to suspend parts of planned expansion of West Bank settlements, the geopolitical significance of the Accord includes growing Arab opposition to the Palestinian people AND formal expansion of a coalition of armed regimes who are enemies of Iran. Middle East expert, Juan Cole reported that:

“The step was, however, politically and economically expedient for the signing parties. The Emirates is a union of seven Gulf sheikhdoms, though oil-rich Abu Dhabi is their de facto leader. The population is 9.6 million, but only about a million of those are citizens, with the rest being guest workers who can be rotated out of the country at will. The citizen population is like that of Rhode Island. The UAE gross domestic product, driven by oil in Abu Dhabi and by finance and tourism in Dubai, is $405 billion, slightly higher than Israel’s $387 billion.”

Cole listed impacts of the accords:

--It could increase candidate Donald Trump’s favorability with Florida voters, many of whom are Israeli supporters.

--It increases the coalition of anti-Iranian states in the region: including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. “The Saudi-UAE-Bahrain axis offers basing for US military forces as well as for electronic surveillance, and the addition of Israel increases all those capabilities.”

--It will increase the arguments of the pro-Israel lobby for greater military technology transfer to Israel.

And, of course, as Cole implied, the forces allayed against the Palestinian people and Iran will increase at the same time that US military expansion, bases and technology facilities, in the region rise. Since Russia and China give support to Iran and the Palestinians, the Abraham Accords could increase tensions. https://www.juancole.com/2020/08/winners-accord-palestinians.html

In addition to the Abraham Accords, the newly formed university in the UAE, Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence in Abu Dhabi, signed an agreement to collaborate with Israel’s Weizmann Institute of Science. The cooperation will include student exchanges, research, and collaboration on artificial intelligence. 

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/tamara-nassar/israels-war-industry-embraces-emirates-open-arms

Paralleling these developments, on October 6, Purdue Today reproduced an article from a Department of Homeland Security Journal, Homeland Security Today, announcing a Purdue/Homeland Security research project involving research on drones for use in Abu Dhabi, the UAE capitol. (The article has been since been removed from Purdue Today). It said that “a group of Purdue University researchers have been tasked to make sure drones and their systems could operate securely, safely and efficiently in the United Arab Emirates capital, Abu Dhabi.” The article named Purdue professors in Aeronautical and Astronautics, Computer Science, and Purdue’s “cybersecurity research and education center” as project participants. (“Purdue University and Abu Dhabi Work Together on Cybersecure Drone Swarms”  https://www.hstoday.us/?s=Purdue

Purdue University continues a long tradition in US higher education: collaborating with the Department of Defense for purposes of attracting financial gain. Clark Kerr, the president of the University of California system spoke in the 1960s of a “multiversity,” a significant element of which was serving the needs of corporations and the military. Scholars and activists over the years have pointed out that institutions of higher education were being compromised by serving US corporate and military institutions both in terms of their research agendas and the educational process.

The warnings of a military/industrial/academic complex cannot be more clear than a case in which university research on drones in collaboration with sectors of US institutions, in this case the Department of Homeland Security, is carried out for a government that is a protagonist in an increasingly dangerous wartime climate in the Middle East.

 

  

Interview with Vince Emanuele on Social Movements, the Left, and Culture

https://youtu.be/NsX4ks0m6e8

THE THREAT TO DEMOCRACY CONTINUES: A REPOST THAT IS STILL RELEVANT

  Harry Targ

 

(We are witnessing many forms of voter suppression. Gerrymandering continues. Reactionary minorities move to pact the court. Politicians work to undermine the desires of majorities on education, health care, jobs, and the environment. In short, the processes and substance of democracy are under threat. Nancy MacLean, see below, told us how some of the threat to democracy in recent years has unfolded. October 14, 2020).

 

What we are seeing today is a new iteration of that very old impulse in America: the quest of some of the propertied (always, it bears noting, a particularly ideologically extreme-and some would say greedy-subsection of the propertied) to restrict the promise of democracy for the many, acting in the knowledge that the majority would choose other policies if it could. (Nancy MacLean, Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America, New York, Random House, 2017, 5).

 

“Democracy in Chains”: Multiple Themes

Friends of mine insisted I read Nancy MacLean’s recent book, Democracy in Chains. Their enthusiasm for the book was so great that I finally picked it up. I found it profound as to how it addressed issues of political theory, consciousness, and political practice.

 

First, the book is a narrative biography of one scholar of political economy, James Buchanan, who has had a significant impact on the development of “public choice” theory in political science, sociology, and economics. In addition, the text uses his biography to develop larger theoretical, historical, and political themes.

 

Second, it is a book about what used to be called the “sociology of knowledge”; that is how ideas are developed, disseminated, institutionalized, and become dominant ways in which academic disciplines address the subject matter they study.

 

Third, Democracy in Chains addresses the development of democratic theory, relating contemporary ideas about public participation in decision-making to eighteenth and nineteenth century American political theory. Significantly, it addresses Professor Buchanan’s attraction to Southern anti-federalist John C. Calhoun.

 

Fourth, the book provides a rich description of the theory of “free markets” developed by the Austrian school of economics founded by Ludwig von Mises and Fredrich Hayek and institutionalized by the economics department at the University of Chicago.

 

Fifth, the book describes in some detail how scholars such as James Buchanan and wealthy advocates of “free market” philosophies have worked to influence higher education and public policy, not only at the national level but through the states and local government. The book describes how enormously wealthy free marketeers led by Charles and David Koch, their association, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and hundreds of think tanks, lobby groups, and funded politicians have been implementing their policy agenda.

 

Each of these themes richly developed by MacLean deserves detailed examination and evaluation. As my exuberant friends suggested to me, the MacLean book is a major work of political theory and policy analysis that should significantly energize those progressives who see democracy in the United States as an endangered species.

 

The Threat to Democracy

 

But for starters, it is critical in 2018 to address one of the central themes developed in her book, the contradiction between democracy and capitalism.

 

MacLean analyzes central premises of the so-called Austrian school of economics. Nineteenth and twentieth century luminaries from this tradition, particularly Van Mises and Hayek, articulated the view that the main priority of any society, but particularly democracies, is the extent to which markets are allowed to flourish, unencumbered by governments.

 

According to this view in a truly free society markets remain supreme. In fact, “liberty” exists in a society to the extent economic actors are able to act in the market place. Virtually all limitations on economic liberty so defined constitute a threat to “real” democracy. Governments exist only to maintain domestic order (the police power) and to defend the nation from external aggression (defense of national security). Governments provide police protection and armies. And that should be all. In sum, as President Ronald Reagan expressed the market vision: “Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.”

 

To further illustrate, MacLean describes the brutal dictatorship that overthrew the democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende. Allende, a socialist, was elected by a plurality in the 1970 presidential election in that country and in the spring, 1973 in municipal elections held across the country, Allende’s coalition of parties drew even more votes for their candidates than did Allende in 1970. The United States, based on directives from President Nixon, had already moved to make the Chilean economy “scream” and had initiated contacts with Chilean generals who would be prepared to carry out a military coup against the popular government.  The military coup, ousting Allende from power, was launched, ironically on September 11, 1973.

 

As MacLean points out, in the aftermath of the coup, General Augusto Pinochet rounded up and killed thousands of Allende supporters, destroyed the long tradition of electoral politics, abolished trade unions, and began the process of ending government involvement in the economy and public institutions. Social security and education were privatized. Policies of nationalization of key industries were reversed. All of the shifts to what the Austrian school called economic liberty were imposed on the Chilean people with the advice of University of Chicago economists, such as Milton Friedman, and later, George Mason University economist, James Buchanan, who was instrumental in recommending “reforms” to the Chilean constitution making return to democracy more difficult. Subsequently only a few other dictatorships in Latin America showed any sympathy for the Pinochet regime with most of the world condemning its domestic brutality. But as MacLean reports, Milton Friedman and his colleagues never condemned the Chilean regime and Buchanan regarded it as a paradigmatic case of economic liberty, a model which the world should emulate.

 

Although the Chilean case represents an extreme example of dictatorship and free market capitalism, she uses it to illustrate a central point. In most societies, and the United States is no exception, majorities of people endorse government policies that can and often do serve the people. As a rule citizens support public transportation, schools, highways, libraries, retirement guarantees, some publicly provided health care, rules and regulations to protect the environment, as well as police and military protection. The problem for Buchanan and his colleagues is that each one of these government programs. except for the police and military, constrains the “liberty” of entrepreneurs to pursue profit.

 

To put it simply, if citizens of the United States were asked if they support public programs, majorities would say “yes.” Although there have been extraordinary constraints on majority rule, even enshrined in the US constitution, the history of the United States can be seen as a history of struggle to improve and achieve majoritarian democracy. Demands for voting rights for women, African/Americans, non-propertied and low-income workers and others have been basic to the American experience. The great anti-colonial struggles of the twentieth century all across the globe were premised on the vision of individual and collective sovereignty of the people. If economic liberty is conceptualized as inversely related to majoritarian democracy, then capitalism and democracy are incompatible.

 

Nancy MacLean, based on this fundamental contradiction, develops a narrative of efforts by celebrants of economic liberty, the Koch brothers and their allies, to build campaigns in virtually every state and locale to disenfranchise people. ALEC affiliates in state legislatures over the last decade have promoted legislation to suppress the right to vote, eliminate the rights of workers to unionize, disempower city councils, eliminate the right of local governments to make fiscal decisions, and to enshrine in curricula in K to 12 education systems and the universities ideologies about the virtues of economic freedom. There are powerful political pressures to privatize every existing public institution. Again, the best government is no government (except for the maintenance of police force to squelch demands for change and military power to protect the nation at home and abroad).

 

So Democracy in Chains is as rich in analysis and warning as my friends have suggested. Much more needs to be disaggregated and discussed. But for starters Nancy MacLean is warning us that there is a powerful drive, based on wealth and power, in the United States to destroy democracy. This democracy, while flawed, has been fought for since the founding of the United States. Its continuation, leaving aside its need for improvement, is under fundamental threat.

 

 

 

A BETTER WORLD IS STILL POSSIBLE

 As we approach the November election and think beyond it we see more and more charters and declarations. While we can create our own, our energies might be better served uniting with those who share our concerns and visions of the short-run and the longer period.

The first link is to a domestic People’s Charter, the second to a discussion of principles of peaceful coexistence and anti-militarism, and the third a video presentation of expressions of anti-imperialism from people on the left, mostly from the Global South.

We probably share the views of these statements. The big question is how to participate with others in achieving  changes of policy and more fundamental structural change.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/10/08/demanding-nation-cares-all-not-just-wealthy-few-progressives-unveil-peoples-charter?cd-origin=rss&utm_term=AO&utm_campaign=Weekly%20Newsletter&utm_content=email&utm_source=Weekly%20Newsletter&utm_medium=Email

https://heartlandradical.blogspot.com/2015/06/a-twenty-first-century-peace-charter_29.html

https://youtu.be/yu4xhf4nmuA

 

 

UNIVERSITIES AND THE NEW COLD WAR CONTINUE: a repost

          Harry Targ, dh must be confronted in devising pathways to greater security.

“Purdue is advancing a broad defense innovation capability, distinguished by its depth, breadth, and speed, with the goal of contributing to our nation’s third offset strategy of innovation by integration of existing strengths and forming new partnerships. The depth in quality and creativity of Purdue research centers is, and will remain, our strongest asset. The breadth responds to the need expressed by multiple DoD customers for a ‘total package’: new, integrated solutions (technologies, transition), new talent (graduates highly trained in relevant problems), and new modes of knowledge access (personnel exchange, training, distance education).

Purdue University researchers conducted over $40M of sponsored research in the 2014-2015 academic year and, in doing so, educated hundreds of graduate and undergraduate students in cutting edge technologies.” https://www.purdue.edu/research/defense-innovation/

“NDIA, in partnership with Purdue University, will host a comprehensive program on hypersonic systems. Together with government, industry, and academia, NDIA will present the technical foundations of hypersonic systems, the current approach to rapidly developing hypersonic capabilities, and the warfighter, policy, and acquisition perspectives on delivering a sustainable operational capability” "2019 Hypersonics Capabilities Conference," NDIA 100,  ndia.org.

The National Defense Industry Association NDIA is an association of defense industry contractors who lobby for increased military expenditures. Its members are described as “informed opinion leaders” dedicated to improved national security.

https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2020/Q4/purdue-researchers-working-with-abu-dhabi-on-cybersecurity-of-drones-as-city-seeks-to-become-a-tech-hub-of-middle-east.html
****************************************************************************

Purdue’s Discovery Park launched in 2001 with a grant from the state of Indiana and expanded by a $25 million Lilly Endowment as a nanotechnology center. Today it is a $1.15 billion research and learning complex that combines Purdue’s expertise in science, engineering, technology, and biology, with connections to the corporate world. As its website suggests: “Leveraging Lilly Endowment’s investment, Discovery Park has created an innovative environment where major global challenges are examined objectively, generating new ideas and directions for future generations.”

One of Discovery Park’s core strengths is “Global Security.” Key research on this subject is designed to respond to security threats, global instability, defense needs, terrorism, nuclear deterrence and proliferation, basically responding to “the most pressing security and defense challenges facing the nation and the world.”

Chief Discovery Park scientist, Professor Tomas Diaz de la Rubia posted an essay entitled “The New Future of Warfare” (Purdue University Discovery Park Vice President’s Blog, (October 1, 2018). In it he addressed the emerging salience of new military technologies based on artificial intelligence (AI) and war. De la Rubia speculated that future wars will not be fought on battlefields but rather in cities or in cyberspace. New AI weapons of war in the hands of presumed enemies could constitute an existential threat to the survival of the United States. Discovery Park, he indicated, is already engaged in vital research on biomorphic robots, automatic target recognition for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, automatic targeting for drones, and other technologies. In short, a core Discovery Park mission includes the preparation for and implementation of war. And this is necessary because as Professor de la Rubia argued:

“It has become apparent that the U.S. is no longer guaranteed top dog status on the dance card that is the future of war. In order to maintain military superiority the focus must shift from traditional weapons of war to advanced systems that rely on A.I.-based weaponry. The stakes are just too high and the prize too great for the U.S. to be left behind. All the more reason to call upon Purdue University and its inestimable capacity to weave together academia, research, and industry for the greater good. We’re stepping up to secure our place in the future of our country, and there’s much more to come!” He warned that China had announced that it would overtake the US by 2030 in the global artificial intelligence market.

Recently, the NDIA and Purdue University hosted a conference on “hypersonics,” the development of high speed weapons systems, stimulated by a $2.4 billion allocation in the 2020 defense budget. According to a Purdue press release, the university has one of the most comprehensive hypersonic research capabilities. University President Mitch Daniels declared that the university was “…ready to establish itself as the ‘university hub’ of hypersonic research and development.” Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb declared that “Hypersonics systems are our state’s number one defense priority, and I’m glad we can bring industry leaders together at Purdue University to showcase what Indiana can offer.” (“NDIA, Purdue Launching Inaugural Hypersonics Capabilities Conference to Advance Transformational Military Capabilities,” Purdue Research Foundation News, July 29, 2019).  Some comments suggested also that this new military research agenda would lead to greater economic development in the Greater Lafayette area. One particularly bizarre spokesperson justified the Purdue commitment to high speed warfare by referring to the mission of the Morrill Act of 1862 establishing land-grant universities (Dave Bangert, “Purdue ‘Doubling Down” on Military Research on Hypersonic Flight, Weapons,”  Lafayette Journal and Courier, July 30, 2019).

These statements illustrate that Purdue University, a large land-grant university, increasingly is committing its skills to research, development, training, and the production of the instruments of war. Such commitments have been made with little discussion in the broader university community. 

Important theoretical questions are not being raised. For example, is war inevitable? Are other countries a threat to the United States? Should we conceptualize the world in the twenty-first century as one in which the United States and China are competitors and threats to each other? Should the United States commit itself to remaining the number one power in the world, however that is defined? Or should research prioritize human development and conflict resolution rather than “security? Is there a relationship between poverty, hunger, environmental devastation, the spread of weapons and war and violence? One wonders if more of government and corporate resources should be allocated to these many issues, rather than to ill-conceived, notions of national “security.” And, finally, do collaborative efforts between universities, such as Purdue, with defense contractors and the Department of Defense best serve the needs of national security, conflict reduction, research, or education? And, in the end, does not this collaboration between the military, the university, and industry constitute a huge robbery of the wealth of society at the expense of social and economic development, ecological survival, and the prospects of peace?

President Eisenhower in 1960 warned about an unwarranted growth of the influence of the military/industrial complex in American society. Today he would characterize the danger as the military/industrial/academic complex. It includes the shifting of the research and education missions of higher education away from human development to war-making. 

These qualitative changes in university priorities are being made largely in non-transparent decision-making ways. But when challenged, the military/industrial/academic complex tends to defend its existence by claiming war is inevitable. And to secure support, when questioned, self-identified experts construct narratives of enemies; whether they be the Communists, the terrorists, China, the Cubans, the Venezuelans, artificial intelligence, or all of the above. As Andrew Bacevich so compellingly has argued, ever since the end of World War Two, the United States has created a “permanent war economy.” Given the increasing financial challenges universities face in the twenty-first century, collaboration with this permanent war economy becomes attractive to university administrators.

For more on the concept of the military/industrial complex see:

https://heartlandradical.blogspot.com/2010/12/speeches-that-speak-to-our-times.html

For a discussion about competing paradigms in the study of international relations see:

https://monthlyreview.org/2017/12/01/cold-war-revisionism-revisited/