For almost 50 years the United States of America fought communism. With the Second World War still in progress, the future East West confrontation and the geopolitical dynamics of the decades to come were already clear. After the Landing in Normandy, the geographical run on Berlin triggered that challenge with the USSR to which only the Gorbachev course in the 80 years would later put an end.
But for decades the ideological comparison was in reality essentially political. If in fact the external cortex of the Cold War were the differences of the economic, juridical and social systems, US and USSR in substance faced each other on the level of global hegemony.
With all due respect to Senator McCarthy, socialism has never been a real threat either to the United States or to the Anglo-Saxon countries in general. In the liberal DNA of the English and Americans, ethical individualism stands out and the absolute idea of the state is almost completely absent. Without detracting from the good faith of the purists of the "invisible hand", it is not risky to say that all the US effort to counter the red peril around the world, was more than anything instrumental to a simple will to supremacy.
From the whites of South Africa to the yellows of Korea, from Pinochet's DINA to the Contras in Nicaragua, from Arena in El Salvador to UNITA in Angola, from RENAMO in Mozambique to Gladio in Italy, from Siad Barre in Somalia to the government of Saigon ... it didn't matter who and how governed or aspired to do so: as long as the Communist bloc threatened Washington's primacy, anyone who fought it was welcome. It must be pointed out that behind many post-World War II "regimes in boots" was the USA, fueling the false history that confuses the "political right" with the "economic" one.
When the Soviet Union dissolves in the 1991 the game changes. With the communist antagonist gone, to finance anti-communism and nationalism has started to be a waste of resources. By virtue of the said "Dead an enemy makes another ..." with the new millennium and the start of globalization processes, American geopolitical logics have adapted.
With the new economy the USA for better or for worse become the supervisors of an increasingly interconnected global system, where the penetration of multinational industrial groups is increasingly easy.
It is a time of great global growth: in the 2000 the average GDP rate of developing countries reaches the annual 4,3%. Until the 2015, however, the US holds the 32,7% of the growth of that wealth (GWDB 2015 data), more than all the EU countries combined and almost three times the Chinese increase.
If in globalization understood as the convergence of markets, cultures and customs, America is basking, it is evident that those who oppose it become an obstacle to be removed.
The most structured filters that clash with the total internationalization of the markets are the sovereign states that represent the last barrier to global homogeneity. To sell a billion pairs of identical shoes, we need a billion people with the same desire. Equality of needs requires equality of culture, of uses, of habits. Nothing is more harmful to the single world market than a frontier and the diversity of rules and customs. The national state, for some nineteenth-century heritage destined to disappear, thus becomes a burden to be removed or at least controlled, so that the forms of internal autonomy do not affect the ongoing cultural amalgam.
The acceleration of global uniformization processes has been appalling in the last decade, often passing through apparent nonsense. To give an example: the Finnish automotive abbreviation has changed from S (Suomi) to FIN (Finland), bypassing the national language. The S has passed to the "Spain" that has left the old E of España. Finland itself after decades of isolation is in the odor of entry into NATO.
Are we moving towards the unique global state? Is it really a form of progress? Who's behind it?
The US that for 50 years have ridden the John Wayne style cow strategies in a logic of maintaining global hegemony, today have changed the long wave. The marketing failure of the two Bush mandates (which coincided with a worrying eclipse of the US world image) has been replaced by the liberal logic of the Obama decade. If before America represented the desires of millions of cumm conservatives, today bland the majorities chic choc rampant in the "evolved West".
Riding the global conformism and the universally comfortable principles, thehomo medius he adjusts happily, without realizing that every day he loses an inch of his culture, his habits, his independence.
With oil treated in dollars, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund based in Washington for the time being we can keep Sanremo. Without realizing that even that has flattened to the global one-note logic ...
(Photo: USMC)
