Analysis Of The World-System, Hegemony, And Decline By Thomas Mccormick

Thomas McCormick’s essay titled The World-System, Hegemony, and Decline, presents some relevant questions that I am unable to answer by just reading his work. Firstly, alluding to economic freedom and freedom of the seas as main U.S. objectives with regards to foreign policy might not be entirely accurate. It is true that the United States have used and will continue to use its elements of national power to protect economic interests all around the world, but are these the only instances where the United States fight for other freedoms? Is Uncle Sam our capitalistic egomaniac above anything else? Additionally, McCormick seems to be disappointed when he writes about how labor compensation differs between core, semi periphery, and periphery countries (Merrill and Paterson, 2010, 4). Is the author implying that Marxist approach to

However, can economic strength be achieved and maintained without the ability to project sufficient power and deter possible threats against the country’s economic capacity? Which is more important, the power that keeps economic freedom or the economy that fund the source of power? Furthermore, Walter Hixon on the essay Culture, National Identity, and the “Myth of America, argues that “the myth of America and the pathologically violent foreign policy it inspires cannot remain unchallenged.” (Merrill and Paterson, 2010, 14). Have American interventions been entirely unnecessary? Even Iraq was experiencing human rights abuses, as well as Vietnam when it got involved with communism. Granted, some interventions are more difficult to swallow than others, but the fact that Americans are eager and able to prevent human suffering, regardless of their secondary interests, should not be referred to as unnecessary acts of