By Mike WHITNEY “Here’s something you must understand. We were not given any opportunity to act differently.” Vladimir Putin The plan to engage Russia militarily…
Indeed, while the first generations of the US during and after WW2 were heinous imperialists too, they were more pragmatic. During the Cold War strategists like Kissinger worked to divide and conquer, by facilitating the Sino-Soviet split. If they worked together, and Malenkov was more successful or/and Khrushchev had no secret speech, the US would have had significantly more challenges during the Cold War. Other examples of this lost US ‘pragmatism’ was working with dictators. In liberal theory why would the US work with various dictators in the Cold War? It was to align regional capitalist powers against the Soviet Union. Rhetorically, posturing as democratic was to deflect from imperialism. Likewise, virtue signaling today about issues, but not addressing them like in the case of police brutality, is a way to appropriate and deflect criticism. Accordingly giving themselves authority on the issue, and allowing themselves to ignore it while opposing those who mobilize for change by accusing them of being radical and illegal. This aspect is still strong.
On the other hand, it’s true US strategy has been, it appears, more unstable. Interestingly, today the US has pushed Russia to China, and is alienating other regionally important capitalist countries to be closer to China. Think of recent changes in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, various African and South American countries, and the already existing anti imperialist countries such as Venezuela, Iran, etc.
It would seem the imperial managers in Washington drank their own Kool Aid. Liberal capitalist ideology has no real goal, it’s not progressive, there is no future. Fundamentally it’s a reactionary ideology. Hence the “end of history” of Fukuyama. True believers hence have no pragmatic approach to international relations, and no ambition for reform, even if it’s to survive in competition with socialist China. The empire may yet get better administrators, but as it stands now they have fallen for their own propaganda.
That being said, it’s impossible to be sure. Only the CIA agent reading this knows what the US is really up to. There may yet be some angles they are pushing for.
I think you’ve pointed out the problem there with the ‘goals’. During the cold war, the goal was simple, stop the USSR communists. Hence the end of history when the USSR fell: communism was equated with that single experiment because communism is/was poorly understood. For the US, no more experiment, no more worry.
But either through greed and/or confusion, the US let Chinese Communists grow into a superpower with wide and strong international ties.
Now the West sees the threat, but it’s too late. Because at the same time as China’s rise, the limits of imperialism are being reached. Commodifying data and creating new property in the digital realm solved some of the problem, but silicon valley is saturated and has absorbed just about as much surplus capital as it can. Fictitious capital can only do so much, as the 2008 crisis revealed it’s flaws. And it relies on dollar hegemony. So now the bourgeois are scrabbling to colonise space, but they don’t have time.
Back on earth, and in relation to investments-backed-by-real-assets, they’re no longer fighting a Communist state, they’re fighting the contradictions of their own imperialism. But they have as yet no new tactics, hoping the same tricks that worked before will work again. They might even work, but each time it will work for a shorter and shorter time.
Unless it’s ‘solved’ by a nuclear WWIII, but that doesn’t really leave much left for after the war, unlike WWI and WWII.
Indeed, while the first generations of the US during and after WW2 were heinous imperialists too, they were more pragmatic. During the Cold War strategists like Kissinger worked to divide and conquer, by facilitating the Sino-Soviet split. If they worked together, and Malenkov was more successful or/and Khrushchev had no secret speech, the US would have had significantly more challenges during the Cold War. Other examples of this lost US ‘pragmatism’ was working with dictators. In liberal theory why would the US work with various dictators in the Cold War? It was to align regional capitalist powers against the Soviet Union. Rhetorically, posturing as democratic was to deflect from imperialism. Likewise, virtue signaling today about issues, but not addressing them like in the case of police brutality, is a way to appropriate and deflect criticism. Accordingly giving themselves authority on the issue, and allowing themselves to ignore it while opposing those who mobilize for change by accusing them of being radical and illegal. This aspect is still strong.
On the other hand, it’s true US strategy has been, it appears, more unstable. Interestingly, today the US has pushed Russia to China, and is alienating other regionally important capitalist countries to be closer to China. Think of recent changes in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, various African and South American countries, and the already existing anti imperialist countries such as Venezuela, Iran, etc.
It would seem the imperial managers in Washington drank their own Kool Aid. Liberal capitalist ideology has no real goal, it’s not progressive, there is no future. Fundamentally it’s a reactionary ideology. Hence the “end of history” of Fukuyama. True believers hence have no pragmatic approach to international relations, and no ambition for reform, even if it’s to survive in competition with socialist China. The empire may yet get better administrators, but as it stands now they have fallen for their own propaganda.
That being said, it’s impossible to be sure. Only the CIA agent reading this knows what the US is really up to. There may yet be some angles they are pushing for.
This chimes.
I think you’ve pointed out the problem there with the ‘goals’. During the cold war, the goal was simple, stop the USSR communists. Hence the end of history when the USSR fell: communism was equated with that single experiment because communism is/was poorly understood. For the US, no more experiment, no more worry.
But either through greed and/or confusion, the US let Chinese Communists grow into a superpower with wide and strong international ties.
Now the West sees the threat, but it’s too late. Because at the same time as China’s rise, the limits of imperialism are being reached. Commodifying data and creating new property in the digital realm solved some of the problem, but silicon valley is saturated and has absorbed just about as much surplus capital as it can. Fictitious capital can only do so much, as the 2008 crisis revealed it’s flaws. And it relies on dollar hegemony. So now the bourgeois are scrabbling to colonise space, but they don’t have time.
Back on earth, and in relation to investments-backed-by-real-assets, they’re no longer fighting a Communist state, they’re fighting the contradictions of their own imperialism. But they have as yet no new tactics, hoping the same tricks that worked before will work again. They might even work, but each time it will work for a shorter and shorter time.
Unless it’s ‘solved’ by a nuclear WWIII, but that doesn’t really leave much left for after the war, unlike WWI and WWII.