The U.S. issued the warning on Thursday, the same day Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov arrived in India after concluding a two-day visit to China.
So, it's obviously way too early to call this, but let's humor Michael Hudson/Roberts and say that this is the beginning of the end of the US being able to use the dollar as a tool of imperial might.
Why the fuck would you do this right now. Like there is a specific ideological explanation to burgerland's fuckups, why would they burn this bridge right now? What does this get you? If they call your bluff and nothing really happens or they successfully transition their economy away from the US, you'll just be creating the world's biggest market you cannot effectively participate in. Even if the sanctions do hurt for awhile, that's a 3rd of the planet at least that you can't use the most effective imperial tool we have.
When in this century has American foreign policy ever achieved what it wanted to achieve? If they haven't caught on now that they can't dictate to the rest of the world like the used to, they aren't going to anytime soon.
Well, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan were successful in the sense that they made war profiteers a ton of cash, and in the subconscious "this country is just the arbiter of capital" sense, a lot of capital was destroyed. Cuba, Iran, NK, Palestine and Venezuela are still under siege because they angered the United States for various reasons and until recently had nowhere else to go and nobody to help them.
Most of this is predicated on us being the consumer of last resort. If one of these countries we destroyed had nukes and didn't give them up/we couldn't level them, we could crush them in other ways because everyone needs to sell us shit and up until this point, if we restricted trade, it meant something. What the fuck is the US going to do to Iran if suddenly they're allowed to get food, medicine, consumer goods and all the shit we said they're not allowed to have?
And also, what's the good outcome? What's the ideal situation that these threats bring about? India backs down, completely capitulates and in return gets jack shit from burgerland for doing so OR as another poster in this thread pointed out, whatever sanctions we slap them with they just ignore anyways.
Anyways, good times ahead and I mean that sincerely. The dollar has done more to strangle the left globally than every fascist that will probably ever exist, and we're seeing the quick death of it.
The US's real power came from them being the dominant economic player. This allowed them to use their military with basically no consequence.
In other words, being the only viable economic partner to other countries meant they could bully them and secure 'good outcomes' for the US. But now China is everyone's biggest trading partner and the US seems completely unable to account for that reality.
Well, the yanks has got Europe right where they want them right now. Western Europe will not dare even thinking to look for alternatives to the Evil Empire for the next few decades.
More like seasons unless they're willing to go down with the ship. Burgerland is already trying Volcker Shock pt. 2, there's gonna be a point where the EU countries will have to get with the program in regards to China/Russia, even if its just from pressure from domestic porky
I know this is going to be a long explanation but bear with me, MIchael Hudson's analysis is a good starting point to the US geopolitical goals but he is not a Marxist and therefore isn't considering some of the deeper causes of all of this.
Tl;DR the 80-90s neoliberal reforms were a large scale attempt at restoring the profitability lost at the end of the golden era(50s-70s). Marx explains that technological advances will necessarily cause the rate of profit to fall and this leads to counter tendencies(i.e neoliberalism and austerity).
However those counter measures can only go so far, neoliberalism can't save capitalism because capitalism inherently demands infinite growth and that means infinite technological innovation which necessarily leads to less profit.
However there is an exploitation floor so to speak, only human labor creates value so automation is only accelerating the problem. Further exploitation like slavery presents obvious contradictions like who is going to buy shit without money(go back to the end of slavery and industrial revolution for an insight).
Another important point is that the golden age started at the end of WW2 when the US emerged as the sole capitalist superpower. The destruction of the capitalist productive forces in Europe along with the huge state driven investment in the US is what made the difference. Going back to Hudson obviously the US wants the EU to suffer in order to turn the clock back to 1950 again.
So to finaly answer your question, there is no real "end goal", the US-EU relations is more of a desperate times desperate measures thing imo.
The only way for capitalism to survive the next 50 years is going to be through a major crisis that bankrupts a large part of the unprofitable corporations(see zombie companies) while simultaneously forcing the first world population to accept a third world lifestyle. The obvious problem with this is that a lot of rich people are going to be temporarily inconvenienced.
You can see how the media is telling people to prepare for food shortages etc.
However to be clear none of this is necessarily premeditated, the psychopaths can't help but steer the system towards that direction.
Addressing this point, Michael Hudson is a Marxist economist, what are you talking about. He has expanded much further, of course, and is a pioneering member of the MMT circle (which is composed of a bunch of heterodox economists of Marx, Lerner and Minsky traditions). His books have no shortage of analyses using Marx and Lenin (though he does warn that the Leninist view on imperialism is no longer adequate because of how finance capitalism has changed since WWI).
I am not an expert so this is just what I picked up from casual reading:
-It is not worth discussing MMT, it is entirely a anti-Marxist theory in every conceivable way. You can't seriously advocate for it and still call yourself a Marxist. At the very least support for MMT should come with severe disclaimers about the inherent problems. Indeed for many the inherent problems make MMT a non-starter.
I am not sure why you think his MMT work supports his position as a Marxist, associating with other Marxists/heterodox economists is fine, but also not the point?
-He considers himself a "classical" economist like Marx. This is very much different from how every other marxist describes themselves, why not call himself a Marxist straight up?
-People can call themselves whatever they want. Varofoukis called himself an "erratic Marxist" at one point lol.
-His about page on this website makes no mention of Marx.
-Of all the articles I've read from him recently he makes zero mentions of the Marxist understanding of crises(the failing rate of profit) and how that relates with current events. In fact if you weren't already aware you'd never know Marx has anything to say about late stage capitalism from his recent articles. My critique is that his geopolitical points are not the holy grail but just a good part of the puzzle.
-I don't particularly regard Harvey all that highly, he has been in quite controversial grounds with his Marxism in recent times.
The destruction of the capitalist productive forces in Europe along with the huge state driven investment in the US is what made the difference. Going back to Hudson obviously the US wants the EU to suffer in order to turn the clock back to 1950 again.
The only way for capitalism to survive the next 50 years is going to be through a major crisis that bankrupts a large part of the unprofitable corporations(see zombie companies) while simultaneously forcing the first world population to accept a third world lifestyle. The obvious problem with this is that a lot of rich people are going to be temporarily inconvenienced.
I'm really curious is this will happen. Obviously you're right, the deadwood needs to be cleared, but you have to wonder how many companies will stay just because they serve our imperial ends or even just out of corruption. Like by all accounts, cruise lines should have died forever in 2020, but they were bailed out with covidbux. Netflix/Tesla have inflated and unrealistic evaluations, and BIS estimates that roughly 20 percent of corps in the US are zombie firms. The US, as it currently exists, seems to stick around just to prop these businesses up and suppress the working class globally. If you can't go to Dave and Busters and buy snuggies, why would you be a fucking American?
Obviously you’re right, the deadwood needs to be cleared, but you have to wonder how many companies will stay just because they serve our imperial ends or even just out of corruption.
Yeah I think the important detail is that the zombies tend to be smaller companies so if the choice is between thousands of small business or Amazon continuing to grow indefinitely they'll just buy Amazon stock and ride the rocket.
So, it's obviously way too early to call this, but let's humor Michael Hudson/Roberts and say that this is the beginning of the end of the US being able to use the dollar as a tool of imperial might.
Why the fuck would you do this right now. Like there is a specific ideological explanation to burgerland's fuckups, why would they burn this bridge right now? What does this get you? If they call your bluff and nothing really happens or they successfully transition their economy away from the US, you'll just be creating the world's biggest market you cannot effectively participate in. Even if the sanctions do hurt for awhile, that's a 3rd of the planet at least that you can't use the most effective imperial tool we have.
When in this century has American foreign policy ever achieved what it wanted to achieve? If they haven't caught on now that they can't dictate to the rest of the world like the used to, they aren't going to anytime soon.
Well, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan were successful in the sense that they made war profiteers a ton of cash, and in the subconscious "this country is just the arbiter of capital" sense, a lot of capital was destroyed. Cuba, Iran, NK, Palestine and Venezuela are still under siege because they angered the United States for various reasons and until recently had nowhere else to go and nobody to help them.
Most of this is predicated on us being the consumer of last resort. If one of these countries we destroyed had nukes and didn't give them up/we couldn't level them, we could crush them in other ways because everyone needs to sell us shit and up until this point, if we restricted trade, it meant something. What the fuck is the US going to do to Iran if suddenly they're allowed to get food, medicine, consumer goods and all the shit we said they're not allowed to have?
And also, what's the good outcome? What's the ideal situation that these threats bring about? India backs down, completely capitulates and in return gets jack shit from burgerland for doing so OR as another poster in this thread pointed out, whatever sanctions we slap them with they just ignore anyways.
Anyways, good times ahead and I mean that sincerely. The dollar has done more to strangle the left globally than every fascist that will probably ever exist, and we're seeing the quick death of it.
The US's real power came from them being the dominant economic player. This allowed them to use their military with basically no consequence.
In other words, being the only viable economic partner to other countries meant they could bully them and secure 'good outcomes' for the US. But now China is everyone's biggest trading partner and the US seems completely unable to account for that reality.
Well, the yanks has got Europe right where they want them right now. Western Europe will not dare even thinking to look for alternatives to the Evil Empire for the next few decades.
More like seasons unless they're willing to go down with the ship. Burgerland is already trying Volcker Shock pt. 2, there's gonna be a point where the EU countries will have to get with the program in regards to China/Russia, even if its just from pressure from domestic porky
EU is 100% on board with going down with the ship, many in power over there want the sweet release more than the US imo.
I know this is going to be a long explanation but bear with me, MIchael Hudson's analysis is a good starting point to the US geopolitical goals but he is not a Marxist and therefore isn't considering some of the deeper causes of all of this.
Tl;DR the 80-90s neoliberal reforms were a large scale attempt at restoring the profitability lost at the end of the golden era(50s-70s). Marx explains that technological advances will necessarily cause the rate of profit to fall and this leads to counter tendencies(i.e neoliberalism and austerity).
However those counter measures can only go so far, neoliberalism can't save capitalism because capitalism inherently demands infinite growth and that means infinite technological innovation which necessarily leads to less profit.
However there is an exploitation floor so to speak, only human labor creates value so automation is only accelerating the problem. Further exploitation like slavery presents obvious contradictions like who is going to buy shit without money(go back to the end of slavery and industrial revolution for an insight).
Another important point is that the golden age started at the end of WW2 when the US emerged as the sole capitalist superpower. The destruction of the capitalist productive forces in Europe along with the huge state driven investment in the US is what made the difference. Going back to Hudson obviously the US wants the EU to suffer in order to turn the clock back to 1950 again.
So to finaly answer your question, there is no real "end goal", the US-EU relations is more of a desperate times desperate measures thing imo.
The only way for capitalism to survive the next 50 years is going to be through a major crisis that bankrupts a large part of the unprofitable corporations(see zombie companies) while simultaneously forcing the first world population to accept a third world lifestyle. The obvious problem with this is that a lot of rich people are going to be temporarily inconvenienced.
You can see how the media is telling people to prepare for food shortages etc. However to be clear none of this is necessarily premeditated, the psychopaths can't help but steer the system towards that direction.
deleted by creator
I am not an expert so this is just what I picked up from casual reading:
-It is not worth discussing MMT, it is entirely a anti-Marxist theory in every conceivable way. You can't seriously advocate for it and still call yourself a Marxist. At the very least support for MMT should come with severe disclaimers about the inherent problems. Indeed for many the inherent problems make MMT a non-starter. I am not sure why you think his MMT work supports his position as a Marxist, associating with other Marxists/heterodox economists is fine, but also not the point?
-He considers himself a "classical" economist like Marx. This is very much different from how every other marxist describes themselves, why not call himself a Marxist straight up?
-People can call themselves whatever they want. Varofoukis called himself an "erratic Marxist" at one point lol.
-His about page on this website makes no mention of Marx.
-Of all the articles I've read from him recently he makes zero mentions of the Marxist understanding of crises(the failing rate of profit) and how that relates with current events. In fact if you weren't already aware you'd never know Marx has anything to say about late stage capitalism from his recent articles. My critique is that his geopolitical points are not the holy grail but just a good part of the puzzle.
-I don't particularly regard Harvey all that highly, he has been in quite controversial grounds with his Marxism in recent times.
He has some incredibly shitty takes on China and imperialism as a whole.You can find a lot about his takes here is a good example. MONTHLY REVIEW: The Ideology of Late Imperialism .
Harvey seems hell bent on being controversial, example here. and here. You can read the comments on both and reach your own conclusion.
I'd even consider Richard Wolff as someone far more useful and correct despite his own absurd takes recently.
Do you have a citation on this? I'm actually curious now.
Fantastic post, good explanation
I'm really curious is this will happen. Obviously you're right, the deadwood needs to be cleared, but you have to wonder how many companies will stay just because they serve our imperial ends or even just out of corruption. Like by all accounts, cruise lines should have died forever in 2020, but they were bailed out with covidbux. Netflix/Tesla have inflated and unrealistic evaluations, and BIS estimates that roughly 20 percent of corps in the US are zombie firms. The US, as it currently exists, seems to stick around just to prop these businesses up and suppress the working class globally. If you can't go to Dave and Busters and buy snuggies, why would you be a fucking American?
Yeah I think the important detail is that the zombies tend to be smaller companies so if the choice is between thousands of small business or Amazon continuing to grow indefinitely they'll just buy Amazon stock and ride the rocket.