[A-List] Things Fall Apart:China and the Decline of US Imperialism

[Waistline2 at aol.com]

> CB: Ahhh , but Mark Twain is  not. So if your analogy holds...
 
The national liberation movements largely succeeded in  overcoming
paleo-colonialism. But , "things" move in a zig-zag, not a  straight line. We
have , of course, a revival of imperialism, especially with  the fall the the
SU, etc. This article speculates about a new crisis.< 
 

Comment

It is the articles speculation that is old hat and  the political logic of an 
intermediary class and strata. Its vision is being  disputed. Why not try and 
think like and ascertain the vision and lens of the  dispossessed? Why not 
try and think in concepts of insurgent communists with  nothing to lose but our 
chains? The chains are not our individual status.  

I am not sure what the above means but I am not aware of a revival  of US 
imperialism, at least doing any period of the 20th century. I am not sure  what 
paleo colonialism means either. Paleo means "old" but imperialism has been  
around for thousands of years. Modern financial imperialism of which Lenin  
spoke, emerged in America as the result of the Civil War and was quickly named  
Wall Street imperialism, over 50 years before Lenin's celebrated works. We tend  
to repeat the same mistakes, same projections and same thinking that has been  
proven to be wrong. 

National liberation, in the post WW II era,  defeated the closed colonial 
system or what is generally called the direct  colony. This was the case with 
Vietnam, Cuba, scores of countries in Africa and  everywhere else. This "old 
imperialism" was financial-industrial imperialism,  but this financial impe
rialism, connected to "European colonialism," hinged on  the direct colonial 
relationship. 

Defeating imperialism - since  Lenin, means the overthrow of capital foreign 
and domestic, except to the  bourgeoisie and various non communists 
ideologists within the former colonies.  It has been in the direct interest of American 
financial imperialism to defeat  the existing closed colonial system world 
wide and bring these newly liberated  areas into the economic and financial chain 
of modern its historically evolved  form of financial imperialism, since our 
Civil War and the emergence of Wall  Street financial imperialism. 

Thus, as American communists, old  imperialism has a meaning. All of us have 
experienced the "Third World"  revolution trap. This did not prevent any one 
from fighting against the imperial  intrusions of their own government. 

>> We have , of course,  a revival of imperialism, especially with the fall 
the the
SU, etc.<<  

US imperialism was never in decline, even with the emergence of  Soviet 
Power, and consequently, a revival could not and did not happen. US  imperialism 
was not in retreat. Revival and retreat of imperialism are concepts  seeking to 
describe imperialism logic. 

I believe the system was  and is in permanent crisis, because it is birthed 
as crisis, but would never  speak of decline on the basis of financial 
architecture or rather specifically  dollar hegemony. The defeat of the direct colony 
as a form of financial  imperialism meant a further expansion of American 
financial imperialism, and all  modern financial imperialism world wide, not a 
decline and this process has  continued unabated for the past 60 years. 

We have been here before  and should not make the same mistaken projects and 
speculations. 

A  concept that speaks of a revival of US imperialism or world imperialism is 
 interesting. The collapse of the Soviets did not revive US imperialism, or 
world  imperialism as a economic and financial relations. Bourgeois imperialism 
was  never dying.  Imperialism and most certainly US imperialism was not in  
decline and somehow revived, because the communists "blew it." Or rather, the  
Soviet communists were defeated internationally on the basis of an 
international  body politic and ideology of the "decline of US imperialism" and "the  
irresistible trend of socialism,"  . . . "imperialist wars are not  
fatalistically inevitable," "peaceful co-existence," and "the tide of revolution  is on 
our side," on so on, which are lessons that should never be forgotten.  
Speculation about the decline of US imperialism, as the result of China's  holding of 
US dollars, seems to forget history we have lived and has no economic  logic. 

Holding a fiat currency - US dollars,  means you are  going to be the sucker 
at the end of every single day. It is a sign of the  holders weakness and the 
strength of US imperialism and not its crisis or  decline. The crisis aspect 
of all of this is not China holding US dollars. China  holding a mass of US 
dollars is the result of something else within  imperialism.  That something else 
is simply called speculation as the  dominate feature of this stage of 
financial industrial imperialism as the  industrial mode of production begins its 
leap to a new infrastructure relations.  

Crisis of capital is something communists have spoke of for a long  time. 
There is a say that even a broken clock is right twice a day. Communist  tend to 
say the same old broken things over and over without seeking fresh eyes.  
Crisis of capital. 

Let's shift gears. 

Now the  existence of the Soviet Union was understood to "usher in the 
general crisis of  capitalism" but that is a different concept not spoke of or 
alluded to in the  initial article. Therefore, there is no need to explain it here. 
 Russia's  military capacity will ensure that she remains a superpower in the 
real world of  international politics, because "superpower" means what it 
meant before the  collapse of Soviet power: primarily military capacity. We 
listen a tad bit to  much to the bourgeois propagandists and make bad assessments 
because of  America's unique possession in the world today. 

1) Soviet Power  ushered in the political crisis of the bourgeois system by 
offering an  alternative. 

2). As the result of the outcome of WW II Soviet  Power emerged as a 
superpower because of its military power and military reach,  not because of a 
specific economic parity with the US. 

Slowly the  logic comes into view. Rather than asking countless questions, 
why not at least  try to assemble outlines of history and the relevant economic 
literature?  

We have been here before in the late 1960's and during the Nixon  
administration. There has been crisis of the US dollar before, although stating  this is 
not to say that a dollar crisis exist or is impending because China  possess a 
mass of US dollars and my seek an Asian currency unit. China  possession of 
US dollars does not indicate a crisis of US imperialism or world  imperialism. 
China's political maneuvering indicates a possible crisis, because  she exists 
in political antagonism with the US on several levels, of which the  
existence of much of her socialist laws cannot be discounted. 

To  the point. 

The Nixon administration's response to Japan's  insistence upon converting 
its hoard of US dollars into gold was to effectively  undo the Breton Woods 
agreement, which pegged the dollar to gold. US dollars  could no longer be 
converted into gold as a retrievable material asset, which  one could demand 
possession of, although one could still purchase symbolic forms  of gold ownership, 
with the real gold securely under lock and key of the American government and 
more importantly, on American soil.&   

This was not a crisis or decline of US imperialism but a momentary  crisis in 
monetary policy calling for policy shift . . . that would end up  resulting  
. . . morphing, into changes to the financial architecture. Out  of this 
crisis arose the petrol-dollar. That is, Nixon cut a deal with the oil  producing 
nations, probably the Saudis first, making US dollars the medium for  oil 
purchase and this immediately threw Japan into crisis rather than decline.  The 
crisis was a rise in the price of its commodity exports, and caused its  massive 
holding in dollars to flow to the Middle East and back into America, as  the 
oil producing nations acquired infrastructure development from the US and  
armaments from whoever would sale to them. Yes, a certain amount of crisis broke  
out domestically, but we are talking about US dollars and international  
relations.  

Japan responded in the 1980's by way of a wave of  purchasing of physical 
assets in America. The holdings of various Japanese  companies in the US, meant 
exactly what, other than the rise of much Japan  bashing and chauvinism? Owning 
American buildings, factories and paintings does  not indicate a decline or 
even a crisis.  

China faces a  similar circumstance, at a higher level, and it does not seem 
to matter much if  all of her dollars were converted into Euros or a new Asian 
monetary unit. The  "higher level" today is spelled out Not simply as "dollar 
hegemony" but the rise  of speculation as the dominator of the total world 
capital movement. In a real  sense America has enjoyed a certain dollar hegemony 
for at least 60 years. Today  something a little different is meant by modern 
"dollar hegemony" coined by  Henry C. K. to describe the financial 
relationship of the American dollar in  today's - post 1990's,  world market.   

Today, we  are dealing with a super symbolic relationship, more than less 
detached from  value production and physical assets. In the post WWII period, 
dollar hegemony  implied and primarily meant the ability to consume material 
products and a  physical depository of value. Today, trillions of dollars or their 
symbols race  through the financial architecture, daily, seeking 
profitability in investment  vehicles. "Their symbol" means US dollars represent nothing 
tangible other than  an obligation enforceable by the American government. 

The  financial architecture means all the investment houses, equity funds, 
system of  government bonds, mortgage companies, banks, stock markets world 
wide, puts,  stops, options and every conceivable kind of bet one can make. Modern 
technology  provides the infrastructure. Hundreds of thousands of people are 
deployed in  this gambling industry, betting on everything from the future 
price of oil to  the future price of holding a briefcase of debt obligations. 
This financial  architecture did not exist, as it now does at the close of WWII.  

In this respect Michael Hudson has written, that 100 times the  yearly 
American GDP, is daily circulated through this financial architecture.  This process 
is called Super imperialism by the title of his book.   

More clearly: US dollars are a fiat currency representing an  obligation, 
rather than gold or species. This has been such since the Nixon  administration, 
when one could purchase a symbol - certificate, of gold  ownership rights. 
Today, money - as US dollars in the international arena and in  China's hand, is 
a symbolic thing expressing a symbolic relations or a symbol of  a symbol. Or 
for all practical purposes US dollars are valueless, outside . . .  get this, 
its ability to call forth the creation of more productive processes in  China 
to reproduce the symbolic relations, because China cannot do nothing else  
with the US dollars. 

US dollars in the hand of China cannot call  forth real things to develop 
Africa, because China is subject to politics in the  US. China can invest her own 
intellectual and material efforts in Africa.  China's possession of US 
dollars cannot call forth crisis or the decline of US  imperialism. China's 
political posture can and will call forth crisis within  imperialism and this crisis 
is not because she has the US dollars, although it  might look like this 
because she happens to have a mass of US dollars.  

I believe an important aspect of the modern crisis of capital is  visible 
here. That is, there is simply no way for the mass of US dollars to be  converted 
into an expanded value on the basis of commodity production. China's  holding 
of a mass of US dollars are incidental to this process. Consequently,  
gambling and the growth of the debt industry as a massive industry, becomes  primary 
means for a mass of capital seeking profitability. Actually, the  American 
government could wipe out much of the market worth of China's holding  of 
dollars by political fiat and back this resolve with military might.  

And there is not very much China could do. That is why China must  go fishing 
. . . because of the real strength not decline of US imperialism. Or  at any 
rate, the crisis and speculative decline of imperialism, is on remotely  
connected to China's possession of US dollars . . . although the revisionist in  
China must claim to the contrary. Here is the connection between the article in  
question and its political vision and economic logic. It just nothing more 
than  worn out revisionism under the banner of economic insight. 

The  crisis as gambling - speculation, is mirrored in the quest to reach 
agreement on  risk assessment or how to value the worth of debt. What is the worth 
of say 100  billion dollars in mortgage debt, spanning a time frame of say 24 
months, giving  X number of factors? What is Chryslers worth in the market 
given its debt load?  

China could in theory purchase all kinds of physical things,  assets, and 
debt obligations in America but what difference would it make with  all these 
assets remaining in America, subject to US laws and more importantly  subject to 
US monetary policy with all hard goods produced convertible on the  basis of 
dollars. That is, if a Chinese company purchased Chrysler, and sold in  the US 
market, one is going to only end up with more US dollars, which are going  to 
end up where? 

Even if China creates a new Asian monetary unit,  as long as it trades with 
the US there must be a system of convertibility. Even  if China stopped trading 
with the US and traded with a block of Asian and  African countries, which I 
think is unrealistic outside of a major war that  reorders political and 
economic relations world wide, the Asian countries are  tied into the world market 
and this means UN imperialism. 

Pardon,  but under conditions of the outbreak of world war we communists are 
fighting for  the power - state power, to bring such a war to an end and to 
reorganize society  and to gut the military industrial complex and dollar 
hegemony. 

I  believe that it is China that is left holding the short end of the 
trillion  dollar stick, rather than the US.  Rather than a decline of US imperialism  
it seems to me that crisis internal to China is heading up. As the crisis  
internal to China heats up, our American revisionist put forth a line of  
reasoning seeking unity with their counterparts in China. That is the substance  of 
the article under question. A signal to the revisionists in China.  

Crisis is not decline. 

The bourgeois shape of  production has faced many crises, both financial and 
in hard goods or converting  hard goods - commodities, into money. Governments 
face political crisis. Only in  the most theoretical and abstract sense can 
one equate real crisis with decline  of a system in real time. We should 
remember that the Russian, pardon, Soviet  Communists, took power when the system of 
capitalism was not in decline world  wide or in Russia. 

OK. 

Many a revolutionary have  been proven utterly wrong in predicating the 
decline of bourgeois imperialism.  In fact every generation has been proven wrong 
since Marx and Engels and I  believe more is involved than simply our ability 
to win the workers to our  ideas.  Marx and Engel's were wrong in predicating 
the outbreak and decline  of bourgeois production and stated this and then 
criticized themselves and  explained the source of there optimism. 

Why cannot we do the same?  

I guess one must ask and answer the question, "what is the meaning  of 
crisis" and "what is the meaning of decline?" Marx of course invested a huge  amount 
of time in seeking to unravel business cycles as crisis and economic  crisis 
of social systems, with social systems dealing with political structures  
(property relations and laws) and the technological structures of production.  

Auto production world wide is in crisis and has been in crisis for  a while. 
This crisis is generally understood as a crisis of overproduction, but  
overproduction in real time means overcapacity, which is resolved on the basis  of 
the destruction of capacity or individual companies going out of business.  
Auto cyclical crisis did not indicate that the system of production as US  
imperialism was in decline. Only in the most abstract sense can this kind of  crisis 
be called the decline of the system or in this case the decline of  
imperialism, because it is resolvable on the basis of the system.  

Crisis is not decline by a long shot. 

The issue is  the article forwarded to the list and its specific projections 
and its  underlying theory premise. I do not seek tit for tat. I simply state 
that to  speak of the decline of US imperialism in connection with China 
holding US  dollars is a speculation no different than that of the old Soviet 
revisionists  and their American counterparts. 

Marx states that crisis is the  forcible holding together of distinct 
processes that have become separated as  production logic. Marx and Engels speak of 
the crisis of overproduction as for  telling why the bourgeois shape of 
production must decline . . . actually this  is not how the issue was posed. Rather, 
the issue is posed as social systems and  system of production giving birth to 
new systems or how a new system sublates an  old one. 

China mass of US dollars does not indicate that US  imperialism is in decline 
. . . or at any rate no one has offered evidence of  such. I believe that 
China holding of US dollars indicate the continuing  strength of US imperialism 
in its economic, political and military aspects.  

Crisis means that the basic aspects of a given process have come  apart or 
become polarized and the forcible recombining of these aspects produce  another 
cycle of the process. 

Decline means no amount of force can  combine the basic aspects of a process 
that has come apart and hence, decay and  sublation takes place. 

Decline means that a given process - US  imperialism, has reached a point 
where the basic aspects of it as a living  process - (the things that make US 
imperialism what it is) have not only come  apart, but taken on new features, 
that causes what was one a unity of process,  to face each other in external 
collisions and this prevents any forcible  recombining of the process and a new 
development takes place. Decline implies  and means sublating. Crisis means 
polarization. Declines implies and means  "beyond" polarization and the emergence 
of "something" that has to be the living  material of sublating. 

There only way US imperialism can decline  is by its defeat. 

.







************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.