•

Is there any universe where an American populist movement isn't just disastrous for the periphery?

Assuming that its accomplishments include moving manufacturing back into the US and securing the border, what good could come of a populist movement? The interests of the American labor aristocracy would just be consolidated with Imperialism to an even greater extent, and any conflict against China would see no resistance from organized labor because of the incestuous relation of the MIC and organized labor. Any anti-war movement would have no power at all, there would be no positive argument for stopping the conflict when it keeps everyone employed as contrast to the current state of unemployment and precarious work.

Potential benefits include the cessation of the export of capital, less capacity for the US to project power across the world, and less state repression of anti-imperialist movements. But I can't help but think that if the US pulled its production out of Asia, South America, Africa, and the Pacific, it would redo Gladio/Bloodstone to prop up fascists to hold down anti-imperialist movements, or create a dozen Israels to keep a way to quickly kill nascent revolutions. Am I wrong?

15 comments

queermunist

•

So-called de-industrialization is a factor of imperialism, as is so-called illegal immigration.

Manufacturing was moved to superexpoit labor in the Global South. It reduced the size of the industrial proletariat and broke the militant power of its unions, turning them aristocratic. NAFTA, specifically, turned Mexico into a labor colony with the maquiladoras replacing internal production.

Undocumented workers, on the other hand, are a result of that imperialist superexploitation. On top of that they are themselves internally colonized subjects that are superexpoited for primary production.

Where does a labor aristocracy come from without that superexploitation of labor?

SkingradGuard

•

turning them aristocratic

I assume you mean this in a "labour aristocracy" way?

queermunist

•

Yes, sorry, I mean the redistribution of superprofit bourgeoisified these workers. The labor aristocracy consists of workers in so-called skilled trades and white collar work, both unionized and not, at the very top of the production chain. They're bequeathed investments through their positions and are able to buy up properties with their high wages, which they then hold in their families to pass on to descendants who can become further advanced by this generational wealth. They're not, like, literally aristocrats lol

FunkyStuff

•

Where does a labor aristocracy come from without that superexploitation of labor?

I don't think supply chains would be completely reintegrated into the core. Textiles and many similar light industries will still be produced via imperialist exploitation. I think that interest convergence dictates that it'll be the defense industry that will move itself back into the core. So heavy industry flourishes at home, with a labor aristocracy that is ideologically aligned with empire and wants to build walls to keep climate refugees out. Ultimately capitalists want to keep as much production of cheap consumer goods in the third world, and don't mind paying premiums for defense because money for the MIC is infinite.

Do these things still hold true past dedollarization? Can dedollarization happen?

queermunist

•

I can imagine a world where the US onshores the industries critical to maintaining military dominance while continuing to offshore consumer industries. That isn't happening, though. The attempts to onshore chip production, for instance, have mostly just been gobbled up by AI compute. That has some military uses (see: Israel) but it's ultimately a boondoggle.

As to your question, money for MIC is infinite because the dollar is the global reserve currency and couldn't survive past dedollarization. Imperialism uses financial instruments to extract superprofits, and without dollar supremacy that becomes a lot harder because countries don't have to get loans from the IMF/World Bank or hand over their national resources.

We're seeing the coups in Africa and the decline of ECOWAS, so something is happening. If that something is dedollarization, we'll see a similar thing start to happen in ASEAN countries and maybe even OPEC countries.

FunkyStuff

•

That isn't happening, though

Right, which is why I'm curious what the calculus is for the imperialist class: at what point do they stop eating their own tail and get serious about the New American Century? They won't just let the empire collapse. I think this is a contradiction that is almost certainly resolved with fascism, which begs the question of how we are to navigate the tension behind a labor struggle that sees material benefits in throwing marginalized people under the bus. What means do we have to oppose the marginalization and dehumanization when it comes with the promise of economic stability for white labor aristocrats working at the bomb factories? What is our strategy when it comes to organizing these workers, how can we appeal to them while also fundamentally rejecting the product of their work and the entire project it exists within? And the obvious question, already asked a million times, how does the left build power in the core to resist fascism, when a large part of the people it needs to fight fascism would benefit from it?

Imperialism uses financial instruments to extract superprofits, and without dollar supremacy that becomes a lot harder because countries don't have to get loans from the IMF/World Bank or hand over their national resources.

100% and this is why dedollarization is so important to observe; is it realistic to expect that onshoring (thx for this word btw) would contribute to the process? I think Chinese capital entering the developing world is the biggest threat to dollar supremacy, but would capitalists readily cede ground by onshoring and allowing China to provide alternative means of development? Will the west ever attempt to be competitive in this realm, with only soft power to exploit, or will the IMF and World Bank continue with the same MO despite the decline in force projection?

I think that it does come down to what you said, though. I don't think the CIA is what it used to be (go woke go broke pronouns ) so it'll be crucial to see how any potential failures in killing anti-imperialist movements end up causing another Cuban Missile Crisis or similar.

queermunist

•

One important aspect of eating their own tail is the overuse of sanctions in the past two decades. What was once a targeted siege war on particular enemies of the US has become a broad and still growing tactic to replace military force. At this point over a third of all nations have some kind of sanctions on their people, properties, or organizations. We're at the point where sanctions are now isolating the metropoles from foreign markets, and meanwhile sanctioned countries are working together to avoid trade in USD.

They absolutely won't lift the sanctions, and in fact are only going to increase them, but in so doing they're dooming the purchasing power of their own basket of currencies.

Muehe

•

The attempts to onshore chip production, for instance, have mostly just been gobbled up by AI compute.

But that leaves an existing chip industry to be nationalised if needed, having an ongoing hype around AI just helps keeping the necessary investment down.

That has some military uses (see: Israel) but it’s ultimately a boondoggle.

If you are talking about Lavender that's hardly a military use. They basically built an elaborate RNG as an ethical fig leaf for their indiscriminate bombing and called it "AI" to gain credibility from the ongoing hype cycle. That's more of a political use than a military one I would say. ~~They must know~~ I hope they know it's bullshit, so then the only realistic use-case left is justification of their actions towards the growing number of AI believers.

QueerCommie

•

TRPF says not happening. There is no more profit in sourcing value in the core.

hypercracker

•

Depends on whether you view those offshored manufacturing jobs as neocolonialism or not. If they are, then moving them back onshore means there will be less neocolonial exploitation.

FunkyStuff

•

Yes absolutely, which if why I consider the cessation of the export of capital a positive. But if it's done as a strategic goal as part of an effort to preserve American empire, the juice isn't worth the squeeze right? Although at that point there's an actual cost-benefit analysis to be made to determine whether it ends up materially aiding the efforts of third world revolutionaries or hurting them more.

hypercracker

•

IMO USians have overwhelmingly become too decadent to actually want to work those manufacturing jobs (see TSMC struggling to find anyone they can hire here) although it's possible such a process would reify internal colonies and be staffed by new immigrants, undocumented workers, black workers, and indigenous workers. That could actually create conditions for revolution inside the US.

queermunist

•

I don't even get it. I like factory work. Yeah, it's hot and physically tiring and dangerous because those fuckers won't take my safety concerns seriously, but I like being able to zone out for eight hours and not talking to customers. It's fine?

Vampire

•

Isolationism.

Trump pulls out of NATO

Sanctions everyone to ttry isolated them, with the effect of isolating him

FunkyStuff

•

Trump pulls out of NATO

He never seriously meant this, it was a hard sales tactic.

Sanctions everyone to ttry isolated them, with the effect of isolating him

Actually possible but I think that if it's the kind of populist movement that I consider to be most likely to have traction in the US, the treat hogs would legitimately do dozens of terrorist attacks to get treats flowing again in this case.