Problems of the US Global Monopoly
vngelis | 18.04.2003 09:12
Problems of the Global Monopoly-US Domination in Crisis
The whole history of imperialism shows that when economic crisis and decline take over as a whole imperialism seeks a way out by neutralising opponents to its rule.
When we lived in the era of the inter-imperialist conflicts between 1900-1945, the weakest imperialist state, namely Germany sought to solve its crisis by resolving the basic contradiction between the fetters of the nation state and the development of production. Once the world had been divided up and production started to decline a re-shuffling of the deck of cards became necessary. Who would dominate the colonies in a new inter-imperialist slaughter became dominant.
But because the power of imperialist rule was much stronger than it is today, imperialism was able to mobilise its own workers in a pointless slaughter under the guise of fighting the Kaiser or fighting fascism. Now the problems are much deeper. The reason as to why imperialism relies on a ‘professional’ army (read hired assasins) isn’t simply because of the chronic unemployment in Britain or America but mainly due to the undisputed fact that people would not go to war if conscripted. This event alone shows the limits to US power in that it has to rely on forces which have not only no passion for conflict but also no ideology. Millions of people the world over are against these hired assassins and they are no longer viewed as heroes or courageous fighters for freedom.
This weakness explains the fact that the USA for the first time since Vietnam so openly was unable to crush the resistance of a few cities numbering hundreds of thousands of people in southern Iraq. Hence an agreement was reached to stop the war, which was then painted as a victory as Saddam Hussein was party to that agreement. But if as the proponents of victory assert the US achieved it singlehandedly with the Brits then they should in reality run Iraq on their own, with neither the UN being involved or the so-called Troika of ‘Peace’ (Russia, France, Germany). If that isn’t the case, then the US lost the battle and this has significance beyond its boundaries as it shows its military incapacity to rule the world as a single world power.
The contradictions of economic collapse imply that all the other countries on earth are aiding the US to maintain its position as its collapse would herald their own downfall. The US cannot rule alone, but is being obliged to in a war against time, to prop up the dollar and its stock exchanges. Any idea that it is a losing leads to dramatic falls in the stock markets.
The UN will enter Iraq with US support and we are entering a period where as before 1945 imperialist states required a re-shuffling of the deck of cards (colonies) to stave off collapse so now we require direct rule of the semi-colonies to stave off US collapse – the countries that underpins the world economic order.
The basic contradiction of our time is that the ‘hyperpower’ is obliged to go it alone and destroy the nation states which stand in the way of its path towards economic decline. The transnational corporations need to rule with no fetters. But in order for this rule to maintain itself they need the support of all the powers, without seeking it or promoting it. A contradiction mirrored in economic terms by the growth of the transnationals. In order to increase their market share they have to destroy all opposition, but at the same time they destroy the capital required from customers to buy their products, by impoverishing all. The same economic forces are being unleashed on the political level by the US. In order to prosecute the invasion of Iraq they had to by pass the UN. In order to maintain their rule over Iraq they require the UN. This basic contradiction – impoverishing the planet – and hoping the transnationals can resolve their economic decline automatically is the basic contradiction of our time.
For the first time since Vietnam the US can be beaten. A resolute decisive opposition based on armed workers defence guards and with a policy that goes beyond bourgeois nationalism can crush the hired gangsters of America and Britain. Imperialism has lost its power to rule. It no longer relies either on ideology or external threats, just hired force for its interventions in the economically underdeveloped
The whole history of imperialism shows that when economic crisis and decline take over as a whole imperialism seeks a way out by neutralising opponents to its rule.
When we lived in the era of the inter-imperialist conflicts between 1900-1945, the weakest imperialist state, namely Germany sought to solve its crisis by resolving the basic contradiction between the fetters of the nation state and the development of production. Once the world had been divided up and production started to decline a re-shuffling of the deck of cards became necessary. Who would dominate the colonies in a new inter-imperialist slaughter became dominant.
But because the power of imperialist rule was much stronger than it is today, imperialism was able to mobilise its own workers in a pointless slaughter under the guise of fighting the Kaiser or fighting fascism. Now the problems are much deeper. The reason as to why imperialism relies on a ‘professional’ army (read hired assasins) isn’t simply because of the chronic unemployment in Britain or America but mainly due to the undisputed fact that people would not go to war if conscripted. This event alone shows the limits to US power in that it has to rely on forces which have not only no passion for conflict but also no ideology. Millions of people the world over are against these hired assassins and they are no longer viewed as heroes or courageous fighters for freedom.
This weakness explains the fact that the USA for the first time since Vietnam so openly was unable to crush the resistance of a few cities numbering hundreds of thousands of people in southern Iraq. Hence an agreement was reached to stop the war, which was then painted as a victory as Saddam Hussein was party to that agreement. But if as the proponents of victory assert the US achieved it singlehandedly with the Brits then they should in reality run Iraq on their own, with neither the UN being involved or the so-called Troika of ‘Peace’ (Russia, France, Germany). If that isn’t the case, then the US lost the battle and this has significance beyond its boundaries as it shows its military incapacity to rule the world as a single world power.
The contradictions of economic collapse imply that all the other countries on earth are aiding the US to maintain its position as its collapse would herald their own downfall. The US cannot rule alone, but is being obliged to in a war against time, to prop up the dollar and its stock exchanges. Any idea that it is a losing leads to dramatic falls in the stock markets.
The UN will enter Iraq with US support and we are entering a period where as before 1945 imperialist states required a re-shuffling of the deck of cards (colonies) to stave off collapse so now we require direct rule of the semi-colonies to stave off US collapse – the countries that underpins the world economic order.
The basic contradiction of our time is that the ‘hyperpower’ is obliged to go it alone and destroy the nation states which stand in the way of its path towards economic decline. The transnational corporations need to rule with no fetters. But in order for this rule to maintain itself they need the support of all the powers, without seeking it or promoting it. A contradiction mirrored in economic terms by the growth of the transnationals. In order to increase their market share they have to destroy all opposition, but at the same time they destroy the capital required from customers to buy their products, by impoverishing all. The same economic forces are being unleashed on the political level by the US. In order to prosecute the invasion of Iraq they had to by pass the UN. In order to maintain their rule over Iraq they require the UN. This basic contradiction – impoverishing the planet – and hoping the transnationals can resolve their economic decline automatically is the basic contradiction of our time.
For the first time since Vietnam the US can be beaten. A resolute decisive opposition based on armed workers defence guards and with a policy that goes beyond bourgeois nationalism can crush the hired gangsters of America and Britain. Imperialism has lost its power to rule. It no longer relies either on ideology or external threats, just hired force for its interventions in the economically underdeveloped
vngelis
