******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
“A Watershed Election” An Exchange of Ideas between Dave Gilbert and Lynn Henderson The following is a friendly correspondence—four letters—between Dave Gilbert, a political prisoner and Lynn Henderson, author of “A Watershed Election for U.S. Imperialism” that appeared in the March/April issue of Socialist Viewpoint, Vol. 17, No. 2. David Gilbert: Lynn Henderson’s “A Watershed Election for U.S. Imperialism” is on-point in moving past the various superficial explanations for Trump’s victory. “Watershed” roots the disturbing results in the broader decline of imperialism—with the frustrations born of long term stagnation of the standard of living for the U.S. middle/working class and the slipping ability of the ruling class to provide strategic coherence or convincing justifications. Henderson is right to point both to the many continuities from the Obama administration and to how Trump’s election is a deeply dangerous development. At the same time, I found the analysis to be too Eurocentric. The large wage benefits concessions to U.S. workers in the 25 years that followed World War II are attributed to the lack of capitalist competition—without mentioning the highly lucrative exploitation of the Global South. The reason given for the decline starting in the late 1960s is that Europe and Japan had recovered from WWII devastation and now provided competition on the world market. That may have been the biggest single economic factor, but the 1960s/1970s challenges from the Global South and within the U.S. were also very important. Also, I was upset to see “Watershed” rail against austerity programs recently imposed on some European countries, without mentioning the forerunners, going back to about 1980, the far more extensive and lethal austerity programs imposed on some 70 Global South nations, meaning literal starvation for hundreds-of-millions of people. Looking at the competitive stresses, Henderson argues that NATO is disintegrating. I’ve seen such predictions periodically since 1968. What the Eurocentric analysis misses is the role of the U.S. military in keeping the Global South open for exploitation by all the imperialist powers. That’s the genius of neocolonialism—a kind of free market imperialism—in that they can avoid going to war over which power has total control over each particular piece. In return for that crucial military function the U.S. gets away with certain otherwise unfair economic advantages. Sometimes the European powers grumble over that, but it hasn’t yet led to the long-predicted breaking apart. That doesn’t mean that it couldn’t happen. The stresses are real; Trump is making it worse; and, as Henderson points out, the emergence of China as a potential competitor brings in a new factor. But no analysis can be convincing without also accounting for the way the imperial triad of the U.S., Europe, and Japan has worked together to exploit and suppress the peoples of the Global South. Lynn Henderson: Dear David Gilbert, I received a short critique you wrote on my article, “A Watershed Election for U.S. Imperialism.” I also accessed your article “The Context for the Trump Phenomenon,”1 which I thought was excellent. One major criticism you raised in your critique was the observation that my article was too Eurocentric. I think you raise a legitimate point. I particularly wanted to put what many concluded was a bizarre and seemingly inexplicable election in a broader historical and global context that helps make it explainable. How the election was shaped first by the utterly unique era of U.S. global hegemony emerging out of WWII and specifically how the increasing disintegration of that unsustainable hegemony is key to understanding the election and much else that is now unfolding globally. I think you are correct, that including a serious look at how the exploitation of third world countries through imperialism’s ruthless application of austerity policies could have strengthened the article. I liked your observation on how the “U.S. military played an essential role in keeping the Third World open for the exploitation that is absolutely necessary for all the imperialist powers. That’s part of the genius of post-WWII neocolonialism in that they don’t have to go to war over who controls each particular piece, but it’s more of a free market imperialism.” But that post-WWII era has come to an end. It’s hard to see how “free market imperialism” remains feasible except under the entirely unusual and historically unsustainable period of U.S. global hegemony emerging from WWII. “Free market imperialism” could not indefinitely, or even for very long, suspend capitalism’s inherent drive to ruthless international competition. China for example, through its aggressive expansion of trade and investment, is now dramatically increasing its penetration of the Third World, especially Africa, and South East Asia. I don’t think it intends to rely on the U.S. military to keep these markets open for it, or to submit to the more “gentlemanly” rules of “free market imperialism.” While China may be a particularly obvious example, the same new dynamic (unraveling of free market imperialism) holds true for the major European economies. All of this does not negate the fact the U.S. capitalism continues to be the largest economy in the world with all that implies. But that does not mean it can continue to wield the kind of hegemonic power it did during that last half-century. It continues to be the world’s completely dominant military power, and will probably continue to be for the foreseeable future. But massive military power by itself, especially in the era of nuclear weapons, has its limitations. The most dominant military in the world (and perhaps ever in the world) gained from its long Vietnam War nothing but a humiliating defeat—plus a forced end of the draft army and its replacement with a crushingly expensive all volunteer force that is proving too numerically small to meet its imperialist needs. Its long war in the Middle East is an even more sweeping disaster. Hardly a reassuring record for European powers looking to the U.S. military to guarantee their continued neocolonial access. The closing of the post-WWII era of U.S. global hegemony means not only an end of “free market imperialism,” but an unraveling process for a whole series of international institutions, which were created by and utterly dominated by U.S. imperialism—among these is NATO. NATO as any kind of unified bloc, especially any kind of unified bloc following U.S. imperialism’s direction and lead, is undergoing an irreversible process of disintegrating. The unraveling of these post-WWII international institutions certainly reflects an increasingly more difficult global environment for U.S. imperialism. But even more immediately frightening for U.S. capitalism is the massive political damage inflicted on its dual political parties. For the ruling elite of U.S. capitalism there has been no more essential and valuable political institution than its stable two party monopoly. The painful ending of an almost century-long era of U.S. global domination has thrown their formerly reliable two party system and its political actors into complete disarray and confusion. That was reflected in the election itself and the subsequent bizarre functioning of the government since. Continue reading at: http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/sepoct_17/sepoct_17_11.html <http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/sepoct_17/sepoct_17_11.html> _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
