Cold War II is transforming the global system, with two competing visions: The US wants to revive colonialism and spheres of influence. China wants a multipolar order of sovereignty and cooperation.
I find this discussion very interesting and thought provoking. I see the US as trapped in a situation as a declining power trapped where it can no longer project its power globally but has enough residual power to do a lot of damage-- which we are seeing now. Its proposed power projections are more and more pretensions. The Trump administration are the delusional die hards sifting through the ashes and will eventually be replaced by administrations willing to face the new world realities-- when and if this essential transition happens is the big big question?? The deep state and the vested interests running the country are so deeply embedded any positive transition may be impossible. As long as the US pursues its present course it is in the long run marginalizing itself as a pariah failed state. Asia's dramatic rise has shown that economic, not military prowess take the measure of the global structures. America's refusal to embrace 21st century realities appears its ultimate downfall. As Chalmers Johnson observed too long ago those US aircraft carriers are still trying to find the Japanese fleet of yore.
Good points. I'm constantly drawn to the idea of an empire reaching it's decadent stage and causing havoc in it's death throes. Rome slamming it's gates shut on us barbarians out here, and leaving us to deal with the consequences of the chaos left behind. America First. It worked out better for the subject states than it did for the Romans, ultimately. Mark Carney certainly points the way forward. My only concern is that I don't particularly want to see parts of Europe becoming the new Constantinople, although I'm sure Farage wouldn't have any objections.
replaces class analysis with moral language—“mutual cooperation,” “shared development,” “South–South solidarity.”
But there is no Global South acting as a class. There are only capitalist states, each led by a ruling class pursuing its material interests.
Under capitalism, cooperation among states is impossible in principle. Capital competes, expands, and dominates. Whether it is the West, China, or India, all export capital, seek markets, secure resources, and protect their own bourgeoisie.
China’s relations with Africa and Latin America follow a clear imperialist logic:
capital export and debt-based leverage
infrastructure tied to Chinese firms
extraction of minerals and commodities
reinforcement of dependent, primary-export economies
alliances with comprador bourgeois regimes, not workers
This is unequal exchange, not mutual development.
Different from Western imperialism in style, not in class character.
A genuinely ML speech would openly name:
imperialism
unequal relations
class struggle
China’s own material interests
Instead, this speech offers bourgeois internationalism—state harmony without class struggle.
I find this discussion very interesting and thought provoking. I see the US as trapped in a situation as a declining power trapped where it can no longer project its power globally but has enough residual power to do a lot of damage-- which we are seeing now. Its proposed power projections are more and more pretensions. The Trump administration are the delusional die hards sifting through the ashes and will eventually be replaced by administrations willing to face the new world realities-- when and if this essential transition happens is the big big question?? The deep state and the vested interests running the country are so deeply embedded any positive transition may be impossible. As long as the US pursues its present course it is in the long run marginalizing itself as a pariah failed state. Asia's dramatic rise has shown that economic, not military prowess take the measure of the global structures. America's refusal to embrace 21st century realities appears its ultimate downfall. As Chalmers Johnson observed too long ago those US aircraft carriers are still trying to find the Japanese fleet of yore.
Good points. I'm constantly drawn to the idea of an empire reaching it's decadent stage and causing havoc in it's death throes. Rome slamming it's gates shut on us barbarians out here, and leaving us to deal with the consequences of the chaos left behind. America First. It worked out better for the subject states than it did for the Romans, ultimately. Mark Carney certainly points the way forward. My only concern is that I don't particularly want to see parts of Europe becoming the new Constantinople, although I'm sure Farage wouldn't have any objections.
replaces class analysis with moral language—“mutual cooperation,” “shared development,” “South–South solidarity.”
But there is no Global South acting as a class. There are only capitalist states, each led by a ruling class pursuing its material interests.
Under capitalism, cooperation among states is impossible in principle. Capital competes, expands, and dominates. Whether it is the West, China, or India, all export capital, seek markets, secure resources, and protect their own bourgeoisie.
China’s relations with Africa and Latin America follow a clear imperialist logic:
capital export and debt-based leverage
infrastructure tied to Chinese firms
extraction of minerals and commodities
reinforcement of dependent, primary-export economies
alliances with comprador bourgeois regimes, not workers
This is unequal exchange, not mutual development.
Different from Western imperialism in style, not in class character.
A genuinely ML speech would openly name:
imperialism
unequal relations
class struggle
China’s own material interests
Instead, this speech offers bourgeois internationalism—state harmony without class struggle.