What would the end of US imperialism mean for how Americans live and work?
No, imperialism is a later phase of capitalism that it goes into out of complete necessity If the imperialist countries were not exporting capital and monopolising industries abroad they would not be able to keep the rate of profit up and capitalism would begin rapidly decaying and declining. That's why sometimes you'll hear that the primary contradiction of our time is imperialism, because if you fight imperialism, then you are striking capitalism in its achilles heel.
Fighting capitalism without struggling against imperialism is a complete non-starter, which is why when leftists in the US talk about "foreign policy" as one issue among many, they miss that having a bad take on that in the most powerful imperialist country in the world means that your attempts to build socialism will be fruitless and chauvinistic.
when leftists in the US talk about “foreign policy” as one issue among many, they miss that having a bad take on that in the most powerful imperialist country in the world means that your attempts to build socialism will be fruitless and chauvinistic
The problem is that we can't even begin to dismantle American imperialism until we have an anti-imperialist in the White House, an anti-imperialist majority in Congress, or an equivalent amount of power obtained outside of electoral politics. Whatever any leftist says about foreign policy has almost no material consequences until we get to that point.
To get to that point, we're going to have a lot more success talking about Medicare for All, or raising the minimum wage, or cancelling student debt than we are talking about something like the Cuban embargo. We're small and have limited resources, so we have to pick our battles. When we do talk about imperialism, we have to have a high tolerance for bad takes -- the approach should be to educate people who aren't quite there yet, not write them off. There's nothing chauvinistic about mapping out a path to power and trying to use our limited time and resources to get there.
The problem is that we can’t even begin to dismantle American imperialism until we have an anti-imperialist in the White House, an anti-imperialist majority in Congress, or an equivalent amount of power obtained outside of electoral politics. Whatever any leftist says about foreign policy has almost no material consequences until we get to that point.
If anti-imperialism isn't a part of the political education, or the program, or a basic part about how a socialist organisation functions (i.e. keeping close contact with fraternal organisations abroad and co-ordinating), then who is to say that it will be able to actually understand and help combat imperialism when it does come to power? Leftists in the US have to study and understand imperialism form the get go and combat it at every stage, not put it off until we are in power or when there is an "anti-imperialist majority" in the legislature, which is a pipe dream.
Compare two hypothetical candidates:
- Alex spends 90% of their time talking about Medicare for All and 10% talking about foreign policy. When they talk about foreign policy, they'll criticize U.S. actions a bit, but they aren't calling for anything close to a comprehensive end to imperialism.
- Blake spends 90% of their time talking about foreign policy and 10% talking about Medicare for All. When they talk about foreign policy, they call for an end to the Cuban embargo and say China's response to fundamentalist terrorism -- while imperfect -- is a better approach than the War on Terror was.
Who has a chance of getting elected and who doesn't? We can't get disconnected from how little most people know/care about foreign policy and how ubiquitous anti-communist propaganda is. Climbing that mountain is far more difficult than getting people on board with "you shouldn't go bankrupt from common medical issues," and it's far less immediately useful. We're not getting any sort of meaningful power (at least nowhere near soon enough) unless we focus on domestic policies.
If anti-imperialism isn’t a part of the political education, or the program, or a basic part about how a socialist organisation functions (i.e. keeping close contact with fraternal organisations abroad and co-ordinating), then who is to say that it will be able to actually understand and help combat imperialism when it does come to power?
There's enough socialist literature on the relationship between capitalism and imperialism that if you can get someone to oppose the former, there's a good bet you can get them to oppose the latter. Consider the tension between thinking the intelligence state mostly does decent thinks abroad and recognizing all the horrible shit the intelligence state has done right here at home. Think about how naturally a conversation about how stuff like NAFTA hollowed out the American working class leads to talking about how companies exploit workers in the global south.
It's easier to get most people on board with socialism and then get them on board with anti-imperialism than it is to push both at once to a skeptical audience.
This argument makes basically no sense to me, because, like you point out, imperialism is a necessary feature of capitalism. Getting rid of US imperialism necessarily requires getting rid of US capitalism. They aren’t separate things.
Actually, that's exactly the argument. That's why the idea of getting rid of capitalism while leaving imperialism alone is a road that leads nowhere.
Right, but yoga not possible to “leave imperialism alone” and get rid of capitalism. By getting rid of capitalism, you’ve gotten rid of imperialism by definition.
Unlikely without a major return of labor to the US to build up a domestic productive force, and that will never happen under current capitalism. The return of labor to the US will also mean a resurgent labor movement, which is the single biggest threat to capital that exists today. They will never allow it to happen.
imo everything would crumble and explode
like in goldeneye when a chair is shot
The specific details are going to vary depending on which way imperialism ends, but in the short term no. In the long term, if the rest of the world chooses to develop down a socialist path and trade with the US and we eventually reach that one great international communist order Marx envisioned, "high-wages" won't be a thing, but we will share our wealth with the world just as they share with us, and the highly developed means of production will allow for great wealth to be shared by everyone.
i can't imagine our reliance on overseas/international manufacturing and position as a big oil user wouldn't come to a screeching halt and wreak havoc on our logistical systems for distributing food and material until such time as we could decarbonize transportation, at the very least. any transition (hard or soft) is going to be so intensely political too... "where" (aka who) gets services vs doesn't, i honestly can't wrap my head around it.
This is a bit of an outdated talking point. The US is a net oil exporter.
In fact, it was the birthplace of the oil indistry. Initial American involvement in the Middle East was to secure cheap oil for rebuilding Europe after WWII. Then fighting communism took over. There was a relatively breif period of import dependence as consumption surged and old fields in the US died down, then fracking, oil shales, and offshore drilling allowed the revival of the domestic oil industry.
The biggest concern if American imperialism collapsed would be the effects on the currency. Currently, the use of the Dollar as an international reserve and exchange currency increases it's value, letting America import cheaper at the cost of making exports less viable. See Lebanon's economy for an example of how this works. It does boost living standards and consumption, but undermines the long term development of domestic industry. Does that matter in a service based economy like the US? It's hard to say. You can't outsource Chipotle guac scooping as easily as you can car door manufacturing. Another major difference between the US and Lebanon is how this inflated value is maintained. In Lebanon, the government just ate the cost directly, buying and selling dollars at a loss. In the US, it's indirect. Diplomacy, international confidence, and occasional Imperialism keep the dollar afloat. These can wind down more easily, allowing a gradual transition.
Still, it's easy to overstate the impact of these. There are sections of American capital advocating for currency devaluation. America was and could again be a vibrant, Manufacturing based economy. It has significant quantities of most resources. It has high amounts of technology and skilled labour that allow it to complete with other nations even on a leveled playing field.
Capitalism used Imperialism to expand its base, but the form of it doesn't matter all that much. America has traditionally favoured free trade between nations over carving out 3rd world fiefdoms because it's advantageously positioned. The US could afford to buy what it needs at fair prices.
I don't imagine the "net oil exporter" status will change in the collapse of US hegemony. rather, it will intensify, leaving drastically less for domestic consumption, since it will be more valuable to export.
I mean, the US can increase production further. Most energy uses are getting more efficient. That's been investment in renewable energy. All of which can offset any exports. Not including the possibility of export tariffs or the lower prices of other sources.
Initial American involvement in the Middle East was to secure cheap oil for rebuilding Europe after WWII.
My understanding is that early post-war involvement in the Middle East was partly driven by this, and partly driven by the anticipated importance of oil for the next big war.
Rip all those towns supported by raytheon, :warren-snake-green: hometown is done in at least.
