Actually existing socialist states exist under constant threat from the US empire and until the empire is well and truly over it will not be possible to achieve actual communism. The fall of the USSR was a tragedy, and not one I’d like to see repeated.
What threats to China that the US once had remain? They’ve destroyed their education system. They’re people live on credit and increasingly own none of the classic benchmarks of capitalist success, like a home. Their military spends its time blowing up fishing boats and while it starts a lot of war and leaves trails of bodies, it only picks wars with presumably outmatched opponents and then loses. Their closet allies (other than Israel) are drifting away from them. They’re terrorizing their populace and stoking flames of bigotry. Their infrastructure is crumbling and they’re embracing 19th century energy standards while the rest of the developed (and a lot of the underdeveloped) nations move on. Their oligarchs hoard most of the monetary wealth (as well as the physical) and are converting that to crypto and foreign currency to enrich themselves before the collapse they’re helping fuel cripples the plebs. Aside from their nuclear capability, once the dollar ceases to be the global standard, what threat is the US to China?
Yes, that’s the question. If you call the US’s bluff on nuclear war, which it has consistently shown it won’t do even while losing to nations incapable of that level of retaliation much less a nation fully capable, what do they have left other than financial leverage, which is currently in rapid decline?
Against civilian targets, in a nation that had lost its ability to project military power abroad but was dug in at home, had no idea such a weapon was in existence, and had no capability to retaliate in kind. China and is not Japan in 1945. If roused it could project military capability abroad, has reasonable defenses against such attacks, and is more than capable of retaliating in kind.
China, like Iran, has shown extraordinary restraint, in the face of undeserved provocation after undeserved provocation. You would think ignorant and arrogant Western “leaders” would take note and behave accordingly, rather than continuing to poke the patient dragon.
Their arrogance is precisely why I don’t think they’ll take note and the ignorance of their voting base is precisely why I think they’re not incentivized to do anything differently than they have done since the end of the American Civil War. There’s no personal accountability internally or externally for their behavior. When provocations lead to violence it’s not them or their tribe that pays the price. Religious fundamentalism reinforces a belief that the believer is perpetually a victim regardless of whether their faith is the dominant power because the continued existence of any belief and anyone who believes differently is an affront. Bullies don’t just give up because they grow tired of it. Your best hope for a (relative) peaceful end to American aggression abroad is to support efforts in your nation to make the US a pariah and begin dismantling their financial power within those nations. Or, if willing, accept that as the elite are beyond the reach of the average American gun owner, it’ll take an outside force (or a very well equipped internal force backed by external support) to forcibly remove them, then either work to eliminate the power of middle class Christian nationalists or stand back and allow them and the antifascists duke it out. If you want an end to American imperialism you’re going to have to get it to turn on itself. Which it kind of is, but without some outside assistance in some form I do believe it’s just going to continue to lash out as it can.
This is a very poor understanding of international relations and the balance of forces in the world today. The US hasn’t used nuclear arms in Iran for the same reason they didn’t in Vietnam or Korea, even if the country in question can’t retaliate the cascade effects would be catastrophic and “winning” these wars is not worth that risk. On the other hand in an existential struggle for survival against China that is a completely different situation where if push comes to shove the American ruling class would absolutely condemn the world in a heartbeat if it meant they had even a 1% chance of coming out on top over a 0% chance should the neoliberal world order fall.
The American neoliberals are the ones hyping anti-China rhetoric because it appeals to their uneducated and bigoted voter base who ignores that nuclear bluster and strong arm tactics have done nothing to benefit the average American yet enriches their ruling class beyond human comprehension. The same neoliberals are the ones devaluing the power of the dollar and transferring their wealth to crypto and international currencies. When China (or some sort of decentralized crypto of which China has a massive stake) becomes the monetary basis of global finance, the American elite will float by because they’ve planned for this. But then what? The oligarchs are not concerned with longevity of the system beyond their lifetime, you’re not up against the classic Dems vs Reps that had a shared vision of imperialist capitalism with slightly different flavors. You’re up against less than one percent of the population whose goal is to acquire as much as possible for themselves, in their lifetime, with zero concern for if there’s stability once they’re dead or if they’re maintaining a system where whoever comes next could achieve what they have. If you tried to take it from them by force, maybe they’d burn it on the way out. But that’s not what’s happening. They’re more than willing to sell it to enrich themselves, and once the scales tip in favor of China, the onus of what to do with that power and how to progress is on them. Pitching the underdog, David vs Goliath angle sounds great, but capitalism is dying with a whimper. Use the moment at hand as a moment to push to the next phase or limp along as capitalism masquerading as socialism with “the transition will come soon” as a perpetual goal on the horizon.
You conflate financial assets with social power. This is a major category error that obscures the material foundations of class rule. Money is not power in itself but a token of command over labour and territory, mediated by the state under the current system. When the load bearing pillar of the current order (America) falls, portfolio diversification into Swiss francs or Trump coin will do nothing to preserve elite dominance under a new order. The American ruling class does not uphold global capitalism because of sentiment or long term vision, but because its reproduction as a class is bound to the existing configuration of productive forces, military reach, and institutional hegemony. To suggest they would willingly abandon this architecture misunderstands how class interest operates structurally. It is also analytically weak to carve out neoliberals as distinct from the broader imperialist bloc. Neoliberalism has been the hegemonic ideology of American capital (and thus global hegemonic capitalism which they uphold through their military and international institutions) since Reagan, guiding both parties in the project of financialisation, deregulation, and global labour arbitrage. The factional noise does not alter the class content.
The David versus Goliath framing appears in your reply, not mine. I made no appeal to underdog narratives. My point was that a conflict with China would not be a limited engagement but a struggle over the terms of global reproduction. That is why nuclear escalation cannot be dismissed as bluff; the stakes would be existential to the bourgeoisie.
Transition is not a future possibility but is ongoing in China, where public ownership remains primary and the birdcage around the secondary private economy has been systematically tightening since 2014. The disciplining of Jack Ma was a demonstration that financial capital operates only within boundaries set by the state. The purposeful deflation of the housing bubble, also reflects a prioritisation of long term productive capacity and social good over short term speculative gain. Contrast this with the capitalist core, where private ownership is primary and the retreat of public provision in healthcare, transport, energy, and water has accelerated. Financialisation of the sort Jack Ma championed (which got him disciplined) is not restrained but encouraged, while housing is treated as an asset class rather than a social good. This is not a difference of policy preference but of underlying social relations. In China, the state (answering to the people) retains the capacity to subordinate capital to social objectives; in the West, capital subordinates the state to accumulation.
Your analysis substitutes individualist psychology for systemic class forces, treating the ruling class as atomised actors free to exit the system that constitutes their power. You misread transition as a future event rather than an active process already reshaping global relations of production. And you sidestep the central question: when the material basis of imperial hegemony shifts, it is not portfolio choices but control over productive forces and state capacity that determines who rules. So again true conflict with China could absolutely go nuclear as it would be a battle for survival for the bourgeoisie where losing entails the loss of all that they value (their capital and the power it confers upon them).
>When the load bearing pillar of the current order (America) falls, portfolio diversification into Swiss francs or Trump coin will do nothing to preserve elite dominance under a new order.
If the American oligarchs convert their wealth to Chinese yuan prior to the collapse of that pillar (and it would appear that many are doing so), and China does not use the opportunity of becoming the new pillar to undermine what possessing currency means in global economics, the elite of the west remain elite even if their sphere of influence shrinks. Which I would argue is an acceptable outcome for the upper echelons of neoliberalism, they’d rather be absolute monarchs of their slice of the planet than god emperors of the planet, so long as they are acknowledged for what they are and have some ability to manipulate beyond their sphere.
>Your analysis substitutes individualist psychology for systemic class forces, treating the ruling class as atomised actors free to exit the system that constitutes their power.
I’m positing that we are in a position where this is extremely likely depending on what China decides to do as it assumes global financial dominance if the American oligarchs move their currency to the yuan before they run the American economy into the ground and China fails to take the opportunity to push for how currency is used globally to be reevaluated. As you pointed out, “The American ruling class does not uphold global capitalism because of sentiment or long term vision, but because its reproduction as a class is bound to the existing configuration of productive forces, military reach, and institutional hegemony.” The existing configuration is failing and the American elite are aware of it, which is why they are extracting as much wealth from the dying American economy before it collapses. They hype anti-China rhetoric because they still have some need to appeal to the masses but are quietly planning for how to maintain their positions when the inevitable change occurs.
>Transition is not a future possibility but is ongoing in China, where public ownership remains primary and the birdcage around the secondary private economy has been systematically tightening since 2014.
My question here is, what do you expect to see domestically and internationally once China assumes the position of the financial pillar? Do they start the process of eliminating the private economy at home? Do they use their leverage to isolate American imperialism by continuing to indulge capitalism as a necessary evil in the global economy and placate the American by allowing them to live as rulers of their own private fiefs on the other side of the world, or do they flex their new power and begin to undermine the entire capitalist system when they control the value of “money”. Money is not power in itself but a token of command over labour and territory, mediated by the state under the current system. What happens when the current system is no longer obligated to be the current system?
>That is why nuclear escalation cannot be dismissed as bluff; the stakes would be existential to the bourgeoisie.
True, but the threat can be minimalized by should China take the reins of global finance and allow billionaires on the side of the planet to maintain their fiefdoms and domestic prestige. But if they chose to do so, where is the line between common sense (they have nukes and will burn it if they can’t have it) and using the power at hand to pressure the economy forward towards socialism? Do you wait for the oligarchs to die out, having pulled the ladders behind them and inadvertently prevented their successors from being able to attain their level of influence? Is it either and die approach, or would you rather see pressure applied, because once the transition occurs the leverage is in China’s hands and they could exercise that power or they could allow their current system to run in their favor indefinitely.
Most Americans own their home btw https://www.rubyhome.com/blog/homeownership-stats/ the US capitalist empire still exploits the rest of the world and has vassal states in their hemisphere and abroad that they have financialized and steal their profits.
Is it? The US routinely avoids direct conflict with other nuclear capable nations due to the potential retribution being one of the few things (other than a terror attack) that has the physical capability of damaging them at home. And you’re correct, the US does use global financial leverage over other state, because they have been the global financial power. But as this article points out, that once mighty flex is currently teetering on phasing out. Their deficit is larger than their GDP and the oligarchs are playing the stock market like a fiddle while double-dipping on profiteering by gambling on their manipulation on betting apps. Techbros are aggressively pushing for the elimination of large sections of the human workforce, not to liberate people from tedious, dangerous working conditions so they can seek life fulfillment, but because it’s cheaper. They turned to global exploitation of resources in order to preserve their own wild spaces but are now looking inward again to privatize and profiteer by carving up what public lands are left. Decades of racism meant that the backbone of their most unappealing jobs were performed by exploiting migrant labor; they are gutting their workforce. At what point does the US cease to be viewed as powerful empire versus called out as a wounded animal lashing out as it succumbs to it’s self-inflicted injuries?
Only about 26% of Americans own their homes, 40% are paying towards eventual ownership through a mortgage even though they are called “homeowners”. Because of the nature of this system the demographics of who outright owns their home is skewed heavily towards Boomers and Gen X. Millennials are more likely to be drowning in a mortgage, and Gen Z is rapidly falling behind in their ability to gain entrance as elder generations refuse to downsize into homes better suited for their needs, turn their properties into passive income generators, and when housing does reach the market is purchased by private equity.
Actually existing socialist states exist under constant threat from the US empire and until the empire is well and truly over it will not be possible to achieve actual communism. The fall of the USSR was a tragedy, and not one I’d like to see repeated.
What threats to China that the US once had remain? They’ve destroyed their education system. They’re people live on credit and increasingly own none of the classic benchmarks of capitalist success, like a home. Their military spends its time blowing up fishing boats and while it starts a lot of war and leaves trails of bodies, it only picks wars with presumably outmatched opponents and then loses. Their closet allies (other than Israel) are drifting away from them. They’re terrorizing their populace and stoking flames of bigotry. Their infrastructure is crumbling and they’re embracing 19th century energy standards while the rest of the developed (and a lot of the underdeveloped) nations move on. Their oligarchs hoard most of the monetary wealth (as well as the physical) and are converting that to crypto and foreign currency to enrich themselves before the collapse they’re helping fuel cripples the plebs. Aside from their nuclear capability, once the dollar ceases to be the global standard, what threat is the US to China?
That’s a pretty big ‘aside’.
Aside from the means to end life on earth, what power do they even hold??
Yes, that’s the question. If you call the US’s bluff on nuclear war, which it has consistently shown it won’t do even while losing to nations incapable of that level of retaliation much less a nation fully capable, what do they have left other than financial leverage, which is currently in rapid decline?
The United States is the only state to have dropped the bomb. Twice. Unnecessarily.
Against civilian targets, in a nation that had lost its ability to project military power abroad but was dug in at home, had no idea such a weapon was in existence, and had no capability to retaliate in kind. China and is not Japan in 1945. If roused it could project military capability abroad, has reasonable defenses against such attacks, and is more than capable of retaliating in kind.
China, like Iran, has shown extraordinary restraint, in the face of undeserved provocation after undeserved provocation. You would think ignorant and arrogant Western “leaders” would take note and behave accordingly, rather than continuing to poke the patient dragon.
Their arrogance is precisely why I don’t think they’ll take note and the ignorance of their voting base is precisely why I think they’re not incentivized to do anything differently than they have done since the end of the American Civil War. There’s no personal accountability internally or externally for their behavior. When provocations lead to violence it’s not them or their tribe that pays the price. Religious fundamentalism reinforces a belief that the believer is perpetually a victim regardless of whether their faith is the dominant power because the continued existence of any belief and anyone who believes differently is an affront. Bullies don’t just give up because they grow tired of it. Your best hope for a (relative) peaceful end to American aggression abroad is to support efforts in your nation to make the US a pariah and begin dismantling their financial power within those nations. Or, if willing, accept that as the elite are beyond the reach of the average American gun owner, it’ll take an outside force (or a very well equipped internal force backed by external support) to forcibly remove them, then either work to eliminate the power of middle class Christian nationalists or stand back and allow them and the antifascists duke it out. If you want an end to American imperialism you’re going to have to get it to turn on itself. Which it kind of is, but without some outside assistance in some form I do believe it’s just going to continue to lash out as it can.
– on civilian populations
This is a very poor understanding of international relations and the balance of forces in the world today. The US hasn’t used nuclear arms in Iran for the same reason they didn’t in Vietnam or Korea, even if the country in question can’t retaliate the cascade effects would be catastrophic and “winning” these wars is not worth that risk. On the other hand in an existential struggle for survival against China that is a completely different situation where if push comes to shove the American ruling class would absolutely condemn the world in a heartbeat if it meant they had even a 1% chance of coming out on top over a 0% chance should the neoliberal world order fall.
The American neoliberals are the ones hyping anti-China rhetoric because it appeals to their uneducated and bigoted voter base who ignores that nuclear bluster and strong arm tactics have done nothing to benefit the average American yet enriches their ruling class beyond human comprehension. The same neoliberals are the ones devaluing the power of the dollar and transferring their wealth to crypto and international currencies. When China (or some sort of decentralized crypto of which China has a massive stake) becomes the monetary basis of global finance, the American elite will float by because they’ve planned for this. But then what? The oligarchs are not concerned with longevity of the system beyond their lifetime, you’re not up against the classic Dems vs Reps that had a shared vision of imperialist capitalism with slightly different flavors. You’re up against less than one percent of the population whose goal is to acquire as much as possible for themselves, in their lifetime, with zero concern for if there’s stability once they’re dead or if they’re maintaining a system where whoever comes next could achieve what they have. If you tried to take it from them by force, maybe they’d burn it on the way out. But that’s not what’s happening. They’re more than willing to sell it to enrich themselves, and once the scales tip in favor of China, the onus of what to do with that power and how to progress is on them. Pitching the underdog, David vs Goliath angle sounds great, but capitalism is dying with a whimper. Use the moment at hand as a moment to push to the next phase or limp along as capitalism masquerading as socialism with “the transition will come soon” as a perpetual goal on the horizon.
You conflate financial assets with social power. This is a major category error that obscures the material foundations of class rule. Money is not power in itself but a token of command over labour and territory, mediated by the state under the current system. When the load bearing pillar of the current order (America) falls, portfolio diversification into Swiss francs or Trump coin will do nothing to preserve elite dominance under a new order. The American ruling class does not uphold global capitalism because of sentiment or long term vision, but because its reproduction as a class is bound to the existing configuration of productive forces, military reach, and institutional hegemony. To suggest they would willingly abandon this architecture misunderstands how class interest operates structurally. It is also analytically weak to carve out neoliberals as distinct from the broader imperialist bloc. Neoliberalism has been the hegemonic ideology of American capital (and thus global hegemonic capitalism which they uphold through their military and international institutions) since Reagan, guiding both parties in the project of financialisation, deregulation, and global labour arbitrage. The factional noise does not alter the class content.
The David versus Goliath framing appears in your reply, not mine. I made no appeal to underdog narratives. My point was that a conflict with China would not be a limited engagement but a struggle over the terms of global reproduction. That is why nuclear escalation cannot be dismissed as bluff; the stakes would be existential to the bourgeoisie.
Transition is not a future possibility but is ongoing in China, where public ownership remains primary and the birdcage around the secondary private economy has been systematically tightening since 2014. The disciplining of Jack Ma was a demonstration that financial capital operates only within boundaries set by the state. The purposeful deflation of the housing bubble, also reflects a prioritisation of long term productive capacity and social good over short term speculative gain. Contrast this with the capitalist core, where private ownership is primary and the retreat of public provision in healthcare, transport, energy, and water has accelerated. Financialisation of the sort Jack Ma championed (which got him disciplined) is not restrained but encouraged, while housing is treated as an asset class rather than a social good. This is not a difference of policy preference but of underlying social relations. In China, the state (answering to the people) retains the capacity to subordinate capital to social objectives; in the West, capital subordinates the state to accumulation.
Your analysis substitutes individualist psychology for systemic class forces, treating the ruling class as atomised actors free to exit the system that constitutes their power. You misread transition as a future event rather than an active process already reshaping global relations of production. And you sidestep the central question: when the material basis of imperial hegemony shifts, it is not portfolio choices but control over productive forces and state capacity that determines who rules. So again true conflict with China could absolutely go nuclear as it would be a battle for survival for the bourgeoisie where losing entails the loss of all that they value (their capital and the power it confers upon them).
>When the load bearing pillar of the current order (America) falls, portfolio diversification into Swiss francs or Trump coin will do nothing to preserve elite dominance under a new order.
If the American oligarchs convert their wealth to Chinese yuan prior to the collapse of that pillar (and it would appear that many are doing so), and China does not use the opportunity of becoming the new pillar to undermine what possessing currency means in global economics, the elite of the west remain elite even if their sphere of influence shrinks. Which I would argue is an acceptable outcome for the upper echelons of neoliberalism, they’d rather be absolute monarchs of their slice of the planet than god emperors of the planet, so long as they are acknowledged for what they are and have some ability to manipulate beyond their sphere.
>Your analysis substitutes individualist psychology for systemic class forces, treating the ruling class as atomised actors free to exit the system that constitutes their power.
I’m positing that we are in a position where this is extremely likely depending on what China decides to do as it assumes global financial dominance if the American oligarchs move their currency to the yuan before they run the American economy into the ground and China fails to take the opportunity to push for how currency is used globally to be reevaluated. As you pointed out, “The American ruling class does not uphold global capitalism because of sentiment or long term vision, but because its reproduction as a class is bound to the existing configuration of productive forces, military reach, and institutional hegemony.” The existing configuration is failing and the American elite are aware of it, which is why they are extracting as much wealth from the dying American economy before it collapses. They hype anti-China rhetoric because they still have some need to appeal to the masses but are quietly planning for how to maintain their positions when the inevitable change occurs.
>Transition is not a future possibility but is ongoing in China, where public ownership remains primary and the birdcage around the secondary private economy has been systematically tightening since 2014.
My question here is, what do you expect to see domestically and internationally once China assumes the position of the financial pillar? Do they start the process of eliminating the private economy at home? Do they use their leverage to isolate American imperialism by continuing to indulge capitalism as a necessary evil in the global economy and placate the American by allowing them to live as rulers of their own private fiefs on the other side of the world, or do they flex their new power and begin to undermine the entire capitalist system when they control the value of “money”. Money is not power in itself but a token of command over labour and territory, mediated by the state under the current system. What happens when the current system is no longer obligated to be the current system?
>That is why nuclear escalation cannot be dismissed as bluff; the stakes would be existential to the bourgeoisie.
True, but the threat can be minimalized by should China take the reins of global finance and allow billionaires on the side of the planet to maintain their fiefdoms and domestic prestige. But if they chose to do so, where is the line between common sense (they have nukes and will burn it if they can’t have it) and using the power at hand to pressure the economy forward towards socialism? Do you wait for the oligarchs to die out, having pulled the ladders behind them and inadvertently prevented their successors from being able to attain their level of influence? Is it either and die approach, or would you rather see pressure applied, because once the transition occurs the leverage is in China’s hands and they could exercise that power or they could allow their current system to run in their favor indefinitely.
That is a hell of an aside.
Most Americans own their home btw https://www.rubyhome.com/blog/homeownership-stats/ the US capitalist empire still exploits the rest of the world and has vassal states in their hemisphere and abroad that they have financialized and steal their profits.
Is it? The US routinely avoids direct conflict with other nuclear capable nations due to the potential retribution being one of the few things (other than a terror attack) that has the physical capability of damaging them at home. And you’re correct, the US does use global financial leverage over other state, because they have been the global financial power. But as this article points out, that once mighty flex is currently teetering on phasing out. Their deficit is larger than their GDP and the oligarchs are playing the stock market like a fiddle while double-dipping on profiteering by gambling on their manipulation on betting apps. Techbros are aggressively pushing for the elimination of large sections of the human workforce, not to liberate people from tedious, dangerous working conditions so they can seek life fulfillment, but because it’s cheaper. They turned to global exploitation of resources in order to preserve their own wild spaces but are now looking inward again to privatize and profiteer by carving up what public lands are left. Decades of racism meant that the backbone of their most unappealing jobs were performed by exploiting migrant labor; they are gutting their workforce. At what point does the US cease to be viewed as powerful empire versus called out as a wounded animal lashing out as it succumbs to it’s self-inflicted injuries?
Only about 26% of Americans own their homes, 40% are paying towards eventual ownership through a mortgage even though they are called “homeowners”. Because of the nature of this system the demographics of who outright owns their home is skewed heavily towards Boomers and Gen X. Millennials are more likely to be drowning in a mortgage, and Gen Z is rapidly falling behind in their ability to gain entrance as elder generations refuse to downsize into homes better suited for their needs, turn their properties into passive income generators, and when housing does reach the market is purchased by private equity.