DIE ZWISCHENIMPERIALISTISCHEN WIDERSPRÜCHE SIND OBJEKTIVE TATSACHEN, DIE DURCH DIE NATUR DES IMPERIALISTISCHEN WELTSYSTEMS BESTIMMT SIND.
……….
……….
2.1
……….
……….
2.2
2.2 THE INTERNATIONAL POLICY OF THE FIRST ULTRA-REACTIONARY TRUMP GOVERNMENT
Introduction:
We need to apply theory to understand the current situation in order to change the world. Therefore, we begin by quoting part of Chairman Gonzalo's speech at the First Congress of the Communist Party of Peru, when, justifying the definition of Maoism as the third, new, and superior stage of the ideology of the proletariat, he said:
"(...) the economic and political relations that are developing through the process of imperialism's decomposition."
Very important. One of the problems we've had is how to define this moment, this period in which we are developing. Where did we find the question? In Chairman Mao himself—the decomposition of imperialism is greater every day—with his own positions, he raises this. Who can deny the greater decomposition of imperialism every day? Isn't it sinking more and more? It's decomposing, it's rotting. If some can claim to produce more, what the hell does it matter? That's the problem? On the contrary, if they produce more, what they are showing is that there are all the means to satisfy basic needs. Already during the Second World War, what was said at the end of it? It would be enough to work four hours and all the basic needs of humanity could be satisfied. Well, the leap from 50 to 75 has doubled production from 900 to 50, and production from 900 to 50 is equal to all of humanity since its beginnings. Can you imagine? This shows us that the time of the expropriation of the exploiters is approaching and that they will be destroyed, which is why they are decaying.
Some say Lenin was wrong because we see that they have more rockets, more weapons, but isn't that an expression of weakness worldwide? Throughout history, it has always been an expression of weakness. What Marxism says is that imperialism curbs the entire capacity of the existing means of production; it doesn't say they should not produce; that's what Hoxha never understood in his life. They have confused and some repeat themselves, they don't understand the problem, I think that's it. This is the decomposition of imperialism and its ever-increasing armament, a sign of weakness, not strength. Review any history or look at history in depth and you'll understand; any military history demonstrates this.
The weight of the masses, oppressed nations, the decomposition of imperialism—where does all this lead? Three worlds are emerging. Yes, Chairman Mao Tsetung's thesis; it has nothing to do with Teng's rotten, revisionist theory of the three worlds, which is something else entirely because that is a front to serve imperialism or side with the superpowers, or to seek to become a power itself, as it is already dreaming of. Why do they want to arm themselves to the teeth? Why do they want to be a military power? You see, the same path! Since they can't develop and enhance their economic strength because they're restoring capitalism more and more, they now want to use the immense mass of more than a billion men as cannon fodder. They want to use them by enhancing their military might to become a power and fight for world domination, also plotting, like others like Germany, like Japan, that from the clash of the two superpowers, another power or another dominant superpower must emerge. Wasn't that Japan's ill-fated bastard dream of the 1930s? Isn't it Germany's black dream? Isn't it Teng's black dream? Of course, comrades; so it has nothing to do with it.
And it's not a problem of tactics. Avakian even goes so far as to say, "I believe it's a situation of the use of tactics." I think that's stupid. It's a strategy, it's a global understanding of where the weight of the earth's mass lies, it's the problem of the relations between imperialism and oppressed nations, that's the problem, it's the problem that the current international situation can only be understood by starting from the international economic relations of imperialism, that's Lenin's thesis. But—when he raises and says, "What is the essence of my position?"—it's that there are oppressor nations, or he says: "oppressor peoples, oppressed peoples." Well, some don't like that it's peoples, go discuss with Lenin, comrades, he put it that way, he put it that way—but then he himself specifies it and it's already left as imperialists and oppressed nations.
It also seems to me that it would be a mistake to say Lenin was wrong. Why, do we know what he meant? I believe that, comrades, we don't understand many things about Marx, Lenin, or the President. One must be honest. Every time one goes back and picks up a text by any of those greats, one finds new things, or is that not so? It seems to me a stupid vanity to believe that we already understand everything. I ask myself, do we understand everything Lenin said? I don't think so; everything the President said? I don't think so, comrades. It seems to me that we shouldn't have bastard arrogance; it's the arrogance of flying horses, of people who believe that genius comes from heaven. We have many things to understand, many things remain to be comprehended.
It seems to us that with this, the President is laying the groundwork for developing strategy and tactics, and this is obviously necessary. But there we have a problem: do we know everything the President has said, all his writings? Could the President's debates on how to conceive and carry out the revolution be aired and published? Could he proclaim it? Do you think he could? That's a secret, comrades. How is he going to propose it? What he could propose are the guiding political criteria. Other debates must remain confidential for a time; it seems to me that's essential to understand. For the rest, are there witnesses? I believe there are, and they exist, because there is a meeting between the President and the Japanese where he tells them: "There is a first world, which is the United States and the Soviet Union; there is a second world, Japan, for example; and there is a third, which is China (…)."
After December 1991, when Soviet revisionism finally collapsed and the USSR was reduced to what is today Russia, the first world began to redefine itself. From then on, Russia remained an atomic superpower, and Yankee imperialism became the sole hegemonic superpower.
Yankee imperialism, as the sole hegemonic imperialist superpower, seeks to expand its sovereignty by applying its laws beyond its borders in pursuit of its goal of controlling the entire world. We address here the so-called "technological dimension" as an important issue.
The various US administrations, since 2009 mainly, have tried to obscure the nature of the contradiction with their imperialist allies and rivals, as if it were solely a problem of global trade and security, with social-imperialist China and with other rival and "allied" powers, as a problem of fair trade. Here, we address the development of this contradiction, especially during the first Trump administration (2017-2021), but with obligatory reference to previous administrations.
Below, we present some facts and daten, based on citations from studies or documents from imperialist institutes and bourgeois authors, that show the overall situation at the end of the first Trump administration.
THE INTERNATIONAL POLICY GUIDING THIS ADMINISTRATION WAS A CONTINUATION OF THAT IMPLEMENTED BY OBAMA
We warn our readers that the international policy guiding this administration, in its fundamental lines, was a continuation of that implemented by Obama, especially since 2012. Furthermore, the nature of the contradictions we discuss in this section, which have not changed in nature but only in depth and scope, serves to illustrate the current reality and the nature of the measures of the second Trump administration.
The German Institute for International and Security Affairs, in a study published in 2019 and again in 2020, based on the interests of German imperialism, views the Sino-American conflict and its implications for other imperialist countries during the first Trump administration as follows:
“The narrative of great power competition, propagated by the Trump administration, must be analyzed in the context of this debate and the expectation that a rising power will inevitably challenge the existing international order.”
Note: We will discuss this in a separate installment following Lenin's thesis “on old and new imperialism.”
Continuing: “Washington views China as a revisionist power aspiring to regional hegemony in the Indo-Pacific and, in the long term, global supremacy. Beijing denies such aspirations, but fuels this US perception with a more assertive foreign policy.
The Trump administration has adopted an offensive approach to the power competition and ideological conflict with China, breaking with the previous US policy toward China of political and economic engagement, supported by military cover and deterrence. Its new confrontational approach enjoys broad support; there are currently few political incentives to adopt a more relaxed attitude toward the economic and security threats posed by China. Global competition with China appears to be becoming the new guiding principle of US foreign policy” (Peter Rudolf, The Sino-American World Conflict, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, German Institute for International and Security Affairs, SWP Research Paper (RP) 3, February 2020, Berlin).
The study cited above argues that the Trump administration has a "new confrontational approach." We believe the SWP presents things this way because of the particular interests it defends, which are not only those of Germany, but also those of the faction of German imperialism that feels closest to its Yankee counterpart (the PD) and whose worst enemy is the faction represented by Trump. In this way, the aim is to portray the development of the contradiction between the US and social-imperialist China, and in turn, the development of the US-Germany contradiction, as if it were more a matter of personalities or a specific government. It deliberately forgets that it was with Obama, through the "US National Security Strategy (2012)," that the Indo-Pacific officially became the center of the "offensive approach" of Yankee imperialism: Asia as the "pivot" of its security policy.
Regarding China and Germany, it should be kept in mind that since 1996, the US has used sanctions against third parties to subjugate European Union (EU) countries, primarily to the detriment of Germany. Recall that in 1996, the EU approved a regulation "against the third-country effects of US sanctions against Cuba, Iran, and Libya." In 2017, EU Council President Donald Tusk and then the European Commission announced their reactivation in response to the new round of sanctions imposed by the Trump administration.
Recall that he unilaterally denounced the agreement on Iran's nuclear program, without adequate justification and without taking into consideration the other participating powers, despite the fact that "Iran, after all, is faithful to the letter of its implementation," according to the other participating countries: Germany, China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom.
Previously, the German Commercial Bank (die Commerzbank) was fined US$1.5 billion by the US Department of Commerce in 2015 for failing to comply with the ban on dealings with Iran, even before the aforementioned Iran deal. That same year, BNP Paribas was slapped with even harsher sanctions for failing to comply with the US ban, with a penalty of US$9 billion.
The commentary at the time was that no one was willing to do further banking deals with Iran so as not to challenge US authorities' dominance of Wall Street over global financial markets.
What is crucial is rather US dominance in international financial markets
Henning Klodt, Kiel Economic Service 2018 | 6, Director of the Economic Policy Center at the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, in the Editorial: Iran Sanctions: Options for the European Union. He wrote:
“Donald Trump doesn't pay much attention to his allies. In his supremacist effort to stop Iran in the Middle East, he (Trump) prohibits trade in this area not only for American companies, but also for European companies. Those who don't follow the sanction measures have to face heavy fines or even be completely exiled from the United States since August 6, 2018. The outrage in Europe is enormous and understandable… US sanctions imposed on European companies, which are compulsorily required to participate, to their own detriment. And for European governments, the oft-heard suggestion that they can stop this brazen hustle and bustle, that the EU must rise to the level of its economic power, is of no use. Because such behavior cannot be offered to the US, and unfortunately, reality is lost. Because the size of the social product doesn't matter here, nor even the unequal political voice of Europe. What is crucial is rather US dominance in international financial markets, which also does not "The EU can overcome Macron's reforms (…) politics (i.e., EU governments) has no choice but to take things that cannot be changed in stride (…)".
The Barack Obama administration implemented a broad set of containment measures, including investment restrictions on high-tech companies
Before continuing with the SWP's PR, a quote referring to the Obama administration:
"The Barack Obama administration has, in any case, implemented a broad set of containment measures, including investment restrictions on high-tech companies and the export control system that excludes China from access to many advanced technology products" (GIGA Focus Asia, Disengagement from China: United States and European Union Policies Compared, Issue 1 | 2023).
The section we have underlined must be kept in mind because this technological containment measure aims to harden, expand, and deepen its policy of control over the imperialist powers to maintain its technological monopoly. This responds to Yankee imperialism's national strategy of maintaining not only its economic and technological supremacy but, above all, its political and military hegemony over the other imperialist powers, seeking to expand and maintain its status as the sole hegemonic imperialist superpower. We will see this below under the "technological dimension" (*).
The strategy of imperialism contemplates the use of the political, economic and psychological potential of a nation together with its armed forces during times of peace and war for the benefit of the Yankee financial oligarchy (1)
We continue quoting the SWP-RP2020 study:
“(…) Since the United States and China perceive each other as potential military adversaries, their relationship is shaped by the dynamics of the security dilemma. (…) In the South China Sea, the US claim to free access clashes with China's efforts to establish a security zone and counter the US capacity for military intervention.
(…) For the Trump administration, China's growing global economic and political presence comes at the expense of the United States. Consequently, the United States uses incentives and pressures to discourage other states from expanding their economic relations with China.
As the campaign against Huawei demonstrates, the global competition for influence is closely intertwined with the technological dimension of the Sino-US strategic rivalry. It is about technological supremacy in the digital age. This dimension of the conflict is so pronounced because technological leadership creates global economic competitive advantages and ensures the foundations for military technological superiority” (emphasis added).
Comment: The quote presents three problems: a military or security problem; an economic problem centered on US-China competition, but underlying pressure against other powers (control); and a technological problem (third problem). What we mean by this is that, from a military perspective, a social-imperialist power that increasingly increases its military power, combined with its vast population, is the greatest threat in the offing; but economically, Yankee imperialism's main concern is that the European Union (Germany) will prioritize its economic relations with China in an attempt to escape its dependence on the US. Let us not forget that the EU is the imperialist alliance led by Germany, which is expected to compete with the US for global hegemony.
Germany plans to use the cheap goods offered by China to renew its machinery and equipment, which requires labor-intensive production financed by the Chinese social-imperialist state. In exchange, Germany plans to continue accessing the Chinese market for the export of its capital and goods, while waiting for the country's greater economic opening to gain a larger slice of the pie in dispute with Yankee imperialism. Furthermore, the EU also uses economic incentives and pressure against China to further open its market or "liberalize" its economy. Yankee imperialism primarily targets the Chinese financial system.
Thus, Yankee imperialism's economic measures, which are complemented by its security measures, against China serve the dual objective of trying to subject the EU to its control and outmaneuver it, without abandoning its intentions to divide it, and, at the same time, pressure Chinese social-imperialism to increasingly "liberalize" its economy. They are therefore economic and military threats. This is easily understood if one considers that the US and Germany are competing for this large potential market, developing their contradiction amid collusion and conflict.
The "technological dimension" (*)
The "technological dimension" must be understood within what we have said above. Furthermore, while China has made great strides in high technology, some with significant impact, such as AI, it is still significantly behind the US and Japan, and some European powers such as Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, etc., as evidenced by its need for capital and technology from these countries. Therefore, technological measures hit China in this area and also seek to deprive the EU of the possibility of investing and exporting and importing goods in this field.
The section we quote below is important because it relates to the aforementioned, not only to the fight for control over its rival China and EU allies, but also over its rival allies in North America (Canada), and seeks to establish its global control through technological monopoly. We transcribe:
“The tightening of US export controls is an important part of Washington's policy of technological denial. The United States will likely try to involve its allies in this policy. Washington has two options that are not mutually exclusive, but complementary. It could try to create a new regime of multilateral export controls, similar to the CoCom (Coordinating Committee on Multilateral Export Controls), which played an important role during the Cold War, or it could deploy the extraterritorial tools of its export control and sanctions laws. In the case of Iran, the Trump administration has already clearly demonstrated its effectiveness to its allies” (SWP Research Papers, The Global Sino-American Conflict, Peter Rudolf, February 2020, German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Problems and Conclusions)
The US, using the real contradiction with social-imperialist China, seeks to impose greater control over its rival allies and semi-colonies. To support what we say, we quote:
“Around the world, the United States is trying to prevent other countries from expanding their relations with China (…) To dissuade them from severing economic ties with China, Washington has warned Israel against infrastructure projects with China (…) Furthermore, the US wants to prevent Great Britain from cooperating with the Chinese nuclear company China General Nuclear, which, from the US perspective, transfers technology for military use. During his visit to Panama, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned the country's president against intensifying economic relations with China (...) China, whose ships make extensive use of the Panama Canal, is involved in some infrastructure projects in Panama (…)
In the trade agreement (United States-Mexico-Canada)
Due to US pressure, the USMCA contains a passage targeting China. It obliges the contracting parties to agree to inform each other at least three months in advance when conducting trade negotiations with a "non-market economy" and to provide as much information as possible about the objectives of these negotiations in order to provide solutions.
(...)
If, as appears to be the case, export restrictions are made more important in US policy toward China, then the US will have two (non-exclusive) options to include other states. On the one hand, Washington can try, in likely arduous negotiations, to implement the Multilateral Export Control System currently in place. On the other hand, the United States could use the extraterritorial levers of its export control system and sanctions laws. Giving European companies the choice between the Americans and the Chinese—should European companies have to make that choice if they want to access the American market—would have had far more serious consequences than in the case of Iran. China is Europe's most important trading partner after the United States.
And, the study specifies in a footnote regarding the above:
“Certainly, not all EU countries would be in a similar situation in terms of degree of impact. Especially in countries with a high level of economic development, the technology sector is likely to benefit from the intensification of US investment.
Export controls, for example in semiconductor technology, could be useful here. Germany could join forces with the Netherlands and Belgium. See Brigitte Dekker/Maaike Okano-Heijmans, The US-China Trade and Technology Standoff and the Need for Unity in EU Action on Export Controls, The Hague: The Clingen Institute, August 2019, p. 20f.”
(Cited study from the institute, German edition, 2020)
Watch out! What the cited study says, as if it were just about to happen:
“... deploy the tools extraterritorial rights of its export control and sanctions laws.”
THE TECHNOLOGICAL MONOPOLY AS ONE OF ITS INSTRUMENTS FOR WORLD HEGEMONY
Thus, Yankee imperialism, as the sole hegemonic imperialist superpower, extends its sovereignty to the entire world and applies its laws beyond its borders, seeking to control the entire world. This can be read in the following quote regarding its attempt to impose its technological monopoly as one of its ad doc instruments:
The US government has supported the monopolistic position of the Big Five in the recent past because it wanted to benefit from their soft power in the world.
The United States could succeed in “friendly conquest” of other states by making these countries dependent on US technology.
(*) “Dangerous Symbiosis: What Silicon Valley Owes the US Government and What Companies Are Doing About It,” Tamsin Shaw, IP • May/June 2018 |
“Since many of the startups in which government agencies invest end up being acquired by the Big Five, the relationship between these companies and intelligence and security agencies is increasingly close. The Big Five also advise the government on technological issues. Eric Schmidt, former director of Google and Alphabet, now chairs the Pentagon's Defense Innovation Board (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos was also a member in the past), which in an early 2018 report called for promoting the establishment of tech startups in the military. The goal is to create incubators in the economy that contribute to the development of startups specializing in defense and security technologies, such as metadata analysis.
The US government has supported the monopolistic position of the Big Five in the recent past because it wanted to benefit from their soft power in the world. A 2007 RAND report titled “Conquest in Cyberspace: National Security and Information Warfare” speculates, Libicki believes, that the United States could succeed in “friendly conquest” of other states by making these countries dependent on US technology: “The bigger and richer the system, the stronger its appeal.” Large global corporations like Microsoft, whose products are closely linked to technological innovation,
use the infrastructure of other states ultimately contributes to the growth of US influence abroad.
(…)
In “The Entrepreneurial State” (2013), Mariana Mazzucato analyzes Apple, the Big Five company that spends the least money on research and development. The secret to Apple’s economic success is using technologies funded by the military and intelligence sectors (such as touchscreens and facial recognition) in modern and attractive consumer products. Ultimately, the US government assumes the economic risk, and Apple reaps the benefits. In other words, companies like Apple have grown rich off taxpayer money. They are grateful to the government, but rarely with good fiscal morals. We know this from the Paradise Papers revelations about the offshore tax havens of the wealthy. For example, Apple managed to avoid taxes on much of its $128 billion profit by establishing subsidiaries in Ireland. The company only promised to return these funds to the United States when the Trump administration significantly reduced corporate taxes.
Silicon Valley corporations not only have enormous amounts of money, but also unimaginable amounts of data. Traditional companies like Unilever and Bank of America already have vast amounts of personal information. But the Big Five, Uber, and other corporations possess extremely sophisticated analytics tools and operate platforms designed exclusively to efficiently collect data and use it for advertising and influencer purposes.
Note (1): On the strategy of Yankee imperialism:
At the First Congress of the PCP, the US military journal, in Spanish, was studied. The President said:
“(…) there is something very interesting here; it addresses the problem of strategy, how this concept has varied in the 20th century and even in the 19th century. It reads as follows:
“National strategy. It is defined as the art and science of developing and using a nation's political, economic, and psychological potential, in conjunction with its armed forces, during times of peace and war, to ensure national objectives.”
Extraordinary! On page 12, regarding the National Strategy, it says:
"It is defined as the art and science of developing and using a nation's political, economic, and psychological potential, in conjunction with its armed forces, during times of peace and war."
That is their Strategy. Strategy is not only applied when there is war, it is also applied when there is peace. That is the central idea of the content. I think their idea is clear; what they are saying is crystal clear. Of course, why? It is the defense of the interests of their class, in this case the Yankee financial oligarchy. That is what is happening there. Does it have serious implications? Of course it does. I mean, war, the criteria of war, and the means of war are not only used in times of war, they are used in Even in times of peace, they claim that there are non-war situations, and in those, too, the military apparatus is used—that's what they claim. Please listen to what they say:
"From Liddell Hart's definition of Grand Strategy to this one of National Strategy, there is a very short step. The change involved modifying Liddell Hart's definition, indicating that strategy encompasses the application of all national resources to the achievement of political ends at all times, not just in wartime."
Mr. Liddell Hart is one of the great Western strategists. He was English. He developed the strategic conception of imperialism. Yes, he did. But the needs of imperialism after World War II led him to develop that strategic conception further, because Hart did so after World War I, that is, after the war of 1914-19. What he is proposing here is after 1945. He says:
"(...) since military forces are both a national resource and an instrument of policy, they can be used in peacetime in conjunction with other instruments of policy in the pursuit of national goals. Given this much broader definition, modern strategic thinkers have ultimately institutionalized the full framework of Clawsewitz's arguments to the effect that war is merely the continuation of politics."
Round! What have we come back to? After all, these fools have only just begun to understand what Clausewitz wrote at the beginning of the 19th century, that's the concrete point. They are the powerful imperialist thinkers. If they're going to cry about so much mental power, then they're on the road to ruin. We communists have known this for a long time because Marx taught us this, Lenin taught it, Chairman Mao Tsetung taught us this, he taught us this a long time ago, these people have only just arrived at this point. But the important thing is this issue, worth highlighting in the second point: they tell us they've come to the understanding that war is nothing more than the continuation of politics, war is nothing more than the continuation of politics. We knew this—they say—but only now have we understood all the facets of the argument. We used to believe that it only applied when we were at war, now we've only recently understood that it also applies when we're at peace. Round then! This is what the Pentagon says.”
2.3 …….
To be continued