Is there any universe where an American populist movement isn't just disastrous for the periphery?
Is there any universe where an American populist movement isn't just disastrous for the periphery?
Assuming that its accomplishments include moving manufacturing back into the US and securing the border, what good could come of a populist movement? The interests of the American labor aristocracy would just be consolidated with Imperialism to an even greater extent, and any conflict against China would see no resistance from organized labor because of the incestuous relation of the MIC and organized labor. Any anti-war movement would have no power at all, there would be no positive argument for stopping the conflict when it keeps everyone employed as contrast to the current state of unemployment and precarious work.
Potential benefits include the cessation of the export of capital, less capacity for the US to project power across the world, and less state repression of anti-imperialist movements. But I can't help but think that if the US pulled its production out of Asia, South America, Africa, and the Pacific, it would redo Gladio/Bloodstone to prop up fascists to hold down anti-imperialist movements, or create a dozen Israels to keep a way to quickly kill nascent revolutions. Am I wrong?
So-called de-industrialization is a factor of imperialism, as is so-called illegal immigration.
Manufacturing was moved to superexpoit labor in the Global South. It reduced the size of the industrial proletariat and broke the militant power of its unions, turning them aristocratic. NAFTA, specifically, turned Mexico into a labor colony with the maquiladoras replacing internal production.
Undocumented workers, on the other hand, are a result of that imperialist superexploitation. On top of that they are themselves internally colonized subjects that are superexpoited for primary production.
Where does a labor aristocracy come from without that superexploitation of labor?
turning them aristocratic
I assume you mean this in a "labour aristocracy" way?
Yes, sorry, I mean the redistribution of superprofit bourgeoisified these workers. The labor aristocracy consists of workers in so-called skilled trades and white collar work, both unionized and not, at the very top of the production chain. They're bequeathed investments through their positions and are able to buy up properties with their high wages, which they then hold in their families to pass on to descendants who can become further advanced by this generational wealth. They're not, like, literally aristocrats lol
Where does a labor aristocracy come from without that superexploitation of labor?
I don't think supply chains would be completely reintegrated into the core. Textiles and many similar light industries will still be produced via imperialist exploitation. I think that interest convergence dictates that it'll be the defense industry that will move itself back into the core. So heavy industry flourishes at home, with a labor aristocracy that is ideologically aligned with empire and wants to build walls to keep climate refugees out. Ultimately capitalists want to keep as much production of cheap consumer goods in the third world, and don't mind paying premiums for defense because money for the MIC is infinite.
Do these things still hold true past dedollarization? Can dedollarization happen?
I can imagine a world where the US onshores the industries critical to maintaining military dominance while continuing to offshore consumer industries. That isn't happening, though. The attempts to onshore chip production, for instance, have mostly just been gobbled up by AI compute. That has some military uses (see: Israel) but it's ultimately a boondoggle.
As to your question, money for MIC is infinite because the dollar is the global reserve currency and couldn't survive past dedollarization. Imperialism uses financial instruments to extract superprofits, and without dollar supremacy that becomes a lot harder because countries don't have to get loans from the IMF/World Bank or hand over their national resources.
We're seeing the coups in Africa and the decline of ECOWAS, so something is happening. If that something is dedollarization, we'll see a similar thing start to happen in ASEAN countries and maybe even OPEC countries.
TRPF says not happening. There is no more profit in sourcing value in the core.
Depends on whether you view those offshored manufacturing jobs as neocolonialism or not. If they are, then moving them back onshore means there will be less neocolonial exploitation.
Yes absolutely, which if why I consider the cessation of the export of capital a positive. But if it's done as a strategic goal as part of an effort to preserve American empire, the juice isn't worth the squeeze right? Although at that point there's an actual cost-benefit analysis to be made to determine whether it ends up materially aiding the efforts of third world revolutionaries or hurting them more.
IMO USians have overwhelmingly become too decadent to actually want to work those manufacturing jobs (see TSMC struggling to find anyone they can hire here) although it's possible such a process would reify internal colonies and be staffed by new immigrants, undocumented workers, black workers, and indigenous workers. That could actually create conditions for revolution inside the US.
Isolationism.
Trump pulls out of NATO
Sanctions everyone to ttry isolated them, with the effect of isolating him
Trump pulls out of NATO
He never seriously meant this, it was a hard sales tactic.
Sanctions everyone to ttry isolated them, with the effect of isolating him
Actually possible but I think that if it's the kind of populist movement that I consider to be most likely to have traction in the US, the treat hogs would legitimately do dozens of terrorist attacks to get treats flowing again in this case.