I mean, this is true, but you have to also remember that these states exist as interacting blocks of capital and all of our efforts that go into subjugating foreign states means that we are putting less effort into developing our own national capital and national product. Eventually, our meddling in world affairs develops nations economically, at a rate faster than we developed economically. Most obvious example of this, I think, is China, where we negotiated with them to liberalize their economy. They did so under very specific conditions, and then utilized the capital we were pouring into the country to rapidly industrialize themselves at a rate faster than we ever could have, given the conditions under which we did.
If you think about the UK Empire, while the United Kingdom was developing industrialization across its empire, it was also aiding in the development of It’s territories that it controlled. The competition, they brought to the table, caused places like the United States, Japan, and Germany to seek their own form of rapid industrialization… Eventually, the United Kingdom had to turn to protectionist policies in order to maintain its imperial goals and its dominance as the workshop of the world. Free trade had effectively weakened its position over time on the global stage.
These contender countries did not have to go through the same kind of developmental process that the United Kingdom did, where they went from a feudal country to a mercantile country to a capitalist country. They jumped right to being a capitalist country. After the Civil War in America, for example, industrialization of agriculture exploded since the central tension of the Civil War was surrounding the industrialization of the East Coast method and the slave labor of the South.
This meant that the United Kingdom was now competing with a former colony on the same footing which was industrial production. And it required the United Kingdom to do protectionist measures in order to maintain its supremacy. But this was a futile effort.
I think what we’re seeing here is a similar kind of shift in policy for America, except instead of it being centered around industrial capital, it’s being centered around technological capital. So much of our world is driven through cloud computing and large data analysis and every day personal computing and China is no longer trailing behind us in this regard. They have established themselves as the chip foundry of the world. They achieved this goal due to the relationship between our capital investment in their low cost labor and their communist five-year plan model.
Their great firewall has protected and insulated the development of their own technological capital. They have some of the most widely used apps in the world thanks to their sheer population size and those apps account for every aspect of a Chinese citizens digital life. In China, you do not have to carry a wallet. You just need your cell phone in some parts of the country.
We know that Silicon Valley has been desperately trying to recreate the everything app like they have in China. And they have failed to do so for decades. They have not been able to recreate the kind of success that China has had. Between their failing front on Ukraine, and the PR nightmare that is Israel, all the time spent in Iraq and Afghanistan that amounted to very little, We have not had the same kind of success that the United Kingdom had with their empire, and it is because we are trying to subjugate developed countries as supposed to countries that were not full capitalist industrial nations.
I think there is a distinct possibility that these kinds of moves would have been made by the Democratic Party as well, in terms of tariffs on China at a minimum. But possibly, tariffs on Mexico and Canada as well. So much of our manufacturing, especially cars, for example, come out of Mexico and Canada. Instead of paying workers in Ford factories in America to assemble Ford trucks, we pay workers in Mexico in factories to assemble Ford trucks and then we pay to ship them here. All of the parts that are manufactured externally get shipped to Mexico and the cost of importing is a lot less.
The problem with that, however, is that we have industrialized Mexico in such a way that makes them a prime candidate for other countries to build cars as well, which is why we are in a conflict with China. China understands that Mexico has a very skilled labor force when it comes to car assembly, and they wish to use that labor force to build their own cars.
Naturally, this is a problem for America because now America has to compete with Chinese cars. And as we know from people like Peter Thiel, competition is for losers, according to them. They would rather have a monopoly. The way that you do that is by returning manufacturing internal to America. Forgoing the external development of other countries so that we may, “have cheaper cars”, or more accurately so that a greater portion of surplus value can be extracted from cheap labor abroad, So that we can avoid having to compete on a global market with global car manufacturers who are producing them at a cheaper rate, create this condition where people like Peter Thiel can have their monopoly.
The calculation from what I can estimate is that having a monopoly at home stands to be better than having a monopoly globally. Because having a monopoly globally causes problems, problems of development where these countries are becoming more and more developed as a result of building their productive forces. Because they become more developed, they become less reliant on our need for development. Then we become in conflict because they become contenders. India is another example of a country that soon will become a contender state that will no longer need the developmental aid of a place like America.
In order to bring labor power back home to America though, you need shock therapy in order to reduce the cost of that labor power. And while there has not been an official declaration of emergency at the federal level that would necessitate the need for shock therapy, I think they have realized that they don’t need to declare any sort of state of emergency. They understand that the deck is stacked so far in their favor over the decades of manipulation of the courts that they can do anything and it will take far longer to undo the damage they’ve done than it would for them to do the damage in the first place. The result is the same even if it’s criminal.
I mean, this is true, but you have to also remember that these states exist as interacting blocks of capital and all of our efforts that go into subjugating foreign states means that we are putting less effort into developing our own national capital and national product. Eventually, our meddling in world affairs develops nations economically, at a rate faster than we developed economically. Most obvious example of this, I think, is China, where we negotiated with them to liberalize their economy. They did so under very specific conditions, and then utilized the capital we were pouring into the country to rapidly industrialize themselves at a rate faster than we ever could have, given the conditions under which we did.
If you think about the UK Empire, while the United Kingdom was developing industrialization across its empire, it was also aiding in the development of It’s territories that it controlled. The competition, they brought to the table, caused places like the United States, Japan, and Germany to seek their own form of rapid industrialization… Eventually, the United Kingdom had to turn to protectionist policies in order to maintain its imperial goals and its dominance as the workshop of the world. Free trade had effectively weakened its position over time on the global stage.
These contender countries did not have to go through the same kind of developmental process that the United Kingdom did, where they went from a feudal country to a mercantile country to a capitalist country. They jumped right to being a capitalist country. After the Civil War in America, for example, industrialization of agriculture exploded since the central tension of the Civil War was surrounding the industrialization of the East Coast method and the slave labor of the South.
This meant that the United Kingdom was now competing with a former colony on the same footing which was industrial production. And it required the United Kingdom to do protectionist measures in order to maintain its supremacy. But this was a futile effort.
I think what we’re seeing here is a similar kind of shift in policy for America, except instead of it being centered around industrial capital, it’s being centered around technological capital. So much of our world is driven through cloud computing and large data analysis and every day personal computing and China is no longer trailing behind us in this regard. They have established themselves as the chip foundry of the world. They achieved this goal due to the relationship between our capital investment in their low cost labor and their communist five-year plan model.
Their great firewall has protected and insulated the development of their own technological capital. They have some of the most widely used apps in the world thanks to their sheer population size and those apps account for every aspect of a Chinese citizens digital life. In China, you do not have to carry a wallet. You just need your cell phone in some parts of the country.
We know that Silicon Valley has been desperately trying to recreate the everything app like they have in China. And they have failed to do so for decades. They have not been able to recreate the kind of success that China has had. Between their failing front on Ukraine, and the PR nightmare that is Israel, all the time spent in Iraq and Afghanistan that amounted to very little, We have not had the same kind of success that the United Kingdom had with their empire, and it is because we are trying to subjugate developed countries as supposed to countries that were not full capitalist industrial nations.
I think there is a distinct possibility that these kinds of moves would have been made by the Democratic Party as well, in terms of tariffs on China at a minimum. But possibly, tariffs on Mexico and Canada as well. So much of our manufacturing, especially cars, for example, come out of Mexico and Canada. Instead of paying workers in Ford factories in America to assemble Ford trucks, we pay workers in Mexico in factories to assemble Ford trucks and then we pay to ship them here. All of the parts that are manufactured externally get shipped to Mexico and the cost of importing is a lot less.
The problem with that, however, is that we have industrialized Mexico in such a way that makes them a prime candidate for other countries to build cars as well, which is why we are in a conflict with China. China understands that Mexico has a very skilled labor force when it comes to car assembly, and they wish to use that labor force to build their own cars.
Naturally, this is a problem for America because now America has to compete with Chinese cars. And as we know from people like Peter Thiel, competition is for losers, according to them. They would rather have a monopoly. The way that you do that is by returning manufacturing internal to America. Forgoing the external development of other countries so that we may, “have cheaper cars”, or more accurately so that a greater portion of surplus value can be extracted from cheap labor abroad, So that we can avoid having to compete on a global market with global car manufacturers who are producing them at a cheaper rate, create this condition where people like Peter Thiel can have their monopoly.
The calculation from what I can estimate is that having a monopoly at home stands to be better than having a monopoly globally. Because having a monopoly globally causes problems, problems of development where these countries are becoming more and more developed as a result of building their productive forces. Because they become more developed, they become less reliant on our need for development. Then we become in conflict because they become contenders. India is another example of a country that soon will become a contender state that will no longer need the developmental aid of a place like America.
In order to bring labor power back home to America though, you need shock therapy in order to reduce the cost of that labor power. And while there has not been an official declaration of emergency at the federal level that would necessitate the need for shock therapy, I think they have realized that they don’t need to declare any sort of state of emergency. They understand that the deck is stacked so far in their favor over the decades of manipulation of the courts that they can do anything and it will take far longer to undo the damage they’ve done than it would for them to do the damage in the first place. The result is the same even if it’s criminal.