COVID 9-11: ENDGAME

 

A recurring theme in this blog has been a meta-analysis of power structures, with the suggestion that we ought to shift our thinking away from the traditional idea of nation states and toward the invisible yet all pervasive financial and economic structures through which real power operates. The idea of American Empire, for example, falls flatly on its face when one considers the free movement of capital as the basis for monopoly control of global markets by transnational corporations.

A Marxist reading of history reveals the evolution of qualitatively distinct modes of production - slavery transitioned to feudalism which transitioned to capitalism and so on. But so too has authority devolved, from kings and queens, to parliaments, to boards of directors. For centuries the monarchy has exercised purely ceremonial power. Today parliaments exercise purely ceremonial power. On formal occasions this relationship wears a fig leaf - the 'public-private partnership'. It's easy to laugh at the unwashed masses infatuation with the royal family. But the truth be told, our elected representatives are just as irrelevant. Mere figureheads of a system of authority which has now become, in every practical sense, obsolete.

How many times have you heard the president use 'protecting US interests' as an excuse for military adventurism? What does this even mean? Still thinking in terms of nation states? We need to update our thinking. Ask yourself which does the US more resemble: a sovereign republic governed by the will of its people? Or a transnational corporation, answerable to its shareholders - a gigantic holding company, managing mergers and acquisitions and the asset stripping of weaker companies/states. This is what colonialism looks like in the age of capital.

But neo-colonialism is such a heavy handed term. Can't we just say 'creating the conditions for new investment'?

Long before trickle down economics there was 'free trade'. As I've written before, free trade has to be one of the greatest examples of Orwellian double speak in the political lexicon. There is no 'free trade', just as there is no 'free market'. We have a rigged market economy in which preferential bilateral and multilateral trade deals are foisted upon weaker economies under the threat of sanctions, or through military intervention, or by other covert means. Free trade is simply a euphemism for capital penetration, in the most explicit sense of the term.

In the past, wars were fought over territory and resources; land, livestock, access to water etc. These days the prize is 'free trade', meaning, the loser is forced to sell its resources (raw materials) unconditionally, and to buy finished products unconditionally. To expedite the process of extraction predatory loans are made available through institutions such as the IMF and World Bank, which provide minimal life support to the economy and rebuild whatever capital was destroyed in the process of acquisition.

It is interesting to note that the only two exceptions to this rule are countries which were already militarily colonised by the end of WWII. Japan and South Korea stand out as having been allowed to develop strong and successful economies under strict protectionist polices.

Globalisation is of course part and parcel of the neoliberal prescription. One of the prevailing dogmas of economics to date has been that the rate of profit is driven by resource scarcity. This truth is born out in today's globalised world. We have an over abundance of labour, capital and productive capacity. As the market economy has spread globally to take in China and India, this oversupply has put downward pressure on wages and caused bubbles in financial markets. But rather than trying to ameliorate these conditions, we seem to be doubling down.
 

In recapping the timeline of events which has led us to where we are today, the 1971 oil shock seems as good a place to start as any. Triggered by a joint communiqué from the OPEC group stating its intention to price oil in terms of  gold at a fixed rate, a chain reaction was set off, bringing to an end the 25 year golden age of economic prosperity which had lasted from 1948 to 1973. A fourfold increase in the price of crude sent shock waves through western economies and brought an end to the rapid expansion of the previous decades. Reacting to the falling rate of profit western market-driven economies did what they do best - slashed wages, cut welfare and punished organised labour. The decades which followed would be characterised by easy credit, deregulated fianance, falling living standards and regular boom-bust cycles.

Neoliberalism goes hand in hand with globalisation in its embrace of laissez-faire market ideology as a means of facilitating easier trade between countries. Just as neolibalism punishes the weak by taking away the social safety net under the rubric of individual responsibility, so globalisation strips away protective measures such as tariffs and regulations which allow weaker economies to develop, instead subjecting them to unrestrained market forces.

Pursuant to our timeline above, China makes its entry into the global free market economy with its 'opening up' to western markets during the Nixon administration. This has led to a period of unprecedented economic growth for China, often dubbed "China's economic miracle". China's present attitude to globalism is expressed in General Secretary Xi Jinpings's address to the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting at Davos on January 17 2017:

               The point I want to make is that many of the problems troubling the world are not caused by economic globalization. …

                From the historical perspective, economic globalization resulted from growing social productivity, and is a natural outcome of scientific and technological progress, not something created by any individuals or any countries. Economic globalization has powered global growth and facilitated movement of goods and capital, advances in science, technology and civilization, and interactions among peoples. …

                There was a time when China also had doubts about economic globalization, and was not sure whether it should join the World Trade Organization. But we came to the conclusion that integration into the global economy is a historical trend. To grow its economy, China must have the courage to swim in the vast ocean of the global market. If one is always afraid of bracing the storm and exploring the new world, he will sooner or later get drowned in the ocean. Therefore, China took a brave step to embrace the global market. We have had our fair share of choking in the water and encountered whirlpools and choppy waves, but we have learned how to swim in this process. It has proved to be a right strategic choice.

                Whether you like it or not, the global economy is the big ocean that you cannot escape from. Any attempt to cut off the flow of capital, technologies, products, industries and people between economies, and channel the waters in the ocean back into isolated lakes and creeks is simply not possible. Indeed, it runs counter to the historical trend. …

                We should commit ourselves to growing an open global economy to share opportunities and interests through opening-up and achieve win-win outcomes. One should not just retreat to the harbor when encountering a storm, for this will never get us to the other shore of the ocean. We must redouble efforts to develop global connectivity to enable all countries to achieve inter-connected growth and share prosperity. We must remain committed to developing global free trade and investment, promote trade and investment liberalization and facilitation through opening-up and say no to protectionism. Pursuing protectionism is like locking oneself in a dark room. While wind and rain may be kept outside, that dark room will also block light and air. No one will emerge as a winner in a trade war.

   

Who could blame China for turning the west's own weapon against it after it's century of humiliation? If there's one thing which can be said about the Chinese, it's that they are undisputed masters when it comes to board games. It's up to the reader to decide whether China has turned the table on the West, or whether the liberal/globalist/CIA/Wall Street faction of the US oligarchy may be playing a very different game than Trump when it comes to relations with China. Compare and contrast Trump's first speech as POTUS handed down just three days after Xi's Davos remarks:

             For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry; subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military; we’ve defended other nation’s borders while refusing to defend our own; and spent trillions of dollars overseas while America’s infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay.

             We’ve made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon.

             One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores, with not even a thought about the millions upon millions of American workers left behind.

             The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed across the entire world.

             But that is the past. And now we are looking only to the future. We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power.

            From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.

            From this moment on, it’s going to be America First.

            Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families. We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs. Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.

             We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will bring back our wealth. And we will bring back our dreams.

             We will build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation.

             We will get our people off of welfare and back to work — rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor.

             We will follow two simple rules: Buy American and hire American.

             We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world — but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.

There could be no clearer exemplar of the terrain on which the current war of ideas is being waged.

Trump's trade war has come under near unanimous attack from all sections of the media, but economic war is only one aspect of the state of total war in which we presently find ourselves. If we take seriously the allegations that COVID19 may be some sort of bio-weapon, we cannot ignore the possibility that China, or rogue elements therein, may have been involved at some level - there are certainly a number of coincidences connecting the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The fact that both the WHO and the liberal establishment media now seem to be praising China's response to the pandemic is certainly enough to raise questions, as is Xi's recent letter expressing thanks to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for the organisation's "generosity" and support.

But to return to my thesis, perhaps we shouldn't be thinking of COVID-19 as a bio-weapons attack perpetrated either by or against China, or any other country per se. The key to understanding here is who benefits and who loses. In this respect it is clear that the ultimate losers are the poor, the working class, and the petty bourgeois. Furthermore it is likely that the U.S. will be hit harder than anyone, with the number of predicted job losses as high as 47 million. What does this mean for local production and global markets? Already we are seeing the collapse of US shale oil as crude nears the $10 a barrel mark. How can Trump deliver his promised return to industrial Fordism (MAGA) in such an environment? The outcome can only be a flattening of global markets and the bitter impoverishment of the working classes. The winners, as always, will be the owners of capital, the billionaire class. Big Oil, Big Pharma (one in the same), the MIC, and the Wall Street banks who will no doubt be bailed out in what I've previously termed the controlled demolition of the global economy, perhaps better described by Ernst Wollf as an international corporate financial coup d'etat.

COVID-19 is primarily an attack on ordinary people. An attack not just on our liberty but on our sovereignty. Today we are made to stay in our homes, told we're not allowed outside except to excercise once a day or to shop for groceries, and fined $1000 for sitting in a stationary vehicle. Tomorrow we'll be force vaccinated and microchipped and sent back to work like nothing happened. The future many envision is terrifying, encompassing everything from a permanent police state, to the collapse of the money system and creation of a new digital currency, to the ultimate despotic wet dream - global governance. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this could well be the beginning of WWIII. The final battle which will decide whether we are to live as free citizens or serfs.