What is to be done? The end of a national empire in a globalized world

a rhizzone community article by — published
First we have to assess if there is an empire and if it is ending. For the purpose of this article we will be assuming that there was once a national American empire but that this is on the decline. I base this in the assertion that during the Cold War there was indeed two national empires competing - that of the Soviet Union and the United States. Because of post-WWII economic conditions, the capitalist world, i.e. the West, was mainly operated from a base located in the USA.

However, at the end of the Cold War, or at least in its twilight years, as technological innovation ramped up we started to see a more decentralized version of the American empire. Though the forerunner age to globalization was still deeply rooted in the United States, there were the stirrings of a truly transnational capitalist class. Financial deregulation sped things along, as did new multilateral trade agreements and the focus of American (though international in name) financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank shifting from buying out the Soviets to busting new markets abroad in a much more overt way. This can be pinpointed, I believe, to the Volker shock / oil crisis of the late 1970s, when loans were refinanced with structural adjustments geared towards increased financialization and aid dependence, along with new foreign currency reserve requirements. Once the Soviet Union fell apart, it was a matter of less than a decade before we saw the emergence of a truly transnational capitalist class, one that spread its vulture wings and really took flight. This is where the "decline" part comes in... Empire still exists, but it is no longer national.

I believe this national severance came hand in hand with buying off the American middle class wholeheartedly. Access to easy credit exploded in the 1990s and more Americans were indulging in cheap consumer goods, cable television, whatever it is our grandparents said made us lazy and stupid. With this buying off came a really concerted propaganda effort to make everyone think that times were never better. As manufacturing and production moved offshore easy access to credit softened this blow. People moved into more precarious sectors, though on the whole the American middle class still enjoyed relative security in their jobs, be it in the public or private spheres.

After 9/11, a new effort was made to impoverish the American people. The market busted and people were thrust deeper into precarity. It busted again and people lost their houses. Every time the market busts, the rich get way richer, so there is a staggering transfer of wealth happening. As the state shifts its raison d-etre from a citizen-oriented focus we hardly notice it is shifting in the interests of capital because of concerns about "security", "terrorism" and "war". The state must tighten its belt, so we are told, so services and entitlement withers away.

Meanwhile, there is no organized labor in the United States. Jobs become more precarious and less able to unionize. This mixes with increased atomization and alienation to create a country of scabs, scrambling rats who just need to make this month's bills and not go under on their houses. Scrambling rats.

So the question is, where does the United States go from here? The transnational capital class (TCC) has not just taken flight, it has turned the American population into a festering sore it can suck on whenever it needs to. OWS was great, but unfocused. It turned cannons on the TCC, rightfully so in some cases, but gave the government a pass. Many who were involved or supported it will no doubt vote for Obama again in the coming election. The major problem I can see is that the citizenry believes that the government is still accountable to the people, that it remains an impartial mediator between capital and labor. This is just as foolish as seeing the United States as an impartial mediator between Israel and the PA. And just like the PA, American labor itself has become corrupted.

The answer as far as I can see is seizing the state in the interest of the people. The TCC exists, and is highly mobile, but still depends on the acquiescence of 370 million Americans to sustain itself. We can see that it is building foundations elsewhere, and time is running out to grab it by the roots and strangle it. We can hear in the rhetoric of the American institutionalized right+left a call for American labor to become more globally competitive. If things go as planned, do not doubt that sweatshops in "Free Trade Zones" will be opened on these shores in the next fifty years. The answer as I can figure is to seize the state, to refocus the Occupy+Anti-Globalization (whatever remains) movements' attention to the state. Any suggestions on how to approach this in a constructive manner?

Also by discipline on tHE r H i z z o n E:

Knowing your audience? Django Unchained
Quentin Tarantino finally made a version of Inglorious Basterds for me.
A Nation of Lazy Bums and Unpaid Interns: Youth Unemployment in 21st Century USA
The youth unemployment debate generally ignores the rapidly changing nature of the US economy. Youth unemployment is the highest in recorded history.
the united states is a sham construct used to keep the people down
the answer is creating a shadow state that delivers community services and then kicking out the state legislatures and seceding from the union, or at least renegotiating the terms of being a part of it.
More articles by discipline.

Discussion of What is to be done? The end of a national empire in a globalized world on tHE r H i z z o n E:

#1
The Future is Here
Post rating: +
WE KILL THEM ALL
#2
Post rating: +
ron paul 2012
#3
meet me in st louis
Post rating: ~
i wanna write a reply to this but i'm busy measuring the thermal loading from nuclear explosions.

mayeb you can model something like a nuclear reaction wherein popular forces overcome a columbic barrier to explode in freedom. huzzah
#4
Harry the Hat
Post rating: ~
it would be pretty cool to seize state power and nationalize large parts of the economy that are currently privatized, and i bet it would work. nationalizing the economy and distributing resources equally so that no one is deprived is good for the economy and good for society (source: history) but tHEre is a big scary monster standing in the way that is made of all the fighter planes, helicopters, tanks, humvees, assault rifles, chemical weapons, riot police armor, batons, bayonets, torpedoes, missiles, drones and bombs in the world!!! it also uses magic brain control waves that are made of tvs, phones, radios, and even the very computing device you are using to read this post!!! if you try to seize state power nonviolently you will either be drowned out by the loudness of the brainwaves or get killed by this monster. if you try to seize state power violently, even if you are a really strong, populous army with a lot of brilliant tacticians, you will still definitely get killed by this monster.
#5
Post rating: +
dumpster dive, make your own musical instruments and bags from bike tubes and floss. play tag in the streets. smoke only organic locally grown hydro. say No! to landlords and your parents, get a service animal license for your dog. steal adbusters from the borders. revolution.
#6
Post rating: ~
You know, its exactly because the ghost of national empire still haunts America that I think it would take the retreat of transnational Capital before seizing the state is a realizable possibility. I think this has been the case in modernity (historically speaking, I'm thinking of Russia and China of course), and I don't really see it as much a failure of initiative or anything, as much as a redemptive Event. Creation necessitates destruction, maybe a plain must be cleared of char before ashes become-phoenix
#7
Post rating: +
accelerationism
#8
Post rating: +
And like a phantom, perhaps one cannot strangle it, but drive it from the earth with the repetitive incantation and triumph of Truth. Drive the spectre from humanity, may it never haunt us again. FFS
#9
Post rating: ~
a mixture of Truth, amphetamines, cats, and blogs
#10
Post rating: +
how did u find out about my life animedad
#11
Post rating: -
how did u find out about my life animedad
#12
Post rating: ~

guidoanselmi posted:
i wanna write a reply to this but i'm busy measuring the thermal loading from nuclear explosions.



Hahaha i knew you were working for the MIC

#13
meet me in st louis
Post rating: ~
how naive to think there's only military uses for nuclear explosives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_for_the_National_Economy

#14
[account deactivated]
#15
Kurdt
Post rating: ~
no war but class war
#16
Post rating: +

discipline posted:

Crow posted:
And like a phantom, perhaps one cannot strangle it, but drive it from the earth with the repetitive incantation and triumph of Truth.

so, How? and what is The Truth?



Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies - Ron Paul

#17
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: +
shoot all the peopel with glasses
#18
Post rating: +
i don't see too many groups in the west that can provide even the basics for their communities so i'm not sure who's going to be seizing the state or what that would let them do that they shouldn't already be working on as non-state actors. im also skeptical that its even possible to seize the existing state apparatus without basically immediately being compromised by the TCC and im not sure why you would want to expose yourself to that particularly in the absence of any kind of base of popular support or, again, material base of operations even moderately independent of capital
#19
Post rating: ~
dbl
#20
Post rating: +

discipline posted:

Crow posted:
And like a phantom, perhaps one cannot strangle it, but drive it from the earth with the repetitive incantation and triumph of Truth.

so, How? and what is The Truth?



probably 'the truth' is along the lines of love and brotherhood, eternal and thus fearless of death, in defensive opposition towards its self-destructive and selfish degradation (and thus eternally vigilant and self-critical).

this is all sort of contingent and really speculative, but i'm thinking:

lifting up the occupied, benighted nations of the world, which necessarily means national liberation and likely development of national industry so that no 'socialist' nation degenerates into a colonial power (best example: khrushchev's obnoxious advice for albania to only plant 'fruit trees and vineyards'). it means an intellectual, spiritual and political brotherhood on the basis of Love and the redemptive transformation of social relations (in the newton's terms of abrahamic redemption, "was blind but now i see").

so, for example, i can see the development of national industry towards a broadening of leisure time to be spent in regards of strengthening strained family and traditional relations. with leisure time, positionally an intellectual commons should be established. i'm thinking here the case of Chinese peasants and workers being encouraged to participate in philosophical debate. this is in opposition to a nakedly selfish pursuit of power and control.

so you leave the wicked alone unless you're acting in self-defense. in my opinion, that's really the sort of thing a true revolution (a revolution-becoming-truth) sets out to do, a defensive maneuver set in particular circumstances that is universalized in love.

so in my opinion, there's isnt some sort of dichotomous Good/Evil relation, but instead an explosive truth, with Good bearing fidelity to it, and Evil distancing itself from it (by manner of self-destructive practice). so, likewise, we do not need to necessarily 'confront' Evil as much as defend against it, confronting it within us, and the TCC fleeing a state seized by a mass movement can only mean one thing, a great, liberatory explosion of truth, warding off Evil. it's a bit like exorcism, you do not destroy the substance of evil, you liberate the subject from it by bearing truth, and thus the subject can realize itself in the glory of God (Truth).

That was fucking long

#21
Post rating: +
#22
Post rating: +

shennong posted:
i don't see too many groups in the west that can provide even the basics for their communities so i'm not sure who's going to be seizing the state or what that would let them do that they shouldn't already be working on as non-state actors. im also skeptical that its even possible to seize the existing state apparatus without basically immediately being compromised by the TCC and im not sure why you would want to expose yourself to that particularly in the absence of any kind of base of popular support or, again, material base of operations even moderately independent of capital



well, i think you definitely seize the state with a base of popular support. so its important to build a mass movement. and perhaps in a country like U.S.A., that means a sort of Occupy-inspired prolonged civil struggle and the genesis of a shadow state providing basic services and labor action (SOVIETS. SOVIETS). it may be a foregone conclusion that the TCC would compromise the state seized (or generated) by a mass movement, but that is not necessarily bad. it would probably ensure a state 'moderately independent of capital', or maybe a better way to put it is oppositional to capital, holding labor as hostage (like carrying out large-scale strikes, and may mean triggering security action, and the machinations of the war machine).

are we there yet? no, there ARE stirrings of a mass movement that's being built on civil disobedience. it's really important to establish a large base of public support though, which would mean immense discipline, fanatical pacifism (as far as early clashes with riot police), and plenty of martyrs. whatever

#23
tardy on these heaters
Post rating: -
(best example: khrushchev's obnoxious advice for albania to only plant 'fruit trees and vineyards')
#24
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: +
#25
Post rating: ~
im just not sure what the point of seizing the state is when the context is a state that's increasingly subsumed within the operation of the economic system you're trying to defeat and one that has declining legitimacy among the populace anyway
#26
Post rating: ~
arg
#27
Post rating: ~

The major problem I can see is that the citizenry believes that the government is still accountable to the people, that it remains an impartial mediator between capital and labor



Is this true? I mean, the American people have a lot of illusions about their government but I don't know how many people think of it in these sort of political economy terms rather than some abstract guff about "protecting my rights" which can mean anything to anybody.

#28
Post rating: ~
Vaguely related but this was a good read the other day

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n07/john-lanchester/marx-at-193
#29
Post rating: ~

shennong posted:
im just not sure what the point of seizing the state is when the context is a state that's increasingly subsumed within the operation of the economic system you're trying to defeat and one that has declining legitimacy among the populace anyway



That’s ok though because the free market can accommodate, defang and synthesize our desire for rebellion.

#30
Post rating: +

shennong posted:
im just not sure what the point of seizing the state is when the context is a state that's increasingly subsumed within the operation of the economic system you're trying to defeat and one that has declining legitimacy among the populace anyway



because you dont 'defeat' an economic system by fantasizing a completely different system or whatever and building your own New System factories and roads and infrastructure on those terms.

maybe you can have a parallel shadow state running services and its own security, kind of like in a protracted people's war, but ultimately they have to start seizing property (which will provoke security responses) or be subsumed into the normal functioning of the system.

the 'declining legitimacy among the populace' is centered around the deteriorating quality of service and the repressive security measures. that opens all kinds of possibilities

#31
Post rating: ~
"increasingly subsumed within the operation of the economic system you're trying to defeat"

What is this i dont even
#32
Post rating: ~
I've said it once, I'll say it against. Hot brands to gouge out eyes of infants, clipping of the thumbs, vocal chords to be snipped off like foreskins. Free man from the terror of labor, of exploitation, social exclusion, of the illusory visual world and it's temptations, the psychological hegemony of capitalist materialism. Only then can mankind truly be mentally and spiritually free.

Edited by EmanuelaBrolandi ()

#33
Post rating: +
you don't need to "seize" an existing state apparatus to make use of existing infrastructure or material relations of production though. i agree with you that the declining legitimacy of the state opens up possibilities, i just don't understand why the endgame is always supposed to be the establishment of a new 20th-century style state with a legal monopoly on force other than that's marxist orthodoxy.

bonclay's mali thread got me thinking about a thing that james scott said offhand in that talk i linked in the sovereignty/subsistence thread about how these hill tribe groups have set up these insurgencies now with state claims. and like the tuaregs in mali are doing this state building thing, and it's like this is the only model we have so let's do that. you don't need a state to fight a state, you don't need a state to run an economy or to provide services (see eg BF's islamic governance thread). but we're locked into this state-centric thinking at exactly the time when states are withering away and dying and the state-economic model of oil driven industrialism is literally killing us all. so why are we still talking about seizing states? to what end? what's the theory here?
#34
Post rating: ~

Crow posted:
"increasingly subsumed within the operation of the economic system you're trying to defeat"

What is this i dont even



as in the existing state apparatus is integrated into capitalist structures and not easily exciseable, so if we're talking about seizing and making use of existing bureaucratic and administrative structures, you end up with some fairly intractable problems particularly when your cadres are internet marxists who can barely get out of bed in the morning much less administer thousands of civil servants

#35
Mike Nelson here.
Post rating: +

shennong posted:
you don't need a state to fight a state, you don't need a state to run an economy or to provide services

but it sure helps!!!

#36
Post rating: ~
Apart from Multinationals and such, who doesn't need a state to "run an economy", i don't quite get this
#37
Post rating: ~

Ironicwarcriminal posted:
who doesn't need a state to "run an economy",



as noted, the entire premodern islamic world, as just one example. its not like economic activity requires a particular modern western legal structure to administrate it or it ceases

#38
Post rating: +

shennong posted:
you don't need to "seize" an existing state apparatus to make use of existing infrastructure or material relations of production though. i agree with you that the declining legitimacy of the state opens up possibilities, i just don't understand why the endgame is always supposed to be the establishment of a new 20th-century style state with a legal monopoly on force other than that's marxist orthodoxy.

bonclay's mali thread got me thinking about a thing that james scott said offhand in that talk i linked in the sovereignty/subsistence thread about how these hill tribe groups have set up these insurgencies now with state claims. and like the tuaregs in mali are doing this state building thing, and it's like this is the only model we have so let's do that. you don't need a state to fight a state, you don't need a state to run an economy or to provide services (see eg BF's islamic governance thread). but we're locked into this state-centric thinking at exactly the time when states are withering away and dying and the state-economic model of oil driven industrialism is literally killing us all. so why are we still talking about seizing states? to what end? what's the theory here?



states are not withering or dying, the people are withering and dying, the state is growing like some sort of ancient terror that will swallow us all up. thats my theory: ancient terror.

like where do you have 'states are withering away and dying'? i'm not really sure what theory YOU'RE using. the sort of ways that the state is growing is absolutely extraordinary, in terms of repression, violence and surveillance. its fascinating what sort of terms it dictates its universal terms, and theres many ways to approach it, but i cannot possibly see how you came to the conclusion that the 'state is withering or dying'. what kind of facts are these?

like, i really appreciate this sort of apocalyptic urgency and scope that you seem to be approaching here, but as far as i'm concerned, this does not reflect pragmatic reality. it's prone to utopian well-wishing, where you bring in line your own beliefs with the sort of future you imagine, but not to the world as it is. that's great, but how do you connect this to present conditions?

oil is an unknown variable, but that is what we're working with here, and it seems to me that you're 'closing the gap' of new technological flights which are always-obscuring. you run the very serious risk of overcompensating with some kind of rearguard maneuver, theorizing a retreat, which i'm not sure exactly is the proper response to the truly apocalyptic scope we're working with here.

you talked about something like 'reverting back to low energy flows', but to me it looks like we're asymptotically approaching a truly apocalyptic shock, something like the way global climate change is being forecast. those are the terms with which we are contending: world-ending monsters and rupturing planes of totality. seizing the state is just a pragmatic gesture, it's not a dogmatic formula, since orthodoxy is just another rupturing plane

#39
Post rating: ~

shennong posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:
who doesn't need a state to "run an economy",

as noted, the entire premodern islamic world, as just one example. its not like economic activity requires a particular modern western legal structure to administrate it or it ceases



Well ok but I thought you meant presently but I’m at a loss to see how a group of people in the present could run an economy without a State to guarantee processes and contracts and such.

Although I guess the black markets for drugs would go against that, but it's probably all overseen by States anyway in one way or another

#40
Post rating: ~

shennong posted:

Ironicwarcriminal posted:
who doesn't need a state to "run an economy",

as noted, the entire premodern islamic world, as just one example. its not like economic activity requires a particular modern western legal structure to administrate it or it ceases



so we're going to reroute our project towards the goal of realizing our historical understanding of the premodern islamic world? haha so are you waiting till the whole society collapses, total desertification, and the wicked people come blinking out into the light? how is this different than the natural progression of the mentally-ill internet marxists, banging their eating utensils and demanding their unprepared revolution?

Care to share your thoughts? Sign up for tHE r H i z z o n E and Post your heart out, baby!