America’s Chance to Finish Off Globalism in Order to Survive

Once, a long time ago, at the very beginning of the noughties, I told my friend, financier/economist (by education) and even a bit of a banker (by profession), that in the coming years a crisis awaits the Western world that will make the collapse of the USSR look like a children’s game on the lawn. My friend did not agree with me, especially since our discussion was not practical (financial and economic), and not a worldview.

In particular, I justified the inevitability of the deepest crisis of the Western model of development (not to be confused with the general crisis of capitalism, which has not yet been observed) by referring to my extremely skeptical attitude towards the prospects of implementing the international choice of Ukraine, whose course on NATO and the EU was formalised long before Yushchenko. For both of us it was no secret that the Ukrainian authorities thought that joining Western civilisation meant access to unlimited external financing (within the framework of EU alignment programs). But in order to do this, it was necessary that the EU itself flourished. And for the EU to thrive, maintaining the dynamic development of the entire US-led Western system was critical. Since I had concluded that it was inevitable that the system would enter into a crisis, the next conclusion was self-evident. In the best case for itself, Ukraine would have time to jump into the last carriage of the outbound European train, but it turns out that it was a baggage carrier – it is not fed, there are no amenities, in general, no one will help. In the worse case for itself, Kiev, on its way to the EU, will have time to fight with all its economic partners, destroy its own economy, and then it will become clear that the great west, with all its attributes, including the EU, no longer exists, and there is nowhere to integrate and there is no-one to save Ukraine and its masters.

My friend, having the views of a completely pro-west liberal (at the same time, by the way, one of the most decent and pleasant in personal communication people whom I knew, not eager for power and wealth and caring about the people), could not imagine even in a terrible dream that the western system would disappear somewhere, especially since it will be incapacitated. As a highly professional financier, he listed the financial instruments available to the west to ensure growth and argued that it was an eternal engine.

He looked very convincing. Moreover, he was a professional in the main topic of our discussion, but he did not succeed in convincing me (like how I did not succeed in convincing him). I remained in my opinion because I was used to seeing any phenomenon, structure, society, as a system (war as a system; the state as a system; civilisation as a system). Any system has a limit to its competence (its capabilities). Even the infinite universe has a boundary beyond which something different begins – a different system. Moreover, all systems are finite in time and space. For most of them, the moment of their highest development is at the same time the beginning of a crisis, often transient.

In order to determine that the system has passed the highest point of development and is plunging into a crisis, it is necessary to understand what it aspires to do (the system’s purpose) and what mechanisms of achieving this purpose are available and being used. The western system operating since the beginning of the 1980s aimed to maximise the mobilisation of global resources to achieve victory over the USSR. After the achievement of victory over the USSR, the maximum mobilisation of the global resource became the end in itself — the system started to work for the benefit of a narrow circle of beneficiaries. The mechanism used by the system was simple and consisted of the development of new markets at the expense of credit money.

The following model worked in simplified form. The Federal Reserve, under the sale of US state securities to foreign governments, prints new dollars (at that time it was not about trillions, but tens of billions). These dollars are invested through banks and loans to industry for the development of new markets by American (and European, which received its share as an ally) capital. Income from operating new markets allows to cover the loan and to receive a profit. Then the next stage begins.

It is quite correct to note that by the time of the collapse of the USSR the west was on the verge of a super-crisis, since all the markets available to it had already been mastered. The system started to stall. If there are no free markets for development, money goes to the stock exchange and inflates financial bubbles, which, in fact, are signs of an approaching crisis. As soon as the latest bubble bursts, another crisis begins. If all bubbles burst at once, the system enters a super-crisis, from which there is no way out.

READ:  Ukraine After Poroshenko

But in the 80s the west nevertheless had a way out. It rested on the ability to integrate the USSR into the western model and developing the markets under its control. The west managed to achieve the collapse of the USSR and received access to the necessary resources. But these resources were also finite and was exhausted during the 90s. There were no more free markets on the planet that were not part of the global system. Therefore, already in the late 90s/beginning of the noughties the West entered an obvious crisis.

There was a choice, but it was between bad and worse. It was possible to recognise the exhaustion of the system’s capabilities and, while it is still strong enough, start creating a new one based on different principles, gradually pumping the resources of the dying one into it. It was possible to be engaged in cannibalism within the system – the redistribution in their own favour of already distributed markets. In the latter case, theoretically, the most powerful state in the system (USA) had to redistribute the resources in its own favour, gradually ditching other countries in the crisis hole. Ideally, the USA was supposed to be the last island of stability in deeply crisis-ridden world and receive the best starting conditions at the beginning of the new system’s creation. No wonder Washington chose the latter option.

The American elite, in its self-confidence, did not take into account one simple but essential thing — never, neither in war, nor in politics, nor in life, plans are implemented in the form in which they were created. From the very first day of their embodiment they face unexpected phenomena (which simply could not have been foreseen): the resistance of opponents (which suddenly turns out to be more serious than expected), sabotage of allies (who have their own interests), etc. Plans are necessarily adjusted in the course of events, sometimes up to their own inversion. As a result, for example, World War I was lost by both the coalitions that started it (each of which had their own plans), and the US won, which simply took advantage of the favourable situation and entered the war when the result had already been determined.

In order to implement their plan to eat the system from the inside (we will call it “Clinton-Obama’s plan”, “Democrats’ plan” or “Globalists’ plan”) the US needed to change some rules of the game within the system. The rules for building a modern global world were written by Washington in the middle of the 19th century. Back then, America, late to the colonial partition of the world, proclaimed an “open door policy” or “free trade”.

Externally everything looked fair and attractive. The US insisted on the equality of all nations in global trade. It is necessary to remember that at that time the metropolises had exclusive rights to trade with their own colonies. The Americans insisted that only competitive advantages should decide whose product will be in demand in a particular market.

This rule completely suited the US, as long as they were the “workshop of the world” and were able not only to produce the entire range of industrial goods, but also to sell them at competitive prices. However, in the course of globalisation industrial production gradually left the territory of the US, having gone to other jurisdictions. This was not a problem as long as the US had the global financial hegemony achieved after World War II (the dollar was the world’s sole reserve currency and the currency of global trade). In the conditions of dollar domination, it was possible to talk as much as one wanted about the “new economy” based on high technology and the service sector, about the “new economic structure” that did not require its own industrial production to flourish. At that moment in time, the facts supported the theory.

But with the exhaustion of free markets, the possibility of printing an unlimited amount of dollars for the needs of developing these markets has also been exhausted. The “free trade” rule started to work against the US. Forced to import an increasing number of goods (which it exported just earlier), America faced a growing foreign trade deficit, as well as an exponentially growing budget deficit. In order to implement the policy of systemic cannibalism, the US needed to end the “open door policy” in order to free up resources for a new global policy.

READ:  Ukraine After Poroshenko

Throughout the century all international structures – political (the UN, OSCE, etc), financial (the IMF, the EBRD, and others), economic (WTO), judicial (various international courts), etc. – were created (at least in theory) to serve the world of “free trade”. Of course, the limitations of this principle have often been met before. But they were considered to be exceptions (restrictions on trade with the USSR were motivated by the ideological contradictions of two opposing systems). No one questioned the rule itself.

Since the beginning of the noughties, the US has moved along two parallel lines. It tried to, on the one hand, establish its domination in international organisations and, on the another hand, started to discredit and dismantle those organisations that could not be put under control. From the point of view of the system, American actions resembled an attempt to lighten the weight of a tank (to increase its manoeuvrability) and to deprive it of armour, weapons, and then an engine. All of this can be done, but the tank then ceases to be a tank and does not become a racing car, turning into a pile of useless parts.

Any system includes a fine-tuning mechanism. When you change one parameter, all the others must change, and this happens regardless of the will of the changer. As a result, trying to adjust the system to its new requirements, the US destroyed the basic foundations of its hegemony. It was based not only and not so much on the military, economic, and financial superiority of Washington, but on the world’s acceptance of the proposed rules and mutual obligations. As the basic foundations of the system were dismantled in the interests of the US, the number of dissatisfied people grew, resistance grew (in recent years, even their closest NATO allies are increasingly objecting to American plans), and those unable to openly resist started quiet sabotage. It turned out that US control over the world is disappearing faster than the conditions are created for eating the weaker parts of the system.

It was no coincidence that Trump appeared at this moment. It could’ve been someone else, but a party expressing the interests of the national American producer, operating with the slogan “make America great again”, could not but appear.

If to put aside the fight of US industrial-financial capital for a shrinking resource, the difference in their vision of foreign policy is that according to the Clinton-Obama plan, the globalist system should have been formally preserved until the US devoured its last ally. No one was supposed to stop the hegemon from eating the system from the inside. Trumpists, noting the failure of the globalist plan, demand to formalise the abandonment of the “open door policy”, “free trade”, and all institutions that regulate this system, moving to a selfish protectionist policy. In fact, Trump is trying to jump out of the dilapidated global system before the others do. His plan is to gain an advantage not by leaving America as the last stronghold of a dying system, but by dumping the system on the rest of the world. While Russia, China, the EU, and others will try to somehow preserve the old rules, spending huge resources on this, the US is supposed to receive an advantage in a game without rules.

It is an adventurous game. America is not able any more to recover from the current crisis without huge expenses. Moreover, it does not have the necessary superiority to redistribute in their favour global resources in order to mitigate the crisis phenomena on its own territory. The bet is that, in an attempt to preserve the collapsing system, the US’ potential competitors (all together, not just one) will overdo it, pumping scarce resources into the black hole of the crisis, where these resources will disappear without bringing fruits. Against this background, there should be contradictions between them, which Washington is ready to stimulate and even provoke. The US is now similar to Hitler at the end of the April 1945, hoping for a clash between allies (which will never happen) and waiting for the army of Wenck (which will never come).

The US is trying to repeat the situation of both World Wars in new conditions. Washington needs to get out of the fight, provoking a tough confrontation between the other global players. Even without a hot war, the trade, economic, and financial conflict between the main opponents of the US is supposed to weaken all of them. If the US stands on the sidelines of this conflict, it will try, like it did 100 years ago, to profit from dosed cooperation with all the parties, choosing the right time for active intervention on the side of the exhausted winner, in order to regain its leading position in the “beautiful new world”.

Today’s American riots are not a fight between the racially oppressed and their oppressors or a social conflict. This is a confrontation between American financial capital, which is trying to remain the last fragment of a dying system in the framework of the Clinton-Obama concept, and American industrial capital, which is trying to jump onto the first boat that leaves the sinking ship, while the others are still fighting to keep it afloat. The brutality and scale of these riots is an indicator of how deep the contradictions are and how impossible it is to compromise between the two factions of the divided American elite. In fact, both groups entered the first stage of a hot civil war, hoping to win with “little bloodshed”. They demonstrate to each other their readiness to unconstitutionally solve the internal political conflict, trying to force the opponent to capitulate without a serious struggle under the threat of destroying the US.

READ:  Ukraine After Poroshenko

The danger of this situation for the whole world is not only and not just that the US is sitting on a huge nuclear arsenal, which tomorrow may be in God knows who’s hands and used in a way God only knows. What is more dangerous is that the current global system has actually permeated the entire world. Its beneficiaries are in any state and in any international organisation. Most of them are so intertwined with the system, their personal well-being depends so much on the prolongation of its existence, they are so ideologically inseparable from it that they do not think of their own existence and that of humanity outside the framework of this system.

As the example of the US shows, the beneficiaries of the dying system are ready for any level of confrontation, for the sake of preserving their position. At the moment of a systemic crisis civilisation has increased fragility in all its points without exception. Anything can become a reason for the explosion of an irreconcilable standoff and a descent into chaos. At the same time, globalist elites around the world are oriented towards the US as the centre of the system and can mobilise at any time with the goal of chaotisising the global space via the American globalists (even in the interests of the American domestic political fight).

The most important thing is that no matter which side wins the intra-American conflict, little will change for the rest of the world. The US government, consolidated on any basis, will seek to chaoticise and embroil the entire world in conflict so that it can gain time and room for manoeuvre in order to restore its global position.

The longer, more persistent, and more bloody the civil war in the US, the more likely the rest of the world is to survive and make a peaceful transition from system to system. In fact, the modern world is interested in overturning the situation of both World Wars in the US. Now it is not for Washington to enjoy peace while the world is at war, but for the world to gain time for its own reorganisation while the Americans are engaged in an internal war.

Unfortunately, none of the national elites are yet to declare such an aim. Moreover, there is no unity of the world outside the US in understanding how necessary a common policy is today in relation to America, which has already opposed itself to the rest of the world and at the same time started a civil war on its territory. If we don’t localise the American conflict in America, they will spread it to the whole world. Then we will face the first global civil war, in which globalists will fight against conservatives, both in the world as a whole and in each country individually.

Global civil war is the worst version of World War III. Therefore, it cannot be allowed to leave its American den for operational space.

Rostislav Ishchenko

Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.