Nèdeem Elmahjoub's blog

“We must understand this ‘age of rearmament’ within a geopolitical and geo-economic struggle in global disorder. Decades of economic stagnation make global competition increasingly violent, and zero-sum struggles are on the rise. Each regional bloc tries to maintain its position in the world market at the expense of other countries. This translates into new trade wars and new territorial divisions. And then there is a long list of free trade agreements to secure the supply of raw materials, massive investments in fossil energy infrastructure and migration agreements that reinforce necropolitics. The cannons should not stop us seeing the wood for the trees .” Related Nato's imperialism strategic concept Hypocrisy and savagery End of innocence

Sean Starrs’s key points : The global nature of US-led capitalism since 1945, and especially since the 1990s, means that some states can extract vast resources from others. GDP tells us where the world’s production of goods and services is geographically concentrated, but in the age of globalization, it does not tell us who owns and therefore profits from it. Global profit share is a more appropriate measure of national economic power, as it encompasses the global profits stemming from production and finance owned abroad, not just within the home territory. The global dominance of Wall Street (financial services in figure two), for example, helps to ensure that the US dollar remains the de facto world currency. The dominance of American tech firms helps to ensure the continued supremacy of the US military, while the dominance of American media helps to ensure that the US state can shape the ideological narrative (including support for US capitalism and imperialism). The United States c...

A must read Unlike classical imperialism, write Costas Lapavitsas  the driving force of contemporary imperialism  “springs from this pairing of internationalized industrial with internationalized financial capital. Neither dominates the other and there is no fundamental clash between them. Jointly they comprise the most aggressive form of capital known to history.” And  this pairing of capitals  “thrives on unfettered access to global natural resources, cheap labor power, low taxation, loose environmental standards, and markets for its industrial, commercial, and financial components. The United States will obviously not submit to the challenge and draws on its vast military, political, and monetary power to protect its hegemony. That makes it the main threat to world peace.”  It implies there is now a world peace that is under threat. I don’t think there is world peace. “The socialist left must oppose imperialism, while recognizing that the United States is the...

A must read Unlike classical imperialism, write Costas Lapavitsas   the driving force of contemporary imperialism   “springs from this pairing of internationalized industrial with internationalized financial capital. Neither dominates the other and there is no fundamental clash between them. Jointly they comprise the most aggressive form of capital known to history.” And   this pairing of capitals  “thrives on unfettered access to global natural resources, cheap labor power, low taxation, loose environmental standards, and markets for its industrial, commercial, and financial components. The United States will obviously not submit to the challenge and draws on its vast military, political, and monetary power to protect its hegemony. That makes it the main threat to world peace. The socialist left must oppose imperialism, while recognizing that the United States is the main aggressor. But that ought to be done from an independent position that is openly anti-capitalis...

“As multi-polarity grows, there are some who see this as a new stage of non-alignment, and even the creation of an anti-imperialist bloc. But the economic and political elites of the Global South are too deeply tied to transnational capitalism to be truly independent. Instead,  multi-polarity is a struggle within global capitalism  for a larger share of markets, profits and political power.”

‘ The decaying American empire ’ argument is disputable. The comparison with the collapse of the Soviet Union misses the different economic structures of the two countries. The US economic power has not been experiencing a long term stagnation, for example.  Actually, the argument should be the way around: in 1980s there was no ‘whip of external necessity’ compelling the US to outcompete the Soviet Union. The latter was not an economic threat to the US. Today China is the ‘external whip’ but to an already more powerful American economy – a dynamic one in terms of capital-intensive industries, productivity and an array of industrially-advanced allies and subordinates.

“The issue with Iranian capitalism is not economic; it is political, ideological, and governmental .”  You cannot separate the economy from the other three or make secondsry: They are all in the same bundle and in interaction. 

The West courts Central Asia

The Tightly Packed Contradictions of Global Capitalism

“It’s no secret that Biden’s push for a Saudi deal is largely about escalating its proxy war against Iran and “great power competition” with China .”

A very good article Capital’s Emirates

It is not a radical analysis, but it  is an important development/attempt to maintain American hegemony, supremacy over China and stability at home .

A very interesting article.  Some language is very inaccurate though: “Israel-Palestine confrontation.” (?) Available in English, Français and فارسي

“ The threat of violence and instability impels the Chinese state to absorb and resolve disputes through legal and bureaucratic channels in which the state has a monopoly on decision-making and space for interest representation. The criminalisation of yinao reflects such state efforts to maintain social stability. However, the adverse impact of this criminalisation [...] suggests that the inability of formal institutions (for example, laws, courts, dispute mediation commissions) to resolve disputes could give rise to more social unrest.”

The junta belt Image via  Colonel Assima Goita  on X.

Some good arguments. I see the absence of the American political economy in shaping its imperialism. Hinting to China and ‘normalisation’ with Israel does not allow us to delve into the structural, but we remain in the strategical. For example, what is the purpose of the U.S.’s drive to stabilise the region through pushing for ‘normalisation’? After all, ‘stability’ in the Middle East has been a Western aim for decades. The support of authoritarian regimes has been one of the mechanisms used. When one mentions hegemony, what does this hegemony consist of? American military, the wars, the massive sales of weapons, its NATO-led interventions, its ‘culture’ etc. what are they for? The unravelling of the U.S. position in the Middle East Palestinians transport the injured to the Indonesian Hospital in Jabalia, north of the Gaza Strip on October 9, 2023. Via meer.com

“It is fair to assume that the different fractions of the ruling class in a country sometimes have diverging, even opposing interests. But if the country is the empire that dominates the world, on one point at least the ruling classes will agree: they do not want to see the basis of their power (i.e., the nation-empire) weakened. Those who have power intend, at a minimum, to maintain it, if not consolidate or expand it. So it is reasonable to infer that the conflicting interests between the various fractions manifest themselves in different strategies for ruling the world, in different conceptions of empire. “ Despite all his bombastic proclamations, Trump has not started any wars. Under Biden we are already on the second.” Elective affinities

A geopolitical summary and ‘forecasts’ “Rather than transforming the Middle East … the war may leave intact the ‘security architecture’ built by Trump and Biden. Yet the instability of this edifice has been proven. It would only be a matter of time before it buckles once again.” The US and the war on Gaza Illustrasjon: Knut Løvås, knutlvas@gmail.com

"We need to keep quiet on the whole issue of strategic ambiguity, while arming Taiwan to the teeth."

I don’t expect from Andrew Harding and the BBC’s international editor to add a bit of historical context, mainly the working of political economy of the 200 years that emerged in Western Europe then imposed on the rest of the world.  “ After all, Western nations have, for decades, devoted significant energy and cash towards supporting health services, businesses and governments across the continent.”  Putting aside the difference between nation and state and who really did what they did in particular contexts and conjunctures, the obvious is that why then Africa is still in a dire situation. The explanation, people like Harding would like us to put forward, is the same we have heard hundreds of times before: ‘It is their fault, those Africans’, ‘it is in their culture’, ‘they don’t know how to implement the right capitalism’… Harding would be more satisfied if he added NGOs, ‘aid’, ‘free market’, ‘human rights’, etc. Note also how in the title both China and Russia already hav...