Eloquent silences. The left and the imperial elections
We reproduce the following article written by our partnerLuis Meiners and originally published inTempest as a contribution to the debates on tactics and strategy of the left in the face of the US elections.
As the presidential elections approach, issues of electoral strategy and tactics have dominated debates within the American left. A review of the arguments developed by those socialists who call to vote for Biden shows that the majority revolve around the exceptional character of this choice and I know focus on the threat of Trump's authoritarian drive, with marginal references to the theme of US imperialism.
There are three tactics common to most of these arguments circulating, used to address the question of the role of the United States as the dominant imperial and military power. Often, the question of US imperialism and the management of the imperial state is simply left out of the equation entirely. Alternatively, it appears simply as a reference to passing in the middle of the classic arguments in favor of the lesser evil. The third tactic, which is addressed at the end of this article, seeks to mitigate Biden's indisputable "evil" by placing him on the side of democracy against authoritarianism.
In the first and most common approach, the issue of imperialism is not addressed at all and, it is, Thus, a total absence. An example of this is the opinion article of the editor ofNation, Katrina vanden Heuvel, last week in theWashington Post. Nation also published an article signed by dozens of former members ofStudents for a democratic society mid-decade 1960, who was equally silent. In the same line, the former radical of the "New Communist Movement"Max Elbaum barely broaches the subject, except to assuage concerns based on an unsubstantiated claim that there is a "turn" to the left on foreign policy issues. And beyond a passing reference to Trump's nuclear policy, a letter on ZNet signed by "55 Radicals" asking to vote for Biden and then fight Biden, does not contain an assessment of the role of US imperialism in the world. Of the current generation of the «new new left», a more indirect letter in support of the vote for Biden fromcurrent members of the DSA leadership remain equally silent.
The second tactic involves a passing recognition of Biden's "badness.", including his complicity in the administration of the American empire, but it takes very little account of the issue in the overall balance. In this sense, the editor ofNew Politics, And LaBotz, explaining why you signed the ZNet letter, acknowledges that Biden is "disgusting" and that the Democratic Party remains an "imperialist party", but it does little to address what it means for the left and its anti-imperialist and anti-war perspectives, support this candidate and this party.Stephen Shalom YBarbara Ransbymake similar explicit calls to choose the lesser evil in their respective articles, but with the same omissions.
The empire in their minds
The relative absence of this aspect of the discussion on the socialist left contrasts with the acute awareness of the ruling class about the importance of this issue.. A recent example is the editorial of theNew York Times titled«End Our National Crisis» (End our national crisis). This establishment spokesman presents a clear case of why he considers Trump as "a man unworthy of the position he occupies": "Trump's ruinous term has already seriously damaged America at home and around the world ... We have criticized his vandalism of the postwar consensus, a system of alliances and relationships around the world that took many lives to establish and maintain «.
Biden addressed this very issue in his acceptance speech on the closing night of the Democratic Party convention.. In the same line, more of 70 Senior Homeland Security officials published apaper in which they expressed their concern for "the security of the nation and its position in the world under the leadership of Donald Trump" and expressed their conviction that "Joe Biden has the character, the experience and temperament to lead this nation. We believe it will restore the dignity of the presidency, will unite americans, will reaffirm America's role as a world leader and inspire our nation to live up to its ideals. ”This statement has now been signed by others 60 senior officials, they all served under Republican administrations.
The growing crisis of the neoliberal world order and the context of growing inter-imperialist rivalries provide the backdrop for establishment concerns.. The question of US imperialism and its strategic orientation should have at least the same weight in the concerns of the US left that it obviously has for the ruling class.. In fact, Much of the growing support that Biden has garnered from both Wall Street and the state apparatus is related to precisely this question.. The politics of imperial restoration are at stake.
From the unipolar world to inter-imperialist tensions
A quick review of the dynamics of US imperialism in recent decades illustrates the challenges of the present moment. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the post-WWII world order collapsed. US imperialism sought to reorganize the world system to establish a new basis for its hegemony. This meant both acting as a global gendarme and incorporating the states into the international framework of institutions and trade agreements that had been built for that purpose.. Thus arose the "Washington consensus", a strategy to which both capitalist parties in the United States were fully committed.
Events would prove that a unipolar new world order was not easy to establish or maintain.. The collapse of the postwar world order meant that US imperialism was left alone at the forefront of efforts to control and resolve the conflicts and contradictions that arose.. Despite attempts to rehabilitate a "humanitarian" imperialism in Iraq, in 1992, and the Balkans throughout the decade, there was an increase in class struggle with mass movements against neoliberal globalization and the institutions of American hegemony from Seattle to Genoa. At the end of the decade of 1990 and early 2000 a series of rebellions in Latin America rocked several US-backed governments, and hit the imperial project of hegemony in the region that the United States held decades ago.
Bajo George W.. Bush, US imperialism tried to consolidate its hegemony by strengthening control over the Middle East. The strategy envisioned rapid wars and regime changes in Afghanistan and Iraq., taking advantage of the opportunity after 11 September to justify more militarism. These, at the same time, serve as a platform for greater control over the region and its strategic resources. This offensive in the Middle East led to almost two decades of seemingly endless wars and the weakening of the geopolitical position of the United States..
But the main change in the global playing field would come fromChina's rise to a global and imperial power. In fact, the China question figured prominently in the motivations of theBush government to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. As the United States faced increasing difficulties in the first decade of the millennium, accentuated by the crisis of 2008, China advanced and consolidated its international position, becoming the main trading partner for much of the world and an increasingly important source of foreign direct investment. The "Silk Road" initiative is the most ambitious example of China's new role in the world economy.
China's development towards a major capitalist economy and imperialist power is not without contradictions. While its huge trade surplus has allowed it to accumulate massive reserves, faces structural problems of over-accumulation and over-production that a depressed and pandemic world economy will only accentuate. The underlying contradictions of its economy fuel the need for its expansion abroad. This has set in motion the dynamics of the inter-imperialist conflict on a global scale..
Obama's "turn to Asia" was a response to this situation. It involved shifting both diplomatic focus and military resources toward the effort to isolate and contain the emerging imperialist rival.. Nevertheless, this change was not achieved successfully.
Trump's "illiberal hegemony"
This was the context in which Trump came to power, based in part on his open challenges to the bipartisan consensus on the use of US military power abroad and promising to "drain the swamp" of the establishment. Throughout your presidency, there have been several moments of open collision with the establishment on foreign policy: controversies over the withdrawal of troops from Syria, on the relationship with NATO, the resignation of James Mattis as Secretary of Defense, among others. Trump's unilateralism and the undermining of the traditional alliance system, exemplified in its withdrawal from multilateral trade and environment agreements, have come under scrutiny from both Democrats and Republicans. He has also been criticized for his focus on Russia and China.. The first led to an investigation by the Special Prosecutor into Russian influence in the elections of 2016 and was part of the arguments presented by the Democrats during the impeachment attempt that began in 2019.
Trump's Seemingly Erratic Behavior Has Been Considered a Threat to America's Interests. But there is an underlying logic behind his style that is related to the challenges posed by the crisis of US imperialism and the rise of China as a major competitor on a global scale.. That is why there is a break and continuity with previous administrations in terms of foreign policy.. Trump has moved from containment to a more open confrontation when dealing with China, as evidenced by the replacement of the Trans-Pacific Treaty by a trade war.
Trump's attempt to secure US imperialist interests has been described as "Anti-liberal hegemony". Despite his isolationist rhetoric, Trump has continued to pursue the global interests of American capital, although in a way that partially departs from the established consensus. Until a certain point, has presented a cruder version of US imperialism, stripped of ideological decoration.
Trump's more aggressive and unilateral approach alienated traditional allies. In doing so, has effectively weakened the international position of the United States. Hence the anxiety of the ruling class and the state apparatus. His growing support for Biden shows that there is a consensus that a return to a more "multilateral" approach, covered under a democratic flag, it is a more effective way of promoting US imperialist interests in the current world situation.
"Rebuilding the Instruments of American Power"
The events described in this brief overview of the past decades were already significant enough to arouse the anxiety of the American ruling class., but then came the COVID-19. The lack of a coordinated response to the pandemic, attacks on the World Health Organization (WHO) and state and local governments fighting for critical medical supplies, they are testimony to the profound crisis of the world order led by the United States. The "Greatest Election in American History" narrative must be read in the context of this situation to fully understand its significance..
Echoing this sentiment, Biden vows to restore America's leadership in the world. It is fully in tune with the concerns expressed by the National Security apparatus. Against the unilateral "America first" approach, expresses the need for the United States to regain its position with its traditional allies to form a solid foundation to "get tough" with new and old rivals on the world stage.
Su campaña refleja claramente tanto el entendimiento de que Estados Unidos debe enfrentar un mundo de mayor inestabilidad y competencia interimperialista como la conciencia de que su relativa debilidad significa que no puede hacerlo solo. Esto se traduce en fortalecer el sistema de alianzas que Trump ha minado. Inun artículo published inForeign Affairs, Biden afirma:
La agenda de política exterior de Biden volverá a colocar a Estados Unidos a la cabeza de la mesa, en condiciones de trabajar con sus aliados y socios para movilizar la acción colectiva sobre las amenazas globales. El mundo no se organiza a sí mismo. During 70 years, U.S, bajo presidentes demócratas y republicanos, desempeñó un papel de liderazgo en la redacción de las reglas, la creación de acuerdos y en darle vida a las instituciones que guían las relaciones entre las naciones y promueven la seguridad y la prosperidad colectivas, hasta Trump. Si continuamos renunciando a esa responsabilidad, entonces sucederá una de dos cosas: o alguien más tomará el lugar de Estados Unidos, pero no de una manera que promueva nuestros intereses y valores, o nadie lo hará, y se producirá el caos.
Frente a la creciente competencia con China, Biden representa los intereses de la clase dominante estadounidense y su estado. En el intento de hacerlo de una manera que logre apoyo tanto en el país como en el extranjero, el candidato del Partido Demócrata habla el lenguaje de la lucha contra el autoritarismo. En un vocabulario que recuerda a la Guerra Fría y la Segunda Guerra Mundial, habla de la necesidad de construir una coalición en defensa de la democracia, explicando enForeign Affairs:
China representa un desafío especial … China está jugando a largo plazo extendiendo su alcance global, promoviendo su propio modelo político e invirtiendo en las tecnologías del futuro…La forma más efectiva de enfrentar ese desafío es construir un frente unido de aliados y socios estadounidenses para enfrentar los comportamientos abusivos y las violaciones de derechos humanos de China.
Uno de los elementos principales de su plataforma es el llamado a una “cumbre por la democracia”, que busca reunir a los principales actores internacionales bajo el liderazgo de Estados Unidos detrás de la bandera de la democracia.
Combatiendo el fuego con combustible
Que esta agenda presentada por Biden y el Partido Demócrata coincida con las preocupaciones y la retórica de la clase dominante estadounidense y el aparato estatal no es sorprendente. Lo sorprendente es que un sector de la izquierda está enmarcando las elecciones en términos similares. El tema recurrente de votar a Biden para detener el autoritarismo, el fascismo o un golpe de estado, es utilizado tanto por el establishment como por parte de la izquierda. Hasta qué punto esto es un callejón sin salida se ha abordado en otras contribuciones a este debate.
Un reciente artículo de Neal Meyer y Eric Blanc lleva el argumento un paso más allá mediante su proyección en una escala mundial:
Los Socialistas en los Estados Unidos debemos reconocer nuestras responsabilidades internacionales. Como internacionalistas, tenemos el deber de contribuir a la derrota de un presidente que ha envalentonado a la extrema derecha en todo el mundo … Una derrota devastadora para Donald Trump en noviembre será una contribución significativa para cambiar esa dinámica internacional.
Este argumento acepta como propia la idea de que votar por Biden contribuirá a detener a la extrema derecha tanto dentro de los EE. THE. como a nivel mundial. In doing so, no aborda los procesos sociales y políticos subyacentes que han llevado a una mayor polarización y que han abierto la puerta para que la extrema derecha se convierta en una presencia estable en el escenario política internacional. Las condiciones que permitieron que la extrema derecha se envalentone están indisolublemente vinculadas a las políticas que personas como Biden han impulsado en las últimas décadas. En el mejor de los casos, una presidencia de Biden contribuiría a reproducir esas condiciones. Postular que una dinámica profundamente arraigada en la crisis del modelo imperante de acumulación de capital y su representación política puede cambiarse votando a Trump es, in the best case, una ilusión. Proponer combatir a la extrema derecha votando por Biden es como intentar combatir el fuego con combustible.
Existe un peligro adicional al aceptar la idea de que votar por Biden puede contribuir de alguna manera a hacer retroceder a la extrema derecha a nivel internacional. Se acerca peligrosamente a los argumentos esgrimidos por el Partido Demócrata para enmarcar su enfoque de política exterior, what, como hemos descrito, gira en torno a la defensa de la democracia.
Finally, y de manera relacionada, Blanc y Meyer están también entreteniendo ilusiones si creen que la restauración de la presidencia de Joe Biden es de alguna manera un beneficio automático para los muchos frentes de la lucha antiimperialista en todo el mundo. Hay una razón por la quelos generales and theaparato de seguridad nacional se están uniendo en torno al ex presidente y en tres ocasiones líder del Comité de Relaciones Exteriores del Senado.
Las elecciones y después
La actual situación internacional hunde sus raíces en una profunda crisis del capitalismo. La crisis del orden mundial neoliberal es una expresión de esto. Ha transcurrido más de una década desde 2008. In her, hemos visto una mayor polarización y radicalización. La pandemia acelerará estas tendencias. Las guerras regionales y las rivalidades interimperialistas cada vez más abiertas serán una característica clara del período venidero. Las rebeliones probablemente sacudirán incluso las regiones más estables del mundo.
La clase dominante estadounidense está elaborando estrategias para responder mejor a esto, ya que enfrenta contradicciones estructurales arraigadas en la dinámica tanto de la economía mundial como de su propia acumulación capitalista. Como Ashley Smithha señalado:
Estados Unidos está atrapado en una contradicción estratégica. Ha sufrido un declive geopolítico relativo dentro del orden neoliberal de la globalización y el libre comercio. También ha sufrido un declive económico relativo … Pero el capital estadounidense sigue integrado al sistema mundial y comprometido con la globalización del libre comercio. Thus, el estado estadounidense no puede continuar con la globalización como de costumbre, ni optar por salirse hacia el proteccionismo como parece preferir la administración Trump.
Los debates en la izquierda estadounidense con respecto a las elecciones y más allá deben abordar esta realidad. Un imperialismo estadounidense en declive, un competidor global en ascenso como China y un mundo en creciente agitación, todos apuntan en la dirección de una postura cada vez más agresiva. No es una coincidencia que los debates electorales en torno a la política exterior hayan girado esencialmente en torno a quién puede ser más duro con China.
Al rechazar el proyecto de derecha de Trump, la izquierda no puede simplemente dejar fuera de su análisis lo que el establishment dice abiertamente: Biden expresa un proyecto político que entrelaza democracia burguesa y restauración imperial. Y al hacerlo, representa de manera más efectiva los intereses de la clase dominante en la coyuntura actual, devolviendo el barniz “liberal” a la hegemonía imperialista para salvarla. El internacionalismo debe basarse en una política antiimperialista clara, más urgentemente en el corazón del imperio. La izquierda socialista debe reconocer y argumentar que, como la historia ha demostrado una y otra vez, los males menores nunca han sido garantía de un imperio menos virulento y peligroso.
