The
imposition of tariffs on the part of the United States against imports from
China raises an important implication that thus far has not been remarked upon
by any of the myriad accounts and analyses, in disparate disciplines, that have
flooded this most salient Gordian knot of international relations. It is common
knowledge that most objective commentators recognize that the Chinese
Dictatorship (a) represents perhaps the greatest threat to our freedom in the
entirety of human history, and (b) that this threat arises from its
determination to devote the greatest proportion of the resources it has
available to the erection of an industrial-military complex by means of which,
(c) it can then lay claim to the violent appropriation of more external
resources either through economic duress or by outright usurpation.
Yet, when
it comes to proffering an explanation as to why the Chinese Dictatorship and
its Han Chinese populace are engaging in this overall plan of world domination,
the best that our analysts and pundits can offer is that the Chinese
Dictatorship has simply adapted an economic modus operandi that involves the
extreme intervention of State authorities in the conduct of economic policy and
trade. It is as if most analysts were viewing this type of “command economy”
or “state capitalism” as a purely contingent occurrence: - as a deliberate
choice, certainly, yet nevertheless as a “choice” or “policy” that is not and
cannot be attributed to and connected with any systemic aspect of the Chinese
Dictatorship. In other words, what we are arguing here is that the conduct
of Chinese economic policy, both domestic and international, is seen as
something that is not strictly and incontrovertibly and indissolubly connected
with the very essence of the Chinese Dictatorship in particular and, more
generally, with totalitarianism as a specific form of politico-economic
governance and social organization.
Put more
directly, the commentariat – bourgeois and left-wing – sees the behavior of the
Chinese Dictatorship, aided and abetted by the Han Chinese populace, as a purely
accidental aspect, an aberration, of its overall governmental practice
and orientation. The well-nigh universal, ubiquitous failure of this pervasive
and uncorrected analysis of Chinese economic policy and practice is, precisely,
that it is a purely contingent, accidental and even fortuitous and erroneous –
indeed, fortuitous because it is erroneous! - aspect of Chinese governmental
policy that is wholly detachable and detached – entirely separable – from the
intrinsic essence and nature of all totalitarian forms of government! What
follows from this fallacious and uncritical examination of the behavioural,
deontological aspects of Chinese government economic policy is that the
Economic is entirely separated – indeed, torn asunder – from the Political in
such a manner that the Western bourgeoisie can then easily brush aside and
excuse the overall strategy of the Chinese Dictatorship as the result of faulty
and erroneous economic policy wholly detachable, excisable and separate from
the political will of the Chinese Dictatorship and its Han Chinese populace!
At bottom,
for Western bourgeois economic theory, all trade must necessarily be “free” –
so that in effect the phrase “free trade” is a pleonasm. Because Western
bourgeois economic theory does not postulate the existence of
objectively-defined “wealth” – because wealth is defined entirely subjectively,
in terms of the individual self-interest of market participants – because of
this, it follows that so long as market participants trade “freely”, the market
mechanism will ensure that the wealth and welfare of participants all be
maximized or reach optimal levels. Hence, even in the case of a “market
participant” such as the Chinese Dictatorship and its People – who do not even
have a word for, let alone the concept of, “freedom” -, so long as they are
prepared to trade with other countries (that is, other market participants in
international trade), then it must follow that this trade must necessarily be
“free”! In this optic, not only must all trade necessarily be “free”, but also
it must follow that all trade must also necessarily maximize the wealth and
welfare (again, understood in the subjective sense of the necessarily
subjective choices of market participants) of these participants.
So herein
lies the fundamental contradiction or quandary of Western bourgeois economics:
for, given that all subjective choices must of necessity be presumed to be
“free” and, a fortiori, so must be all trade, then it follows inexorably that
it is impossible to lay down “objective” or “scientific” rules for the
operation of the market mechanism for the simple reason that such rules would
be either “exogenous” to market choices – in which case market choices could
not possibly be said to be “subjective” or “free”; or else market rules would
be “endogenous” to the market mechanism, in which case such a “mechanism” could
never be said to be objective let alone “scientific” in the first place!
Here, in
a nutshell, we can finally see the absurdity of a Western bourgeois economic
science that tells us to keep trading with the Chinese Dictatorship regardless
of its political system because the Economic (the market mechanism) is entirely
– scientifically - independent of the Political!
The reason
why Western politicians, business organisations and, last but not least,
economic analysts, keep viewing trade negotiations with the Chinese
Dictatorship as being a purely “scientific” exercise wholly distinct and
separate from the “internal”, “domestic” politics (here domestic and politics
are seen as one and the same thing) of the individual nation-states is due
entirely to this false separation of the Economic from the Political – to the
extent that “tariffs” are seen as a “political interference” with “free trade”
– but then, these eminent people never explain why, if tariffs are “political”
in nature, their negation, that is to say, their removal, is suddenly and
mysteriously not “political”!
Our central
contention here is that if we regard Politics and Economics not as separate
spheres but rather as different aspects of human socio-political organization,
then it will appear evident that a totalitarian political system such as the
one imposed by the Chinese Dictatorship in its national territories cannot fail
to determine the “economic” conduct of both itself and its population. Just as
it is silly if not absurd to ask a pig to fly, so it is equally idiotic and
absurd to expect that the Chinese Dictatorship - whose very essence and being
is to impose and extend its totalitarian control over its territories – could ever
reliably undertake to accept and pursue “free trade” with all the items of
conduct and institutional compromises that such an undertaking would entail! What
is abundantly evident is that the Western bourgeoisie and its acolyte
intelligentsia is steadfastly refusing to address the central theme and brutal
reality that we are seeking to evince and confront here – to wit, that it is in
the very essence and nature of totalitarianism to seek to engulf, pillage, devour
and finally annihilate not just all that lies outside its boundaries but also
what lies within its borders- - and indeed ultimately even its own people!
Simply put, you do not trade or negotiate with a cancer. You excise, remove and
then destroy cancerous cells. Any and all temporizing, dilatory and – God
forbid – conciliatory actions will only result in the death of all who deal and
trade with cancer. By failing to confront the essence and nature of
totalitarianism, by seeking to draw spurious lines between the Economic and the
Political the Western bourgeoisie is quite simply and for short term profit
digging its own grave prematurely.
Let us
elucidate further this, our central contention here. We start with the central
proposition that a totalitarian society is one in which no separation of powers
exists between (a) a monolithic government and (b) the underlying conflicting
interests of members of the society. It
is a common mistaken assumption on the part of Western bourgeois pundits to
view a totalitarian state as one in which the interests of government are
repressive of and in opposition to its social members. This view is both false and mistaken:
mistaken because the interests of a totalitarian government and its society may
well coincide; and above all it is false because in reality the interests of
totalitarian dictatorships are very frequently closely aligned with those of
its society or “people”! This is a historical reality that simply cannot be
gainsaid, and an error that must be corrected. The interests of a dictatorship
and its people may well coincide if the dictatorship is intent on a program of
rapacious annexation, appropriation and usurpation of the territories and
resources currently under the control of other societies. Not only is this
possible; but also it is a necessary element of all dictatorships that they
seek imperialistic expansion. This is so
for two reasons: first, to placate and distract its people through the violent
appropriation of external resources from the unavoidable conflicts still
existing in the society that threaten to undermine and topple the dictatorship;
and second because the creation of external enemies is vital to
the totalitarian suppression of all internal opposition to the
dictatorship!
It follows
from the foregoing analysis and premises that all totalitarian governments and
societies – almost by definition! – must seek to control all aspects of social
and economic life. – And that therefore totalitarian governments and societies
must seek to internalize or at least control all forms of social life and
activity that lie outside their immediate control – including and especially the
aspects of socio-economic life that go under the rubric of “international trade”!
Put simply, totalitarian governments and societies are by nature “closed” as
opposed to “open” – in the sense that they must imperatively and imperiously bring
under their “dictation” (read, dictatorship) all aspects of social life,
including “external” trade with other nation-states – until these nation-states
also are subjugated and brought under the direct dominion of the totalitarian dictatorship
(with the collusion and support of “its people”, of course).
The
overriding conclusion is that totalitarian governments and societies must by
nature be autarkic because they must subject all forms of social life –
including international trade! – to totalitarian control. Western bourgeoisies
and their parliamentary democratic institutions will live or succumb to
totalitarian threats in direct proportion with their awareness of this
fundamental politico-economic reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment