How Retreating Empire Fuels Domestic Profit
How Retreating Empire Fuels Domestic Profit
The debate between globalism and isolationism is presented in ideological terms, but it's really about different strategies for wealth accumulation. Globalists exploit cheap labor and resources abroad while isolationists exploit state dependence on domestic monopolies. This explains the push to dismantle orgs like USAID and reduce foreign commitments in a calculated bid to redirect trillions in public funds toward privatized domestic infrastructure and supply chains.
Musk, in particular, is well positioned to take advantage of reindustrialization having already built an empire subsidized by public money. Companies like SpaceX, Tesla, and Boring Co. are designed to feast on state contracts, hence his desire to funnel money that's spent propping up allies and waging wars inward. The framing of empire maintenance as wasteful acts as rebranding for corporate welfare under the guise of national renewal. The goal is to ensure that public wealth flows directly into the ventures owned by Musk and his friends.
Just as Halliburton profited by rebuilding bombed infrastructure of Iraq, Musk's firms stand to gain from rebuilding America's decaying roads, energy grids, and aerospace dominance. Control of SpaceX which is becoming critical for Pentagon launches, and strategic infrastructure like Starlink grants Musk unprecedented power to dictate terms to the state, privatizing what was once public utility. The retreat from empire is just a pivot to a form of internal colonization, where foreign adventurism is replaced with domestic extraction. The result is as always, wealth flows upward and austerity downward.
this power to ditctate terms to the state and upwards wealth extraction seems a lot like the gilded age of the robber barons and part of me wonders if this would likewise serve as groundwork for the resurgence of another welfare state like the last time, with the roosevelts. (roosevelti? lol)
That's really the only way the system can save itself. It's worth noting that the New Deal was a direct result of militant labor action and the threat of an alternative system in USSR. We might see similar conditions with labor becoming increasingly organized now, and China rising showing that different ways of doing things are possible.
Filed under tentative/speculative/premature theory.
Speculating is half the fun. I do think there is a rational basis for what we're seeing though. It's easy to write off people like Trump and Musk as bumbling fools, but they're more cunning than people give them credit for.
I agree that it’s a mistake to just take them and their circles of peers/think tanks/sycophants/handlers/mandarins for fools.
Okay, but, without unequal exchange and dependency and superexploitation from the global empire they're only going to be able to extract profit from the domestic industry. Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, how could it make sense to retreat to a lower stage of capitalism and give up their superprofits? It still doesn't make sense to me.
Think about the rise of the oligarchs after the fall of USSR as an example. A few select people can become phenomenally rich in the process. Most people, including many oligarchs will absolutely get screwed in the process, but people driving these things will come out on top.
A few people can become phenomenally rich, for sure, but they still have to live somewhere. If they don't have superprofits to enrich the imperial core then where will they put all their stuff? Mars?
I don't think we can compare this with Russia either. They had no superprofits to give up, the rise of oligarchs was just the only way they could avoid being neocolonized while reentrenching capitalism during shock therapy. Russia never chose to move to a lower stage of capitalism, they started out at a lower stage of capitalism. This is kinda different.