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.
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.
I imagine they just plan to have their own fiefdoms like in medieval times. The super rich won't be personally affected by any of this. Look at places like Brazil today, the US could end up looking something like that. You'll have like 20% of the population that lives well and then the rest of the country lives in favelas.
It's not a direct comparison with Russia, but again consider how this will play out. There's going to be mass unemployment which will drive down the cost of labor down. Musk and the rest of the people involved will also get effectively unlimited subsidies from the government for future development projects. That's how I see things playing out.
The people who are going to be losers here are those who invested into ventures that relied on the US being able to project imperial power around the world. But that ability is already waning as we speak, and smarter oligarchs can see the writing on the wall.
Brazil is able to look like that today because of US imperial meddling. Without USAID and dollar dominance and dependency and compradores, can they even sustain their stratified society?
Musk and the rest can get effectively unlimited subsidies, but if US$ loses value because it loses its position as the world's reserve currency then what's even the point of being the world's first trillionaire? If the US can't project imperial power it can't pit the working class against itself by paying a portion of it to help oppress the other portion, how will the maintain labor control if the AFL-CIA stops cooperating because it lost its imperial backing? There's just so many holes in this, how can they think it'll work?
The only way this makes sense is if they truly believe they can go live in a new super-imperial core on Mars and turn the entire Earth into a neocolony.
The thing is that the ability of the US to project imperial power is disappearing regardless what the US does now. This started with the rise of China as a manufacturing superpower, leading to new economic alliances like BRICS and BRI. This process cannot be reversed. That's the context for all this. Given that, the oligarchs in US have to adjust to this new reality. If they're unable to do exploitation around the globe as they did before, then they have to make the best of new realities.
The US is a very big country, it has lots of labor and resources, certainly more than enough to keep a handful of oligarchs comfortable. They don't need to go live on a colony on Mars.
It has lots of labor and that's what's so dangerous about this for their interests! Without using superprofits to pay off the labor aristocracy and buy off compradores in the periphery, they're setting themselves up for disaster.
I'm starting to think they actually believe they can replace us with AI and go live in Elysium on Mars. At the very least Musk and the people in his orbit do.
I definitely do think they have dreams of AI replacing workers and that's how they think they can catch up with China. That said though, they don't really need to be afraid of labor as long the security forces are on their side. Look at what happened in Germany or Italy in the early 30s. There was a far stronger labor movement than in US right now, and the rich paid fascist gangs to murder organizers, beat workers into submission, arrest union leaders, and so on. I imagine the oligarchs in US plan to do similar kind of stuff going forward.
A much more violent union busting regime going forward seems inevitable, it's the only way to stop a strong labor movement from forming if they cut off the redistribution of superprofits.
Thing is, the US used to do the same thing to labor before the formation of the NLRB. They stopped because it provokes labor into becoming much more militant. It's a lot easier to convince striking workers to arm themselves when they're dealing with Pinkertons. For self defense, of course.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that this will work or that it's a smart strategy for the oligarchs to pursue. It's entirely possible that this all backfires in a spectacular way, but I do think this is the logic behind the whole thing.
No I know what you mean, but the whole reason the they made concessions to labor was to avoid this kind of conflict in the first place. The welfare and public services were meant to protect them from the workers, not the other way around.
Somehow they forgot. It's kinda funny.
Exactly, the oligarchs are largely disconnected from the realities of the world, and they don't understand that all the power they enjoy is just a social contract.