This video is the first session of an eight-week series, "Fractures," hosted by the Transnational Institute. The session explores the changing global order, focusing on the implications of the United States' turn toward reactionary nationalism and its impact on international politics. The panelists discuss the fracturing global system and potential opportunities for progressive change.
Aziz Rana argues that understanding US imperialism is crucial because the US, since World War II, has been the globally dominant power, shaping the international system. He structures his argument around three historical moments:
Late 19th/early 20th century: The US was a regional power focused on internal expansion (expropriating indigenous land and using coerced labor).
Mid-20th century: Following the collapse of European empires and decolonization, the US became a global hegemon. It promoted a narrative of universal principles (equality, liberty, market capitalism) to legitimize its power, creating an international system of independent nation-states and multilateral institutions, but with the US reserving the right to intervene when necessary. This era also saw a degree of domestic reform (due in part to the Cold War competition with the Soviet Union).
Present: Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US right wing, no longer constrained by Cold War pressures, is dismantling the mid-century compact. This involves a rejection of international legal constraints and a return to a more explicitly hard-power, mercantilist approach focused on zero-sum competition, abandoning the pretense of adhering to a rules-based order. This is seen as a return to a "settler hegemon" vision of the US, prioritizing hard power over soft power. He argues this is a break from the mid-20th century project but continuous with underlying instabilities and practices of violence inherent in American history.
Ho-fung Hung explains the US-China conflict primarily as a clash stemming from the pursuit of American capital's interests. He argues that the US historically has pursued an imperial project centered on the "freedom of capital"—the ability of American and allied corporations to invest and profit globally. Decolonization, for Hung, was partly beneficial to the US because it opened new markets for American corporations.
Initially, China was viewed as a partner in this system, a source of cheap labor for American companies. The "Chimerica" model (a highly integrated US-China economy) was envisioned as a win-win scenario. However, this changed as Chinese companies mastered technologies and began competing with American corporations in global markets. This competition, not ideological differences, is the core of the conflict for Hung.
Hung is less optimistic about the future of the relationship, viewing the Trump trade war as an attempt (perhaps partially successful) by the US to address the growing challenge from Chinese capital. While acknowledging short-term uncertainties, he believes the long-term goal of keeping global markets open for American capital remains a central driver of US policy. The current chaos, he suggests, might be a strategy for negotiation, but the fundamental economic conflict remains.
Achin Vanaik expresses significant skepticism about the Global South's capacity for unified progressive action. His main concerns revolve around:
Internal Divisions and Competition: He points out that many Global South nations are internally divided and often compete with each other economically and politically. The existence of "middle powers" (India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.) aspiring to regional hegemony further complicates any potential collective effort. He uses the example of BRICS, highlighting its internal contradictions and limited effectiveness as a vehicle for unified Global South action, especially regarding issues like the conflict in Sudan, where member states hold opposing positions. He notes that even within weaker Global South nations, elites often prioritize their own interests over those of their populations.
Limited Economic Power: He emphasizes the continued dominance of the US dollar in global finance, even despite efforts towards "de-dollarization," and argues that the economic influence of BRICS or other Global South groupings pales in comparison to the US and its allies. This limits their capacity to challenge the existing global economic order.
Absorption into Western Systems: Vanaik points out how organizations meant to represent Global South interests, like the G77, have been effectively absorbed into larger, Western-dominated groups like the G20, where their influence is significantly diluted.
Vanaik suggests that focusing on progressive national movements within individual countries might be a more realistic pathway to achieving progressive change. He argues that while nationalism is often reactionary, building strong progressive national movements can create a foundation upon which more successful international collaborations might be built. However, he acknowledges the limitations of even progressive nationalism and stresses the ultimate need for a progressive internationalism, requiring coordinated mechanisms between progressive forces at the national level to address shared concerns like climate change. He bemoans the absence of effective international organizations representing the interests of the left, highlighting the need to build such organizations.
Luciana Vioto critiques mainstream analyses that declare the end of globalization or neoliberalism with the rise of protectionist measures, arguing that these analyses are overly simplistic and fail to grasp the complexities of the situation. She makes the following key points:
Protectionism is not new: Vioto highlights that protectionism has a long history in the US and is not a recent phenomenon. The current use of tariffs, she argues, is a continuation of historical practices of US imperialism, used to strengthen its hegemony and benefit its corporations.
Bipartisan consensus: She points out that protectionism enjoys a bipartisan consensus in the US, evident in the policies of both Trump and Biden, indicating its enduring nature. This challenges narratives that frame protectionism solely as a right-wing phenomenon.
The contradiction of US policy: Vioto notes that the US criticizes the effects of globalization (such as job losses) while simultaneously benefiting from the global system that it helped to create. She sees this as a fundamental contradiction underlying US policy and the current crisis.
The need for radicalization: Vioto argues that anti-free trade movements must become more radical, moving beyond trade agendas to address the broader power of corporations and the financial system. She emphasizes the need for deprivatization and decommodification to achieve genuine change. She suggests a need to look beyond just WTO or trade agreements, acknowledging the role of the financial sector, the power of the dollar, and other factors influencing the global economy.
The continuation of corporate power: She refutes claims that the current crisis signals the end of corporate power, instead suggesting that corporations are adapting to the changing global landscape, seeking to minimize losses while retaining their influence. She sees more crises on the horizon, driven by this corporate power.
Based solely on the provided transcript, China's challenge to the US role is primarily presented as an economic one, not an ideological one. Ho-fung Hung's analysis emphasizes this point. He explains that the US historically built its imperial project on the free movement of capital, initially using China as a source of cheap labor. However, China's economic development allowed its companies to master the technologies needed to compete with US corporations in global markets. This shift from China being a mere supplier of labor to a competitor in production and exports is presented as the root of the US-China conflict. The competition is over markets and profits, not differing political systems.
Luciana Vioto argues that more crises are likely due to corporate power because corporations are adapting to the changing global landscape and are not losing their influence. The current situation of protectionism and uncertainty, according to Vioto, does not signal the end of corporate power; rather, it represents a moment of adaptation and maneuvering by corporations to maintain their dominance. Their fear of losing their positions drives their actions and creates instability. This inherent instability inherent in the corporate response to changing conditions is what Vioto suggests will likely result in further crises.
Luciana Vioto advocates for looking beyond the WTO by considering the broader context of corporate power and the financial system. She argues that focusing solely on the WTO and trade agreements is insufficient because these are just parts of a larger system. A more holistic approach requires understanding the role of the financial sector, the dominance of the US dollar, and the influence of international investment treaties and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms in empowering corporations globally. Addressing the underlying power structures, rather than just trade agreements themselves, is crucial for creating meaningful change.
Addressing underlying power structures, according to the discussion, requires a multi-pronged approach:
Radicalized movements: Luciana Vioto emphasizes the need for anti-free trade movements to radicalize their strategies, moving beyond solely trade-focused agendas to encompass broader financial and economic issues. This involves confronting the power of corporations directly and advocating for systemic changes like deprivatization and decommodification.
Progressive national movements: Achin Vanaik highlights the importance of building strong progressive national movements as a necessary foundation for broader internationalist efforts. While acknowledging the limitations of nationalism, he argues that strengthening progressive forces at the national level is crucial for creating a foundation for more effective international cooperation.
Transnational collaboration: Aziz Rana underscores the necessity of rebuilding transnational connections between various types of institutions and organizations to foster meaningful political change. This involves creating cross-national networks that are not dependent on state-centric power structures. He highlights the historical importance of such connections in past left-wing transformative movements.
The overall approach involves a shift away from solely addressing surface-level issues (like tariffs) to confronting the deeper structural factors that empower corporate and financial interests at the expense of labor, environmental sustainability and social justice.
According to Aziz Rana, the historical connections of left-wing transformative movements lie in the creation and utilization of intermediate meaning-making institutions. These are organizations and networks that aren't directly controlled by the state but which allow for the building of political power and the articulation of alternative visions. He cites examples like unions, professional associations (lawyers, doctors), churches, and tenant groups as examples of such institutions. These institutions provided a foundation for the meaningful constraints placed on global capital during the first two-thirds of the 20th century and were crucial to anti-colonial movements. Rana argues that rebuilding these kinds of institutions, both nationally and transnationally, is key to achieving meaningful progressive change today.
