Five Characteristics of Neoimperialism - Economic Hegemony and Fraud
More languages
More actions
Table of contents
- The New Monopoly of Production and Circulation
- The New Monopoly of Finance Capital
- Minority of Financial Institutions Control Main Global Economic Arteries
- The Globalization of Monopoly-Finance Capital
- From Production to Speculative Finance
- The Monopoly of the U.S. Dollar and Intellectual Property
- The Spatial Expansion of the Capital-Labor Relation: Global Value Chains and the Global Labor Arbitrage
- Monopoly-Finance Capital and Multinational Corporate Dominance
- Neoimperialism and the Neoliberal State
- U.S. Dollar Hegemony, Intellectual Property Rights, and the Plundering of Global Wealth
- The New Monopoly of the International Oligarchic Alliance
- The G7 as the Mainstay of the Imperial Capitalist Core
- NATO and the International Monopoly-Capitalist Military and Political Alliance
- Cultural Hegemony Dominated by Western “Universal Values”
- The Economic Essence, the General Trend, and the Four Forms of Ideological Fraud
- Economic Hegemony and Fraud
- Political Hegemony and Fraud
- Cultural Hegemony and Fraud
- Military Hegemony and Fraud
- Neoimperialism Is a Parasitic and Decaying Late Imperialism
- Neoimperialism Is a Transitional and Moribund Late Capitalism
Imperialism as represented by the United States employs hegemony, bullying, and unilateralism, and adheres to double standards in diplomatic policy. At one point, Pompeo publicly admitted and expressed pride in his country’s fraudulent actions. “I was the CIA director,” he said. “We lied, we cheated, we stole. It was like we had entire training courses…it reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”62 In the post-Cold War era, the United States dominates the world, free from any powerful checks and balances. It relies on its major advantages of military force, U.S. dollar hegemony, external propaganda, and science and technology to carry out bullying all over the world and to commit fraud both at home and abroad.63
In March 2018, the United States issued a document entitled Findings of the Investigation into China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation Under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which accuses China of “enforcing or compelling US enterprises to transfer technology” and “illegally invading US commercial computer networks to steal intellectual property rights and sensitive business information.” The purpose of this document was to create a pretext for launching a trade war; its accusations are nothing but rumors and do not correspond to the facts. What is the source of China’s technological progress? It flows from the efforts of gifted entrepreneurs who benefit from huge government investments in basic science. As former U.S. secretary of the treasury Lawrence Summers said, “it’s coming from an educational system that’s privileging excellence, concentrating on science and technology. That’s where their leadership is coming from, not from taking a stake in some U.S. company.”64 In provoking its economic and trade conflict with China, the United States has had an obvious intention: to blackmail and suppress China on an overall basis, starting with the trade war and gradually expanding into the areas of science and technology, finance, food, resources, and so on. U.S. authorities seek to weaken China’s strengths in trade, finance, industry, and technology, trying to ensure that China will not pose a challenge to the global hegemonic position of the United States.
With its slogan of “America First,” the Trump administration promoted U.S. hegemony and imposed economic sanctions on other economies. Its economic and trade policies were aimed principally at China, but were also directed at traditional allies such as the European Union, Japan, India, and South Korea. Time after time, Washington has practiced economic extortion and containment. It will never be forgotten that as early as the mid–1980s the United States forced Japan to sign the Plaza Accord and induced it to implement a low-interest monetary policy that brought large quantities of foreign capital into Japan. The result was that a surge of short-term demand for Japanese yen caused the country’s currency to appreciate sharply against the U.S. dollar. The influx of foreign capital and the monetary policy of low interest rates brought a soaring increase in Japanese asset prices. Despite the short-term prosperity, the eventual result involved big losses for Japan. The high asset prices meant that the foreign capital was soon cashed out and withdrawn, while the Japanese economy suffered huge setbacks and endured a “lost twenty years.”