Peloni: The writing has been on the wall for a very long time now, but self interest, corruption and globalist ideology has prevented the proper response to this all of economy assault. Now, the same motivations which led to America surrendering its economy to China are supporting an insurrection against Trump’s policies meant to solve this catastrophe.
by Daniel Greenfield
Photo by Reinhold Möller, (CC BY-SA 4.0)
American officials usually accuse China of trying to take over our manufacturing, but that’s old news. China took over our manufacturing long ago. And the parts it still hasn’t taken over are usually the parts that it doesn’t want or that are too uneconomical to be worth taking over.
Taking over America’s manufacturing was never China’s endgame. Taking over our economy is.
Undercutting, stealing and dumping its way to manufacturing supremacy was how China got its foot in our door. Americans came to think of China as an assembly line for cheap junk, but the cheap junk built China’s production capacity. The next step was moving up to components for bigger products and then the products themselves. Once the components were being made in China, it made more sense for the companies to simplify by moving everything to China.
China’s undercutting of American manufacturers convinced many of them that profitability and survival lay in closing down U.S. factories and moving their production eastward, lured by the promise of lower costs and access to a growing market. But China quickly demonstrated that it could copy any product, no matter how large or sophisticated, and rip off any brand or IP.
By moving their production to China, American companies gave away their intellectual property and their R&D and all of their methods allowing China to rapidly produce copycat products.
At every stage, American leaders and companies refused to take China’s ambition to be more than our 99-cent store seriously. When China stopped going after our manufacturing and came after retailers, it took them by surprise. China had been signaling its intention to move away from low-end manufacturing businesses, sticking them in Vietnam, experimenting with Africa and focusing on Xinjiang whose large Turkic Muslim population were rapidly turned into a cheap and dirty labor workforce for the western markets in what human rights activists misleadingly describe as ‘concentration camps’. China had bigger plans for its own people and economy
And for us.
Go to Amazon and sign up as a third-party seller for the United States market and you’ll find more Chinese banks than American ones. Amazon dominates American retail and Chinese third-party sellers dominate Amazon, along with eBay and other American ecommerce platforms. Disguised by its obnoxious billion dollar shows, its founder’s mega-yacht and the ubiquity of its smiley swoosh boxes, Amazon long ago became a platform for Chinese sellers. But China quickly showed the ability to create their own successful platforms like Temu and Shein.
While American social media platforms, which weren’t allowed to operate in China, believed that at least those Chinese companies would be dependent on them to harvest big data and advertise their wares to customers, the launch of TikTok and China’s takeover of gaming platforms showed that hope was also futile. Chinese retailers use Chinese social media platforms to hawk products to Americans. Even as President Trump tried to fight back with tariffs, Chinese manufacturers turned to TikTok, recruiting American influencers to urge Americans to download Chinese shopping apps and buy copycat products directly from them.
Much like COVID-19, this can be seen as a test and in economic terms, a more crucial one.
China has assembled all the building blocks for taking over our economy. It has hijacked our manufacturing from the ground up. What began with 99-cent store fare now includes high-end smartphones, ebikes and laptops. Its hackers and employees from Silicon Valley to our defense industry provide pipelines of stolen techniques, trade secrets and R&D to supplement whatever we haven’t exported already to provide China with assured manufacturing supremacy.
After swallowing our manufacturing, China began consuming our retail sector. Amazon cannibalized our brick and mortar retail by dumping Chinese products in America on a massive scale, but Chinese retailers cannibalized Amazon and turned it into a front for their products. China’s retailers have been figuring out how to rapidly move products into this country, how to set up warehouses and eventually how to master rapid last-mile delivery. And then Amazon will have nothing more to offer Americans than a billion-dollar woke version of Lord of the Rings.
But if Chinese retailers need to, they can also make a diverse show with transgender elves and black dwarves. And they’ll be able to do it at a fraction of the cost that Amazon did.
Even the dot coms that drive the stock market have not proven to be immune from China’s reach. The Chinese employees who serve as cheap labor in Silicon Valley took the secrets and techniques home with them. TikTok proved that China could launch social media platforms aimed at dumb teens. Recent games and gaming company acquisitions show that China can compete in gaming and esports. If this goes on, Chinese companies will dominate content consumption for American teens even as Amazon spends $10 billion a year on woke shows.
Chinese social media platforms will drive American teens to Chinese shopping apps and platforms to buy Chinese products using Chinese AI tech. The only role American workers will have in this economy will be to drive the delivery trucks over to your house. And even that will be supplemented by Chinese drones and autonomous delivery vehicles.
And what will happen to America’s economy? We’ll be reduced to a third world country.
After gobbling up manufacturing and retail, China will continue to nibble away at whatever parts of our service economy that it wants to outsource. Finance will also move to China as those Chinese products will be bought from Chinese platforms with Chinese loan apps. American objections to these intrusions will be steamrolled the way that objections to the destruction of our manufacturing were with lectures about the virtues of free trade, of the incredible wealth that a trade deficit blesses us with and with the American cutouts for China’s economic invasion whose businesses will depend on carving up the rest of our economy and shipping it eastward.
If this sounds too fantastic, much of this is already here. Gen X bought ‘Made in China’ products in American stores, Millennials bought them on Amazon, Gen Z buys them in Chinese apps. Gen X watched ads on network television from American companies for products made in China. Millennials clicked on Amazon affiliate links to Chinese products on American websites. Gen Z watches TikTok videos of American influencers pitch them on installing Temu. Once generative AI is fully up to speed, the influencers, as the last to be eaten, will also be replaced.
American retail is turning into a wasteland just like the Rust Belt did. Today’s department store is yesterday’s defunct manufacturing plant. Coastal cities are promising to bring back retail the way that midwestern towns once promised to bring back factories. The Amazon warehouses dotting the landscape seemed to offer some relief allowing American workers to pick up a few dollars packing up Chinese junk before putting it on trucks. But those warehouses are only an intermediate step in destroying American retail by pandering to American consumers. Once there’s no competition, free one-day shipping won’t be needed to dump products in America.
That is why President Trump launched another bid to stop China before it’s too late. There have been plenty of warnings about China’s economic warfare over the years, but too few of them understood what was at stake or the scale of their plans to destroy our economy. Like a virus, China parasitically infiltrated our economy while at every stage always moving upward.
If we don’t decouple our economy from China soon, we’ll have no economy left to decouple.
Peloni
I was quoting from the discussion where you take.up Reader on many points. I mixed up names of Edgar and Reader
Forgive the mistake…reason may be I write on a phone
@Reader
I am sure you do, but there is a limit to which I will intercede into the discussions shared on this site, and I have described it as it stands. You have the means and ability to express yourself clearly and ably, so make your case and let Sebastien or anyone else respond. This is what is indicated by an open forum. Just no ad hominem comments please.
This really will be my final comment on this topic, so the floor is yours.
@Edgar
I agree.
PELONI-
Thanks for clearing that up. Felix is very inclined to “jump the gun” and gets himself a bit mixed up, and off topic, makes short inarticulate sentences, sometimes to the extent that nobody knows what he’s talking about.
But basically a very good guy I believe.
@peloni
I will not reproduce your latest reply to me because it is too long but I will say that I find it insulting.
You accused me of ridiculous thinking by attributing to me things that I never said or thought – about you censoring something, and you lectured me as though I am a five year old about explaining things to Sebastien without abusing him personally which (abuse) is something that I have never even thought of doing but, in fact, something that he did to me which you seem to agree with.
There is a difference between wrong or inaccurate statements and hate speech.
And, as far as I am concerned, the sentence
is hate speech.
@fquigley
Edgar didn’t make that statement. Reader did. Demonstrating his knack for choosing interesting topics on which to comment, Edgar hasn’t been on this entire thread once, not even by mentioning his name, til you misattributed Reader’s words to him.
Edgar’s response to you is quite well made.
Your obsession with discussing this climate nonsense bores me to no end, so forgive me if I don’t comment further on this.
I hardly know what I’m accused of re Climate Change in the 1800s. I DID mention that The Little Ice Age ended then, but this was not discovered by 19th cent scientists who had little or no knowledge of it , but by 20th Cent scholars and scientists due to more awareness and scientific knowledge.
As for the rest of his twaddle I deny and ignore it.
Neither of us is a Climate or any other kind of scientist, and can only form opinions from reading what a diverse group of scientists say.
Peloni
Earlier
Edgar asked
“Forcing factory owners to revert to human conveyor workforce instead of employing new and advanced technology – NO COMMENT.”
To that you replied
“When we compete with the Chinese, trying to mimic the efficiency of their slave tactics, hyper-security state, while abandoning the interests of working men and women, we can hardly expect to not become a similar totalitarian state to China. Instead, the US should focus its efforts on building industries which focus on innovations which include rather than exclude the nation’s work force. The US should be an alternative to China, not its doppelganger. To the degree that this is achieved, the US will adjust and thrive. ”
This is a classic example of the problem. Your attitude is totally competitive which is destructive and can/will lead to war
First they send tariffs then they follow with rockets
America has got to see itself not as top dog but working for cooperation
You show you don’t like the latter thought.
Seems you are stuck in your Imperialism
It seems trump takes today that Putin has gone crazy is the same mentality as you showed in that paragraph
Peloni my comments on these weighty matters must be made on the proper location and not on chit chat which is what it sounds…simply a Mish mash and certainly not really worthy of my time.
There are a number of key issues which I plan to revisit, where new knowledge has emerged.
And indeed where disagreement existed.
One of these certainly is the role of the 1800s in the advancement of science
Because of ignorance on the part of influential people like Edgar the discussion on Climate Change Science was censored.
Going forward I want to challenge all forms of censorship
For example you and Edgar and Sebastien formed a pact to in practice censor that discussion.
For example again none of those I mentioned showed the slightest knowledge of the key 1800s scientific discoveries re climate change science and showed in a childish manner you wished to END the discussion
That.neefs to change
Peloni
Why should they be placed on chit chat rather than here where the claims, charges and lies against these great men happened?
You may make such decisions unthinking but they exhibit haughtiness and nothing else. You didn’t ask me did you!
@Reader
Yes, it is clear, but this site does not censor wrong think or inaccurate statements. That is the duty of those who post comments. Whereas I will strive to keep the conversation civil, I will not censor you or anyone else based on their impugning the integrity of any historical figure. In fact, it is ridiculous for you to think that I would. If you disagree with Sebastien, explain your disagreement without abusing him personally. I think you are up to the task of doing so. In fact, I know you are.
Any further comments on this should be posted in Chit Chat, but I think I have made my point clear enough.
@peloni
Yes, it is clear.
However, abusing historical figures has nothing to do with civilized discourse AND abusing historical figures whose teachings another blogger openly holds significant and worthy of respect is a not so indirect insult (“irrelevantly impugns another person’s character”) to this blogger and certainly should not be encouraged or considered to be a valid argument in a discussion.
I hope this is clear.
@Reader
I have no interest in spending any further time on this. I see no objection to people criticizing, characterizing or attacking historical figures. While this is true of Marx and Engels, it is also true of Locke and Smith or any other historical figure you care to list. Just don’t use ad hominem attacks on the editor, the publishing authors or your fellow bloggers. This is the site policy, set up by Ted Belman, which I will continue to enforce. I don’t think this should be a controversial policy. We are all here to learn and share what we have learned. Abusing one another inhibits this goal, which forms the basis for this stated policy. I hope this is clear.
Indeed Marx and Engels in their life long struggle to uncover the reality of life and against the lies of the capitalist system…were indeed the greatest of roll models on which the whole human race now depends
As the great work Dialectics of Nature by Engels shows:
“Dialectics of Nature deals more fully than any other work of Marxism with such problems and categories of dialectics such as causality, chance (freedom) and necessity, relationship of induction and deduction, and many more. Even though unfinished, this outstanding work is amazing for its rich and profound theoretical content. Despite certain aspects being obsolete, notably some factual data and timescales, resulting from the prevailing state of natural science at that time, the general method and conception of the book remain valid today. The book also contains Engels’ brilliant essay, The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man, which explains how and by what means our species originated. It has been described by Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin as capturing “the essential feature of human evolution.”. ”
Compare that to the smutty lie of Zorn calling these two giants of history…oh well just rapists believe it or not. I fully concur here with Readers astute remark…this smut of Zorn is labelling socialism and science
These two people on israpundit would like not to hear
Especially as this part of the nineteenth century was particularly fruitful thanks not only to Marx and Engels in this great work by Engels (both of whom saluted the genius of Charles Darwin)
But also to the French scientist Mathematician Joseph Fourier, and later John Tyndall from County Carlow Ireland, who in the late 1850s early 1860s, did the scientific experiments which laid the basis for the Science of Climate Change, which now by any measure is the most important science on the Planet.
@peloni
@Sebastien Zorn
I am not writing this to start another argument but the sentence
IS an ad hominem attack even though it doesn’t attack me or Felix personally – read the definition of ad hominem:
The relevant fact here is that Marx and Engels created a model (a hypothesis) which showed the stages that every society will eventually achieve and overcome to progress to the next stage.
Each stage is characterized by (roughly) or depends on the level of technological development and the type of ownership of the means of production.
This model understandably does NOT take into account human nature which is capable of messing up even the best ideas.
What is completely IRRELEVANT here is whether Marx and Engels were good people or the details of their personal lives, and describing the unavoidable stages of historical development in terms of good and evil (even though there is room for such terms outside of sociology).
Here is a popular explanation of where and how the term “communist” had originated before it became a favorite swear word:
https://www.emersonkent.com/history_dictionary/communism.htm
@Reader
Precisely but fquigley keeps bringing them into almost every discussion as role models, that’s why, or hadn’t you noticed?
@fquigley
We are intelligent men, capable of discernment and critical thinking. Hence, there is no need for censorship, but the consequences of this is that it calls upon us each to share reasonable responses, strong arguments and careful depictions of reality.
May 28 2025 is the date of publication of the new book by Naomi Klein
Called This Changes Everything
With her eye for detail this is unmissable
My reply held up again!!!
This site is becoming more and more like the gossip ragsheets of the Sun Murdoch newspaper.
To advance his lies and slanders against Marx and Engels Zorn scrapes the barrel by repeating slurs of the nineteenth century.
Zorn has no clue as to what was going on. Only that it shows hatred of Marx
One would almost think that zorn hates socialism and it’s founders.
So Peloni the biggest lies can be carried on Israpundit no problem, so long as it is “not personal”. This you will end with a site of lies.
Zorn does not even reveal the source, just AI, and above all his prompt to AI. For all we know he may base his prompts on the proven lies of Wikipedia!!!
This a vicious cycle of lying takes centre stage on israpundit
@fquigley
Sebastien’s statement is not an ad hominin attack, which is the only point of reference which would bring me to intercede on this or any comment. So, yes, I will sit and watch, err, read while you and he or anyone else cares to comment on this or any other thread within the guidelines which have been established on this site. While it is irrelevant to your complaint and to my own inaction on your complaint, I completely agree with Sebastien in any case, something which will no doubt be unsurprising to you or anyone else who reads this blog.
For god’s sake will israpundit stop halting my posts
I have the highest regard for Zionism and the struggles to defend the Jewish Homeland from the lies of Fascism
That’s why Jews who use lies in their invective…as Zorn does here, is a clear danger to Zionism
Is editor Peloni going to sit, and watch?
Here not just lying, but lying slander of the most based kind
Zorn
”
Sebastien Zorn
May 25, 2025 at 9:05 pm
@Reader Marx and Engels were exploiters and rapists in their personal lives and the Communist countries took after their founders. The U.S. reflects the personality of its founders, particularly Washington, in the same way, and Israel that of Herzl. That’s why Israel and tge U.S. need walls to keep people out and the so-called “socialist” countries to keep people in. ”
If the above is not justified as fact then it sullies all of Zionism
”
Sebastien Zorn
May 25, 2025 at 9:05 pm
@Reader Marx and Engels were exploiters and rapists in their personal lives and the Communist countries took after their founders. The U.S. reflects the personality of its founders, particularly Washington, in the same way, and Israel that of Herzl. That’s why Israel and tge U.S. need walls to keep people out and the so-called “socialist” countries to keep people in.”
@Sebastien Zorn
It does, especially since the Supreme Court decided to allow unlimited corporate contributions to political campaigns.
Government and business have been intertwined since at least the Great Depression,
@Sebastien
Sorry, I just saw this. It’s back
@ Peloni post disappeared
But, I first learned of this from a socialist professor and historian I studied with in college, Professor Judith Stein.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Stein_(historian)
The US government is the fist of big business.
The US government helped its businesses move to China in the early 90s and lied to us that we are entering the higher level of economy – the SERVICE economy.
This happened because the SU decided to commit harakiri, and the US, in turn, decided that it can now do absolutely anything and ignore the rest of the world.
Well, those nasty Chinese decided to develop further than the US felt comfortable with, plus Russia seemed to recover from the harakiri while the US denuded itself both of its industry AND of the service economy which it transferred to places like India where the natives work through satellite communication (no American visas necessary) and are paid annual salaries equivalent to a couple of thousand dollars a year.
Of course, this is 100% the fault of China!
I am wondering whether we are going to see a repeat of WWII with Germany attacking “the colossus on clay feet” and the US supplying the weapons made by its industry returned from China.
@Reader Marx and Engels were exploiters and rapists in their personal lives and the Communist countries took after their founders. The U.S. reflects the personality of its founders, particularly Washington, in the same way, and Israel that of Herzl. That’s why Israel and tge U.S. need walls to keep people out and the so-called “socialist” countries to keep people in.
It is noticeable that Daniel leaves out the role of the American working class. It is not often even recognised in America. Maga has some connection but it is not conscious.
The lies and hysteria against trump has distorted thought.
Today there is like 98 per cent confusion
@Sebastien Zorn
As far as I know, caviar there only became scarce when they started exporting it, before that time it really was not a luxury item.
No, during the Civil War they ate the same crap in Kremlin as everybody else in the country ate.
the period of 1918-1921 was a major countrywide disaster, I already highlighted this fact several times.
I don’t care one bit for Marx’s sex life and Freebeacon has a rather dubious reputation.
Why do you keep writing about Bolsheviks, it has nothing to do with the EPA, or Trump, or the US.
@Sebastien
It’s back.
@Peloni post disappeared
@Reader @Fquigley
@Reader @fquigey <blockquoteAI Overview
Learn more
While the Kremlin likely had caviar available during the Russian Civil War, it's unlikely to have been a common or readily accessible food for everyone. Caviar, being a luxury item, was probably more of a treat for the upper echelons of society and the Bolshevik leadership, rather than a staple food source for the general population.
Here's a more detailed look:
Caviar in Russia During the Civil War:
Availability:
While the Revolution and Civil War disrupted the economy and supply chains, caviar was still produced and likely accessible to those in power and with resources.
State Control:
The Bolsheviks took control of the sturgeon fisheries and caviar production, creating state-run caviar kombinats. This meant that caviar was likely rationed or controlled by the government, with limited availability to the general population.
Luxury Item:
Caviar was always considered a luxury food, and its price and availability during the war would have likely been even more restricted.
Soviet Era:
Following the Civil War, the Soviet government continued to control caviar production and trade. While black caviar was initially affordable in the 1950s and 1970s, its abundance later ended in the 1980s, according to Gateway to Russia.
International Trade:
The Bolsheviks also established a cartel to sell Caspian Sea caviar to European and North American markets, indicating a continued desire to export this valuable commodity.
In conclusion, while caviar likely remained available in the Kremlin during the Russian Civil War, it was primarily a luxury item for the elite, not a staple food for the general population. The Bolsheviks controlled caviar production and trade, further limiting its accessibility to the wider public.
@Reader
https://freebeacon.com/energy/trump-epa-cancels-environmental-justice-grants-the-biden-admin-awarded-to-its-own-advisers/
https://freebeacon.com/biden-administration/biden-epa-awarded-20m-to-retrofit-lead-pipes-restore-wetlands-the-ngo-recipient-has-experience-doing-neither/
And by the way, “environmental justice?”
@fquigley @Reader
@Sebastien Zorn
Schiff didn’t lie – this is from Bloomberg:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/epa-budget-would-be-deeply-slashed-under-trumps-spending-plan
@Sebastien Zorn
It wasn’t merely “War Communism”.
In 1918-1921 there was a Civil War plus Intervention when the country was attacked by:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War
Anti-Bolshevik left:
Left SRs
Green Army
Makhnovshchina
Right SRs and Mensheviks
Allied intervention:
Japan
United Kingdom
United States
France
Czechoslovakia
Central Powers:
Germany
Austria-Hungary
Ottoman Empire
Add to this the Spanish flu, typhus, smallpox, the destruction of the infrastructure and tens of thousands of homeless orphans.
@Reader I wonder what Zeldin was trying to say. It was just Adam Schiff ranting and talking over him. Recall, Schiff was the primary culprit in the all the Trump collusion hoaxes. He lies like other people breathe.
@fquigley
I have a feeling that the Project 25 people (including the current administration) think that in order to MAGA they have to return the US to the 1920s which they are working on.
Guess what happened in 1929…
Maybe they are consciously working toward this end?
What is happening to EPA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-SC6B2rXG8
@fquigley
Alienation of the Working Class
Marx argued that capitalism alienates workers from the products they create, their fellow workers, and their own sense of purpose. The Trump era saw an increase in worker dissatisfaction, union suppression, and a growing divide between blue-collar workers and corporate elites.
https://theimmigrantsjournal.com/karl-marxs-theories-on-the-collapse-of-capitalism-and-the-role-of-oligarchs-in-the-trump-administration/?hl=en-GB
@Reader
Yes, I am well aware. The Chinese have completely corrupted the US establishment, and they are not the only foreigners to do so.
I respect certain actions taken by Musk, but you will never hear me describe him as a hero. His Chinese captured, globalist ties, transhuman ambitions provide what I see as a great threat, particularly for someone so well respected by the MAGA movement. So you are misleading yourself as to my views on Musk.
These laws were built to specifically stymie US growth while giving China and others a free pass. Globalism of all forms disgust me, and that includes the environmental nonsense which many find such a religious tie to defending
We will have to agree to disagree, though I believe you will be the one disappointed on this point, but time will tell.
When we compete with the Chinese, trying to mimic the efficiency of their slave tactics, hyper-security state, while abandoning the interests of working men and women, we can hardly expect to not become a similar totalitarian state to China. Instead, the US should focus its efforts on building industries which focus on innovations which include rather than exclude the nation’s work force. The US should be an alternative to China, not its doppelganger. To the degree that this is achieved, the US will adjust and thrive.
The US has a right and obligation to use its control over the consumer markets to force nations such as China to deal fairly with the US, something which no US president has ever tried, much less achieved, except Trump. This isn’t burning down competitor gas stations, it is simply using America’s dominance in public spending habits in such a way as to benefit the American people. If China thinks they can sell their slave-labor-constructed knock offs to the Global South and survive, let them do so. But if that were really an option, they wouldn’t be negotiating with Trump right now. And that is because they can’t replace the access to US and allied markets, and they know it.
Don’t hold your breath on this one, but again, time will tell.
Perhaps it is looking like that, but the reality is that China can’t divest from the US, not yet, and they know it.
We will see. Again, I believe you will be disappointed to see that US treasuries will not be diminished in their investment potential. If they are, the dollar will fail and the US power will collapse. Notably, the US would go to war to defend the dollar, but they won’t have to. All that is needed is good economic policies, which is what Trump is focusing on, perhaps too much so, IMO.
Use of Genesis to reply to some aspects of this complex subject
Prompt to Genesis
Have you ever noticed the people who come in and write at the beginning about this and that are the most truthful?
1
* This happened with both Marx and his friend Engels writing about capitalism
– achievement of a WORLD economy… especially Manifesto
– tragic effects seen by Engels in Manchester slums
2
Overproduction and company of overproduction…the slump
3
Competition as being central feature of the SYSTEM of capitalism
The political epilogue to all this theory by Marx is the living reality of today composed of squeals of hatred to China from Trump down
Why do the racists in America complain then about China today? In the Manifesto Marx’s elegant description of this inevitable process
Answer by Genesis
You’re making an interesting observation about how early thinkers, like Marx and Engels, often seem to capture fundamental truths about the systems they analyze. It’s true that their writings, particularly “The Communist Manifesto,” foresaw many aspects of global capitalism and its consequences.
Let’s break down your points and then address your question about contemporary U.S. attitudes towards China:
* Marx and Engels on Capitalism:
* World Economy: You’re absolutely right. Marx and Engels were prescient in describing the “achievement of a world economy.” The “Manifesto” explicitly talks about capitalism’s inherent drive to expand globally, breaking down national barriers and creating a world market. This is a foundational insight into globalization, long before the term became commonplace.
* Tragic Effects (Engels in Manchester): Engels’s “The Condition of the Working Class in England” is a vivid and stark depiction of the human cost of industrial capitalism. His firsthand observations in Manchester’s slums provided empirical evidence for many of the theoretical claims Marx would later develop regarding exploitation and alienation.
* Overproduction and Slumps: Marx’s analysis of capitalism includes a concept of inherent contradictions, one of which is the tendency towards crises of overproduction. The system’s drive to constantly expand production can outpace the ability of the market to absorb all goods, leading to gluts, falling prices, and economic downturns (“slumps”). This cyclical nature of boom and bust is a core part of Marxist economic theory.
* Competition as Central: Indeed, competition is a defining feature of capitalism from a Marxist perspective. It drives innovation, but also leads to consolidation of capital, exploitation, and ultimately, the seeds of its own destruction.
Now, to your question: Why do the racists in America complain about China today, given Marx’s description of this inevitable process?
This is a complex question that touches on economic theory, political rhetoric, and historical context. Here’s a breakdown of potential reasons, drawing connections to your points:
* Marx’s “Inevitable Process” and its Misinterpretation/Rejection:
* Globalization as a Threat: Marx saw the “achievement of a world economy” as an inherent, inevitable outcome of capitalism. However, for many in the West, particularly those who feel economically displaced, this globalization is not seen as an inevitable process but rather as a threat or a betrayal. China, as a major beneficiary and driver of contemporary globalization, becomes a focal point for this resentment.
* “De-industrialization” Narrative: In the U.S., there’s a powerful narrative that manufacturing jobs were “lost” to countries like China due to unfair trade practices, currency manipulation, or cheap labor. While economic shifts are far more complex, this narrative fuels anger and a desire to “bring jobs back.”
* Ignoring the Internal Logic: From a Marxist perspective, the “slumps” and the intense competition you mentioned are internal contradictions of capitalism. However, it’s often more politically convenient to externalize these problems and blame a foreign actor (like China) rather than address systemic issues within one’s own economic model.
* Economic Anxiety and Scapegoating:
* Perceived Loss of Hegemony: For decades, the U.S. held an unparalleled economic and political global position. China’s rapid economic rise is seen by some as a direct challenge to this hegemony. This can lead to anxiety, and blaming China becomes a way to explain perceived declines or shifts in power.
* Trump’s Rhetoric: You rightly point to Trump. His political strategy often involved identifying external “enemies” (like China, Mexico, immigrants) to rally his base. This scapegoating deflects attention from domestic issues and provides a simplistic explanation for complex economic anxieties. The “squeals of hatred” you describe are often fueled by this kind of nationalist and protectionist rhetoric.
* Racism and Xenophobia: When economic anxiety is high, it can easily intersect with existing racial biases. Anti-China sentiment can unfortunately devolve into xenophobia and racism against people of Asian descent. This is a common historical pattern where economic fears are channeled into prejudice against minority groups or foreign entities.
* Ideological Conflict:
* Clash of Systems: While Marx described capitalism’s global reach, China’s economic model is often labeled “state capitalism” or “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” This creates an ideological tension with the West’s more market-fundamentalist approach. Some see China’s success as a challenge to the superiority of Western liberal capitalism, further fueling animosity.
* Human Rights and Geopolitics: Beyond economics, concerns about human rights in China, its geopolitical ambitions, and its authoritarian political system also contribute to the negative sentiment. These concerns, whether legitimate or exaggerated, are often intertwined with economic complaints to create a broader narrative of China as an adversary.
In essence, while Marx described the inevitable globalizing force of capitalism, he also highlighted its inherent contradictions and potential for social unrest. The “racists” you refer to are likely expressing a combination of economic anxiety, a perceived loss of national dominance, and a convenient scapegoating of a foreign power, all of which are amplified by political rhetoric that often taps into existing xenophobic and nationalist sentiments. They might not be engaging with Marx’s analysis directly, but their complaints are a manifestation of the very tensions and dislocations that Marx’s theory sought to explain within the global capitalist system.
One of Genesis sources
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/824042.The_Condition_of_the_Working_Class_in_England?hl=en-GB
@peloni
You may not be aware of this but American corporations moved their businesses to China in the early 90s with the help of the American government (when the US was convinced that it defeated the USSR in the Cold War and the world was now unipolar) precisely BECAUSE they could use the Chinese as slave labor and then absence of environmental protection laws in China to drastically increase their profit margins, and this is why they are staying there, including your hero Elon Musk:
https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2022/may/12/elon-musk-praises-chinese-workers-for-extreme-work-culture
The 1st Trump administration was busily destroying the environmental protection laws, and his 2nd administration is doing the same.
Forcing businesses to come back – would be either impossible or idiotic or both.
Forcing factory owners to revert to human conveyor workforce instead of employing new and advanced technology – NO COMMENT.
When I mentioned fair competition and free market, I didn’t mean free access to markets, I meant NOT acting like the early Rockefellers, namely, sending your people to burn down or destroy you competitors’ gas stations.
As far as access to markets, both Europe and the East are turning away from the US and the dollar.
As far as the $36 trillion “debt”, China happens to be the 2nd largest owner of the American debt (I think it used to be the largest) – the calls from some quarters to destroy China are starting to look like an attempt to kill the creditor.
https://economicsinsider.com/top-15-largest-us-treasury-holders/
I saw a US article several years ago that stated very optimistically that the US will never have to repay its debt because the US treasuries are the best investment in the world – what if with all the wild stuff this administration is doing they stop being the best investment?
@Reader
Actually, it only required that the US threaten to impoverish the Chinese and SE Asia thru divestment to change the trade dynamics. China can’t survive on its industry without access to Western markets, and the US alone controls 42% of world consumer markets, while also using this fact to influence many other Western markets as well.
No, it will lead to the US govt forcing companies to eat the drop in profits, which in turn will lead to greater innovation of these companies to seek success without acting as a passthru mechanism for the shift in trade. Trump has already threatened Walmart regarding this. Of course, some companies will collapse under the resulting strain, but the result will be a return of industry to the US by those who can succeed. It won’t be a cost free result, but the outcome will be one of survival for the US as compared to that of extinction which it is currently facing with its intellectual property and industries being stole by foreigners using slave labor and currency manipulation tactics.
As compared to China?? I doubt it.
Again, this will result in govt intervention, like it or not, to prevent this outcome by manipulating corporations to prevent such a crisis.
Wrong. Access to a given nation’s markets is not a right guaranteed to other nations. If other nations want access to US and allied markets, they will have to restrain their efforts to advantage their own country, particularly with regards to such tactics as slave labor and currency manipulation, product dumping and trade imbalances.
Because everyone wants access to the US markets and that of their allies. If they don’t, well, they can do as they like, but they won’t have anyone with whom to sell their products.
Fair competition? with slave labor? with product dumping? with intellectual property theft? with currency manipulation? This is not fair competition. These trade imbalances need to end, and they will.
Contrary to Laura’s statement, China doesn’t need to be destroyed. It just needs to be restrained, and this too will take place.
If “WE” destroy China, the world is going to be thrown back a couple of hundred years.
The only way to move the industry back from China and Southeast Asia is to impoverish the American people to the point where it would be more profitable to the corporations to employ Americans.
If the corporations are FORCED to come back without impoverishing the population, and to pay Americans the wages they have become accustomed to, the prices would rise so high as to prevent anybody from buying the products produced in the US.
Also any semblance of environmental protection will need to be destroyed.
You want to breathe the black and brown air saturated with petroleum fumes, etc.?
I don’t.
However, there is another problem – automation and mechanization – it is, increasingly, no longer the humans working on conveyor belts – it is machines and robots, so in any case the unemployment will be going up, not down.
Last but not least – every country has the right to progress in its technology, healthcare, industry, retail, science, etc. without interference unless they do this by the wars of aggression like Germans in WWII.
Why does the US think that it has the right to destroy any and every country’s way to a better life just because of sheer envy and competitiveness on the part of the US?
Let’s face it – this kind of interference has nothing to do with free market or with fair competition.
We must utterly DESTROY China.