<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Canada’s rulers unite around newly aggressive and militaristic course	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://johnriddell.com/2011/08/18/canada%E2%80%99s-rulers-unite-around-newly-aggressive-and-militaristic-course/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://johnriddell.com/2011/08/18/canada%e2%80%99s-rulers-unite-around-newly-aggressive-and-militaristic-course/</link>
	<description>MARXIST ESSAYS AND COMMENTARY</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:48:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.1.10</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Binh		</title>
		<link>https://johnriddell.com/2011/08/18/canada%e2%80%99s-rulers-unite-around-newly-aggressive-and-militaristic-course/#comment-213</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Binh]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2011 16:48:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://johnriddell.com/?p=632#comment-213</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Relevant to the American dimension of this discussion: http://nationalinterest.org/article/the-end-the-american-era-6037]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Relevant to the American dimension of this discussion: <a href="http://nationalinterest.org/article/the-end-the-american-era-6037" rel="nofollow ugc">http://nationalinterest.org/article/the-end-the-american-era-6037</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Binh		</title>
		<link>https://johnriddell.com/2011/08/18/canada%e2%80%99s-rulers-unite-around-newly-aggressive-and-militaristic-course/#comment-97</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Binh]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:36:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://johnriddell.com/?p=632#comment-97</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://johnriddell.com/2011/08/18/canada%e2%80%99s-rulers-unite-around-newly-aggressive-and-militaristic-course/#comment-94&quot;&gt;mpkellogg&lt;/a&gt;.

One major difference between the U.S. today and the ailing U.S.S.R. is that it was structurally unable to take advantage of the internationalization of the productive process (globalization) that American capital exploited to the hilt to smash our unions, lower wages, and increase profits by moving production/assembly offshore. The U.S.S.R. was boxed in economically and became uncompetitive because it had to choose between guns and butter, so to speak. 

America is in a radically different situation, and yes, there will be moves to replace the dollar as the world&#039;s single reserve currency. I don&#039;t think the central weakness of U.S. imperialism is/will be unsustainable arms spending, I think it&#039;s the internal economic and political contradictions within the U.S. The U.S. is not able to pass a single law or reform that would even slightly impinge on the interests of any sectors of the capitalist class. In many ways it&#039;s reminiscent of the Polish Diet of the 17th century. Financial reform did nothing to reform the financial system in even a pro-capitalist way; immigration reform is stalled at the federal level and has been for years, creating the space for racist laws to be passed on the local/state level which undermine the interests of local farms, hotels, restaurants, and other sectors that rely on cheap undocumented labor; health care reform created a captive market of 30 million+ government-mandated customers for the murderous, greedy insurance companies; education reform is lining the pockets of corporations via privatization meanwhile growing numbers of Americans are functionally illiterate (the majority of Detroit&#039;s population does not even read at a high school level). Contrast this to China, where the state owns/controls roughly 80% of the economy. Their education system is not locked in permanent crisis and neither is their economy nor their political system. The standard of living for their working and middle classes only has one direction to go: up. Ditto for their military power.

America&#039;s power is being undermined from within by its own insoluble contradictions, not by unsustainable military spending. Either way, your conclusions about the U.S.-Canada relationship and the increasingly independent leanings of your ruling class are sound.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://johnriddell.com/2011/08/18/canada%e2%80%99s-rulers-unite-around-newly-aggressive-and-militaristic-course/#comment-94">mpkellogg</a>.</p>
<p>One major difference between the U.S. today and the ailing U.S.S.R. is that it was structurally unable to take advantage of the internationalization of the productive process (globalization) that American capital exploited to the hilt to smash our unions, lower wages, and increase profits by moving production/assembly offshore. The U.S.S.R. was boxed in economically and became uncompetitive because it had to choose between guns and butter, so to speak. </p>
<p>America is in a radically different situation, and yes, there will be moves to replace the dollar as the world&#8217;s single reserve currency. I don&#8217;t think the central weakness of U.S. imperialism is/will be unsustainable arms spending, I think it&#8217;s the internal economic and political contradictions within the U.S. The U.S. is not able to pass a single law or reform that would even slightly impinge on the interests of any sectors of the capitalist class. In many ways it&#8217;s reminiscent of the Polish Diet of the 17th century. Financial reform did nothing to reform the financial system in even a pro-capitalist way; immigration reform is stalled at the federal level and has been for years, creating the space for racist laws to be passed on the local/state level which undermine the interests of local farms, hotels, restaurants, and other sectors that rely on cheap undocumented labor; health care reform created a captive market of 30 million+ government-mandated customers for the murderous, greedy insurance companies; education reform is lining the pockets of corporations via privatization meanwhile growing numbers of Americans are functionally illiterate (the majority of Detroit&#8217;s population does not even read at a high school level). Contrast this to China, where the state owns/controls roughly 80% of the economy. Their education system is not locked in permanent crisis and neither is their economy nor their political system. The standard of living for their working and middle classes only has one direction to go: up. Ditto for their military power.</p>
<p>America&#8217;s power is being undermined from within by its own insoluble contradictions, not by unsustainable military spending. Either way, your conclusions about the U.S.-Canada relationship and the increasingly independent leanings of your ruling class are sound.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: mpkellogg		</title>
		<link>https://johnriddell.com/2011/08/18/canada%e2%80%99s-rulers-unite-around-newly-aggressive-and-militaristic-course/#comment-94</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mpkellogg]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 20:35:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://johnriddell.com/?p=632#comment-94</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[We will see. I think the decline is real, and based on a generations-long, atypical (relative to its competitors) arms budget. In the 1980s we saw the long-term impacts of unsustainable arms spending in the spectacular collapse of the Soviet Union. We are, I think, in the middle of a similar phenomenon today viz. the United States and its role as the centre of empire – similar but, if you will, in slow motion. The U.S. is better situated than the old USSR to manage its decline -- one of the key factors being the role of the dollar as world money (a point you highlight). But -- that is not necessarily a permanent feature. We might want to take seriously the now regular musings by China, Russia and others about the need to move away from the dollar. It might take a decade or more, but my bet is that this will happen.

In any case -- the key point is not this or that prediction (always a difficult thing with something as complex as the world economy). The key point is the emergence of a multi-polar world, and the way in which this changes the gravitational pulls on the Canadian economy. Canada used to orbit around one star -- the United States. But now it is feeling the attraction of other stars -- still smaller than the U.S., but much more visible than they were even ten years ago.

Those are my thoughts. Thanks for your thoughtful response to this analysis.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We will see. I think the decline is real, and based on a generations-long, atypical (relative to its competitors) arms budget. In the 1980s we saw the long-term impacts of unsustainable arms spending in the spectacular collapse of the Soviet Union. We are, I think, in the middle of a similar phenomenon today viz. the United States and its role as the centre of empire – similar but, if you will, in slow motion. The U.S. is better situated than the old USSR to manage its decline &#8212; one of the key factors being the role of the dollar as world money (a point you highlight). But &#8212; that is not necessarily a permanent feature. We might want to take seriously the now regular musings by China, Russia and others about the need to move away from the dollar. It might take a decade or more, but my bet is that this will happen.</p>
<p>In any case &#8212; the key point is not this or that prediction (always a difficult thing with something as complex as the world economy). The key point is the emergence of a multi-polar world, and the way in which this changes the gravitational pulls on the Canadian economy. Canada used to orbit around one star &#8212; the United States. But now it is feeling the attraction of other stars &#8212; still smaller than the U.S., but much more visible than they were even ten years ago.</p>
<p>Those are my thoughts. Thanks for your thoughtful response to this analysis.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Binh		</title>
		<link>https://johnriddell.com/2011/08/18/canada%e2%80%99s-rulers-unite-around-newly-aggressive-and-militaristic-course/#comment-82</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Binh]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:59:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://johnriddell.com/?p=632#comment-82</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://johnriddell.com/2011/08/18/canada%e2%80%99s-rulers-unite-around-newly-aggressive-and-militaristic-course/#comment-81&quot;&gt;Paul Kellogg&lt;/a&gt;.

Kellogg: &quot;Another indicator is in terms of the share of manufacturing. After World War II, the U.S. share of world manufacturing was over 50% — now it is less than 20% (according to figures from the United Nations).&quot;

This is true but highly misleading. All of Europe and Asia was reduced to rubble at that point. The U.S. share of world manufacturing was bound to decline relative to where it was right after it had physically wiped its rivals off the map.

In my view, most of those who argue that U.S. imperialism&#039;s power has declined overstate the case. The dollar remains the world&#039;s reserve currency; every dip in the world economy causes investors to flee to U.S. Treasuries; the debt/deleveraging crisis in Europe is even worse than it is for the U.S. because the Euro is a currency without a state (or rather, it&#039;s a currency with a multitude of states). The American, European, and Chinese economies all have major underlying problems that will cause recessions in the near future; it&#039;s a race to see whose unsustainable recovery/expansion collapses first, in a sense. And when one of them runs into big trouble, they will probably drag their rivals down with them.

The U.S. position is sustainable so long as our side isn&#039;t able to stop them at home. The ruling class is getting ready to gut Social Security, something that was unthinkable a decade ago even for the most psychotic Reaganite neanderthal politician.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://johnriddell.com/2011/08/18/canada%e2%80%99s-rulers-unite-around-newly-aggressive-and-militaristic-course/#comment-81">Paul Kellogg</a>.</p>
<p>Kellogg: &#8220;Another indicator is in terms of the share of manufacturing. After World War II, the U.S. share of world manufacturing was over 50% — now it is less than 20% (according to figures from the United Nations).&#8221;</p>
<p>This is true but highly misleading. All of Europe and Asia was reduced to rubble at that point. The U.S. share of world manufacturing was bound to decline relative to where it was right after it had physically wiped its rivals off the map.</p>
<p>In my view, most of those who argue that U.S. imperialism&#8217;s power has declined overstate the case. The dollar remains the world&#8217;s reserve currency; every dip in the world economy causes investors to flee to U.S. Treasuries; the debt/deleveraging crisis in Europe is even worse than it is for the U.S. because the Euro is a currency without a state (or rather, it&#8217;s a currency with a multitude of states). The American, European, and Chinese economies all have major underlying problems that will cause recessions in the near future; it&#8217;s a race to see whose unsustainable recovery/expansion collapses first, in a sense. And when one of them runs into big trouble, they will probably drag their rivals down with them.</p>
<p>The U.S. position is sustainable so long as our side isn&#8217;t able to stop them at home. The ruling class is getting ready to gut Social Security, something that was unthinkable a decade ago even for the most psychotic Reaganite neanderthal politician.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Paul Kellogg		</title>
		<link>https://johnriddell.com/2011/08/18/canada%e2%80%99s-rulers-unite-around-newly-aggressive-and-militaristic-course/#comment-81</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul Kellogg]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2011 21:37:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://johnriddell.com/?p=632#comment-81</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Glad to have questions regarding these two points. The issues of US decline and US militarism are counter-intuitive, and need empirical verification which isn&#039;t possible in a short report (and thanks to John Riddell for this report). When i get a chance, I will write up the talk into an article. 
But the evidence on U.S. decline is pretty stark. One indicator is the location of top corporations in the world. In the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s there were far more located in the US than anywhere else in the world. But for some years now, there have been more located in Europe than in the U.S. -- and the number located in China is rising rapidly. 
Another indicator is in terms of the share of manufacturing. After World War II, the U.S. share of world manufacturing was over 50% -- now it is less than 20% (according to figures from the United Nations). 
The question of the military is more complicated. The point that &quot;Anon&quot; makes above is true -- the US arms budget is by far the biggest in the world (almost half of world arms spending). But -- is this sustainable? I don&#039;t think it is. I think one of the reasons for U.S. decline is the drag on the &quot;civilian economy&quot; created by the addiction to militarism, less acute than the similar problem which revealed itself in the Soviet Union in the 1980s, but otherwise very similar. 
All of these are subjects for longer discussions.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Glad to have questions regarding these two points. The issues of US decline and US militarism are counter-intuitive, and need empirical verification which isn&#8217;t possible in a short report (and thanks to John Riddell for this report). When i get a chance, I will write up the talk into an article.<br />
But the evidence on U.S. decline is pretty stark. One indicator is the location of top corporations in the world. In the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s there were far more located in the US than anywhere else in the world. But for some years now, there have been more located in Europe than in the U.S. &#8212; and the number located in China is rising rapidly.<br />
Another indicator is in terms of the share of manufacturing. After World War II, the U.S. share of world manufacturing was over 50% &#8212; now it is less than 20% (according to figures from the United Nations).<br />
The question of the military is more complicated. The point that &#8220;Anon&#8221; makes above is true &#8212; the US arms budget is by far the biggest in the world (almost half of world arms spending). But &#8212; is this sustainable? I don&#8217;t think it is. I think one of the reasons for U.S. decline is the drag on the &#8220;civilian economy&#8221; created by the addiction to militarism, less acute than the similar problem which revealed itself in the Soviet Union in the 1980s, but otherwise very similar.<br />
All of these are subjects for longer discussions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Anon		</title>
		<link>https://johnriddell.com/2011/08/18/canada%e2%80%99s-rulers-unite-around-newly-aggressive-and-militaristic-course/#comment-80</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:47:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://johnriddell.com/?p=632#comment-80</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[You mention &quot;relative decline in U.S. world hegemony&quot; and &quot;momentous decline of U.S. power&quot; but nowhere is it explained or examples given that this is the case. Canada spends about $22-billion and the US spends about $700-billion (more than the rest of the world combined!). 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Yes, Canada want&#039;s to diversify its trade, but it is also true that &quot;Canada and the United States have the world&#039;s largest trading relationship&quot; see WikiPedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations#Trade]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You mention &#8220;relative decline in U.S. world hegemony&#8221; and &#8220;momentous decline of U.S. power&#8221; but nowhere is it explained or examples given that this is the case. Canada spends about $22-billion and the US spends about $700-billion (more than the rest of the world combined!).<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures" rel="nofollow ugc">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures</a></p>
<p>Yes, Canada want&#8217;s to diversify its trade, but it is also true that &#8220;Canada and the United States have the world&#8217;s largest trading relationship&#8221; see WikiPedia at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations#Trade" rel="nofollow ugc">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations#Trade</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/

Object Caching 22/42 objects using Disk
Page Caching using Disk: Enhanced 
Database Caching using Memcached

Served from: johnriddell.com @ 2026-05-12 20:45:20 by W3 Total Cache
-->