• The Boomerang Theory and Effect: The rise of new imperialisms (China-BRICS)
By Carlos Petroni
The Boomerang returned to haunt the US and Europe
More than a decade ago we wrote our “Boomerang Theory” to explain how the old imperialisms of the US and Europe were facing an unsurmountable opposition from other emerging imperialist powers, namely China and BRICS (the block comprised by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).
In response to high production costs in the U.S., Europe, and Japan, as well as advances in the standardization of parts, industrial, shipping, port logistics processes, and the enormous weight of the oil crisis, in the last century began a shift of production facilities from the center of imperialism to its periphery in order to ensure continued profits for big businesses.
This move from traditional places of great industrial production in the centers of U.S. and European imperialism traces a path towards regions of lower environmental restrictions and labor costs as a closer proximity to many regional markets.
We explained this process in our “Theory of the Boomerang.”
We realized this phenomenon of relocation, reorganization of existing productive forces from one region to another as an expression of a new process of fragmentation and multi-polarity of imperial power.
Adapting the experiment of the relocation of the Marshall Plan after the II World War, imperialism start relocating light industrial production to the semi-colonies during the which begins with the situation of industrial plants in Northern Mexico and South Korea, accentuating this process in the 1980s with the displacement of plants to Taiwan and Singapore.
Exploiting the immense riches accumulated by the ex-Workers’ States now restored to capitalism, by the end of the decade, large transnational trusts began to settle massively in China, India, Russia, South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, and the Federation of Malay.
In very little time, light industries were followed by heavy industries and new technology.
All of this occurring with neither the emergence of new forms and sources of sustainable production nor any overall growth to support the satisfaction of human needs and/or the forging of a more democratic and just world.
Further, those industries relocated did so by intertwining pre-existing imperialist capitals from Europe and US with local and state capitals from the new host countries.
The U.S., Europe, or Japan were unable to realize these changes benefited those known today as “B.R.I.C.S.,” who, in a quarter century, rapidly developed an infrastructural platform with a magnitude never before seen by linking foreign capital with their own to create a basis for a new political domination.
The industries relocated, now under new management, transformed themselves into competitors of the US and Europe and deeply penetrated their markets. What we called the “Boomerang effect.”
Shifting of the centers of production from the center of imperialism to its periphery has had a great structural impact on the economy and therefore on international politics.
The U.S. and Europe—the traditional centers of imperialism—have undergone a de-industrialization process that has provoked periodic economic crises.
The old empires come to fall under the crude Law of the Boomerang, and the emergence of the new imperialisms of the B.R.I.C.S. increase their previous power and global domination without adding a speck of resources to those within reach of the masses on a global scale.
The “new” emerging imperialisms only partially replace what the “old” had been responsible for destroying and reorganizing elsewhere, and then replacing it in favor of a handful of new countries—themselves—at the expense of most of the rest.
These emerging imperialisms emerged with the bleeding wounds of the marginalized masses.
Poor people residing in their own countries laden with the additional miseries of exploitation and dependence of semi-colonial countries that have neither resolved nor do they propose to resolve all outstanding accounts from the reign of capitalism and imperialism.
Instead, they take the reins of domination of other countries in their own hands.
They do not portend a better future for the whole of humanity, even if they disguise themselves with the rhetoric of a “different” world.
Structurally weaker at birth than the previous imperialist powers at the time of their emergence, they foreshadow fresh sufferings and unmet needs of workers, the people, and nations of the planet.
In many cases, they add a second, third, or even fourth chain of subjugated nations and dependent countries, adding their own yokes upon them while partially maintaining their dependence on the old declining imperialism.
Characterized by the splintering of imperialist power into several competing blocs, this new geopolitical system encounters serious difficulties resolving its contradictions by way of its classical method of direct and total war between them, as shown in the cases of World Wars I and II.
The U.S. hegemony has dissolved in its crisis, liquefying its ability to be the sole police force of the universe.
Now it competes, but it is losing at the hands of China and its bloc, the BRICS.
However, this has not prevented the old and emerging great powers from carrying out overt and covert wars of annihilation and occupation for the purposes of controlling natural resources, as well as conducting economic wars in both national and international markets as a means of controlling producers of raw materials and other valuable natural resources.
In order to realize that the prospect of a third world war has not been erased, but is only waiting for the development of events, one only needs to observe the hand of imperialism at work on both sides of the battle in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, South Africa, and Ukraine.
The leading imperialisms—U.S., Europe, Brazil, China, Russia and their allies—are all embarked on military adventures, occupations of countries, economic invasions, and the manufacture of lethal weapons, both conventional and nuclear.
They are doing so in such a manner that the global stockpile of weapons, particularly those name "strategically conventional", has doubled in the last decade and tripled since the so-called “end of the Cold War,” “end of the Soviet Union,” or, as it was triumphantly proclaimed in the early 1990s, the “end of history,” by which was meant the end of class struggle.
Led by one of the imperialisms or their proxies, armed clashes, invasions, and aggressions multiply daily.
Even being devoid of natural resources does not preclude a country from experiencing such attacks.
Since the B.R.I.C.S. assumed their imperial status during this system’s dying breath, they could make the full imperial power arc of power in just a few years, or just a few decades.
In this case, a jump from the quantitative to qualitative is all that will be needed to provoke a catastrophe.
Accumulating for the qualitative leap are the increasing quantity of economic and armed conflicts which are accelerated by struggles over food, water, oil, metals, and other natural resources of all kinds.
It is only a question of time.
All material in this article is part of a much larger document, The Transitional Program II
Related article: China` s Belt and Road Initiative: the most ambitious imperialist expansion of the century /By Carlos Petroni https://www.facebook.com/TheDailySocialist/posts/270522313357498
• Vuelva a la página principal