On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Richard K. Moore wrote:
> Is "national interest" a major determinant of US > China policy - more
significant than kultur or human rights?
>
Transnational interests, and internationalism, are the major determinants
of US-China policy. Transnationals are seeking to integrate China into the
global economy. This is the material basis for ideological and political
practices surrounding policy behavior towards China.
> Is "US > national interest" now tacitly defined to include, let's say,
G7 interests?
>
Yes, most definitely. The G7 and other elite organizations who constitute
the nascent transnational government (informal, at this point).
> Do weapons technology developments promise Uncle Sam an alternative to
> nuclear armageddon - an alternative that can be used more flexibly to bring
> a future China to its knees without incinerating it?
Wrong question. Weapons technology development has three functions.
First, consensual domination is always only the wrapping around coercive
domination. Renegade nation-states will need to be coerced into fulfilling
their role in the global system. Second, surveillance and weapons
technology is crucial for the control of the global work force and
supernumeraries. As wealth inequality increases and material conditions
decline, consensual domination will increasingly breakdown. Instruments
of violence are a very important backup. And third, capitalist production
still depends heavily on massive taxpayer subsidy, and defense spending is
one of the least questioned mechanism through which the state props us
private industry.
Andrew Austin