In what capacity (if any) do U.S. interventionist policies benefit its population?

[nowarbutclasswar]

i'm new on here, was interested in this question and figured this is the best place for an informed discussion... do united states imperialist policies benefit its population? and if not, who do they benefit?

any thoughts?

[Sensible Socialist]

It's depends how you define benefit. From a consumer perspective, they allow more foreign markets to be opened, allowing for the growth of large businesses that produce goods. However, this only expands global capitalism, which harms the working class, so in the long run the expansion of markets and corporations does not benefit the working class. Goods can be produced cheaper overseas, and the U.S. opening up certain areas of the world for trade and commerce leads to cheap goods being produced. But many firms move jobs overseas, which then would hurt the American workers.

In the long run, imperialist policies only expand global capitalism, which directly harms the working class, not just in the United States but worldwide. The policies benefit corporations who have access to cheap (slave) labor and more markets to sell goods.

[Nox]

To put it simply, the US goes into other countries, takes their natural resources (oil is the best example), and spends the money on their ridiculously oversized military budget, so they can maintain their dominance and keep getting those resources, so they can keep spending money on their ridiculously oversized military budget... it's like a circle.

Ok, all jokes aside, the people do benefit a little, but not much, it gives the government more money to spend on education and healthcare and welfare.

On the other hand, it ravages the economies of many other countries and causes tens of millions across the world to live in poverty.

[punisa]

To be perfectly honest - yes.
US population did benefit from imperialism as it secured high living standards.
Due to economic/cultural expansionism US was able to provide "American dream" to many middle class members (including many foreigners).
If it wasn't for imperialism I doubt that the living standard would be at that level.

So what happened? The rich elite decided they no longer (or never did) care about the well being of their large middle class, and US indeed had a large middle class, so they opted for dumping them down and increasing personal wealth of the chosen few.

US has been built on arrogance for the most part of the 20th century, what we are seeing now is that arrogance is shifting from the vast middle class onto the brains of the rich elite.
And the middle class is having a rather hard time coping with the fact that they are not so smart and creative as they thought they were, this is especially true for the pettie burgouise.
Meanwhile the rich have become so extremely rich that many are behaving delusional and I wouldn't be surprised if they attribute demigod characteristics to themselves, again turbo arrogance leads the US.

In the process we are witnessing today USA will collapse in a similar manner USSR did. As of today it is still unimaginable, but very soon it will all be over.
Who could have had predicted total collapse of the Soviet union in 1987? Well, some did, as we do with the US now, but majority of population could not envision such event taking place.

This is not bad news and personally I believe the US working class will be better off the sooner the system collapses. But as you probably know there is a tiny problem regarding that scenario... US has the largest army in the history of mankind. What role will that card play? Maybe's its wiser not to predict, hell I don't even like to think about it.

[jake williams]

There are a lot of people on the "left" who try to provide very simplistic, an very problematic, answers to this particular question; a question that is very important and very difficult to answer accurately.

What is capitalist imperialism (as a distinct phenomenon from, say, any arbitrary collection of political entities' actions vis-a-vis other political entities)?

It's one set of solutions to the inherent crises of capitalism. When capitalism fails to internally produce rates of profit necessary to maintain capitalism, it often looks for solutions outside itself, by the targetting of other societies, opening new markets, dumping products, getting access to resources and labour and, hopefully, resuscitating rates of profit.

Does this benefit workers and if so, how?

In that it seeks solutions external to the society - so, for example, US imperialism seeks solutions to capitalist crisis outside of the US - it might perhaps be said to benefit workers because imperialism is a different set of "solutions" to capitalist crises than, say, stealing money from public pension funds (Social Security), unemployment insurance (this happened in Canada in the 90s), and so on. It's this latter set of "solutions" American capitalism seems to be choosing, not that imperialism is off the table.

So, one could imagine that workers benefit from imperialism insofar they're better off if others are targetted than if they themselves are targetted. This is not to suggest, of course, that imperialist policies do not themselves cost workers in all sorts of ways: in blood, as the footsoldiers of imperialist armies, in public funds, in decreased security, and so on. Clearly German workers under the Nazis did not benefit from the use of Nazi imperialism to try to solve German capitalism's crises, whatever they may have initially believed.

There are also arguments asserting that the workers imperialist countries benefit from imperialism because they themselves are given a portion of the profits from imperialist adventure. The arguments and evidence for this are of quite limited merit though. Why would capitalism in periods of crisis be inclined to make concessions to workers unless they are absolutely forced? What are the mechanisms by which this happens? What is the empirical evidence that this actually goes on? It's certainly possible that this happens to a limited extent, but it far from capably explains imperialism as a phenomenon, or its effects on workers in imperialist countries.

It's also worth pointing out that insofar as "globalization" represents a variant of imperialism (ie. the territorial externalization of capitalist crisis), it often has the material effects of destroying good jobs in the imperialist countries themselves, moving labour to places where labour standards are lower, and weakening the working class in all countries: in the imperialist countries by destroying jobs and forcing concessions from nervous workers, and in those countries targetted by imperialism through the fascist destruction of labour organizations required to make those countries' labour standards profitable.


All told, the effects of imperialism on the workers of imperialist countries, including in the US, are largely negative, positive only rarely and in complex ways. But most importantly, what really matters is the fact that imperialism as a symptom of capitalism represents that system, one which is not in the interests of workers at all. So long as imperialism is a solution to capitalism's crises, capitalism still exists, and this is not a good thing for workers. There's simply no serious or credible argument that, for example, US workers materially benefit from the maintenance of capitalism because "imperialist superprofits" somehow obtained by workers are leaving them with unearned, luxurious lifestyles.

[nowarbutclasswar]

Just to expand on the question (and perhaps go off on a tangent a little :D):


The main thing we hear is "every country pursues its own interests", but what is a “country” if not the people? Does the CIA work for its country’s (people’s) interests when it supports pro-western parties in Serbia or Ukraine? Do wealthier corporations mean a higher standard of living? I doubt it because there are countries in Europe which are not imperialist and have a higher standard than the U.S. So who does the CIA work for? Recently I’ve seen a lot of domestic critics of the US government say how it is incompetent and so on, but to me it seems like they're actually quite competent at pursuing certain objectives, mainly imperialism, establishing neo-liberalism globally, maintaining the status quo, fighting Marxism etc., and to operate with such precision and consistency with “administrations” changing every 8 years to me indicates that there is a clear-cut plan being followed behind the scenes. They are specifically adamant about spreading neo-liberalism, if not by direct military action, then by subversion and support for anti-leftist elements. I see in books “United States hegemony...”, “United States imperialism...” but who is “United States”? A construction worker in New York really has no say or stake in U.S. foreign policy. We know the “government” really has no power, that it’s just a mechanism used to achieve certain ends by those who control it. Who controls it? Ok, the rich (corporations), but how? Do they simply tell the politicians what to do? This doesn’t seem plausible to me because there are always new corporations popping up, and yet this system has been in place for centuries. I don’t think anyone today is addressing this question adequately, or am I just missing something? The entire process (chain of command) needs to be thoroughly examined and exposed from top to bottom. Mainstream media doesn’t even attempt to inquire into this, which suggests they are implicit in the whole scheme, but even independent outlets or leftist intellectuals don’t have any adequate answers. Only conspiracists, but most of the time they discredit themselves with bullshit theories. Is this information just hard to come by (yet)?

[Jimmie Higgins]

To be perfectly honest - yes.
US population did benefit from imperialism as it secured high living standards.Yet in the post-USSR period where the US increased imperial power quite a bit (and economic power), worker living standards have stagnated and their power in society has diminished.

Yes, living standards improved after WWII, but this was not a case of the US empire throwing some tribute to the people just because it was flush and could do so. Viewing the post-war period this way ignores class dynamics in the US in the 20th century. Before the war the working class was making gains through forcing concessions from the bosses and reforms from the government. The war-years had an enforced no-strike pledge (supported and policed by the US CP and CIO) and the end of the war immediately saw a return to struggle, efforts to unionize the US South and a huge strike wave including general strikes. In much of the country living standards improved and bosses allowed regular wage increases in exchange for social peace... so the higher standards of living were due more to the fear and threat of a return to class struggle, than to just having imperial loot to spread around. In the US south where the class struggle stalled, but where the war years had transformed the economy from a rural cotton-based backwards system into modern capitalism, concessions were not made and workers were (and still are) paid less. It took the struggle of African Americans to win reforms for this situation to change somewhat.

No working class ultimately benifits from imperialism for the simple fact that a victorious ruling class is in a much stronger position and much harder for workers to challenge. On top of that, empires can play the domestic and imperial subjects against eachother.

Finally, all imperialist wars have both a war abroad and a war at home. On a basic level, imperialists have to have total support for their war so dissent and right to organize and agitate are restricted... think the Palmer Raids, the imprisonment of Eugen Debs and anti-war activists in WWI, the no-strike pledge in WWII, all the way to the US PATRIOT ACT. These measures along with military budgets cutting into social spending, workers used as fodder for the war machine, etc mean that workers in imperialist countries have more to loose from conquest than they gain.

[CHE with an AK]

the US goes into other countries, takes their natural resources, and spends the money on their ridiculously oversized military budget, so they can maintain their dominance and keep getting those resources, so they can keep spending money on their ridiculously oversized military budget... it's like a circle.

The U.S. will continue to do it as well, until someone puts them in their place ...

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j318/Tredcrow/2011/Fidel.gif