Why is US imperialism so extremely powerful?

[CatsAttack]

On what basis? It can't just be the GDP number, can it? If that were the case, China wouldn't be such a subservient dog. Is it military might? Then why is Russia such an obedient puppy? At what point do the interests of the various global bourgeoisie come into conflict?

[tuwix]

Chomsky has described it very well. After WWII the difference between the USA an other classic capitalist countries were so big that they arrange world to maintain power for very long time. And this is effect of that obligations.

[CatsAttack]

Chomsky has described it very well. After WWII the difference between the USA an other classic capitalist countries were so big that they arrange world to maintain power for very long time. And this is effect of that obligations.

Care to provide some examples? I get what you're saying but don't care to run to the library to search out some obscure Chomsky tome.

[CatsAttack]

China's high GDP and economic power is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Thank you for stating the obvious. Could you give some thoughts on the thread subject?

[Slavic]

Going off of what tuwix stated, the US after WWII was able to project its military power world wide much more effectively then their rival the USSR. This ability allowed them to capitalize on the ability to reach markets world wide and to protect them with strategic alliances and superior arms.

You have to remember that WWII hardley touched US soil, and the bulk of the fighting occurred in Europe, Africa, and Asia and decimated the economy of the states involved.

[MarxArchist]

England gave up it's colonies so the US would enter the war and save Britain (not in mainstream history books). The US was also left relatively untouched by the war and emerged a new global superpower. Of course the US didn't/doesn't physically colonize their new subjects as Britain did they set up a system of neo colonialism via the World Bank and IMF just after WW2 which lopsidedly benefits the US but also benefits all of the old ally nations which then became the 'western bloc' during the cold war. Putin has touched on this at a security conference where he gave a 30 minute speech concerning the failed promises made to the Soviet Union as they dismantled "socialism" in their country - that they would be 'brought into the fold'. His main complaint was that the US still maintained lopsided economic relations with a host of smaller nations and use the military and financial institutions to maintain this which, in his words, could lead to future nuclear war.

America, post WW2 basically became the global capitalist police (more like extortionists) but many want the UN/NATO to take over that role and divide resources more equally. This doesn't happen because most western European nations support the US because they too benefit from the current arrangement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism

[Sudsy]

Well if you're talking about WW2 then a huge importance is that of all the big capitalist nations prior to WW2, the US was the one that wasn't internally devastated by the war, so while Europe was in ruins and the rest of the world was too weak anyway, the US had the resources and ability to basically reshape the globe around their dominance. I believe it is around this time that the dominance switched from the UK to the US. This is evident in Africa, where the European colonies became weak and were destroyed. At the same time, the US was exploiting its financial gains in Europe and worldwide in pursing imperialist actions in Vietnam, Korea, Latin America, and the post colonial states of Africa.

[RedMaterialist]

On what basis? It can't just be the GDP number, can it? If that were the case, China wouldn't be such a subservient dog. Is it military might? Then why is Russia such an obedient puppy? At what point do the interests of the various global bourgeoisie come into conflict?

A cat's attack on dogs and puppies? China imports most of its oil from Iran. Russian anti-aircraft missiles guarantee that US jets will stay out of Syria. US imperialism can still kill hundreds of thousands, but only those who can't defend themselves, and even then some countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, can still defeat the US.

[tuwix]

Care to provide some examples? I get what you're saying but don't care to run to the library to search out some obscure Chomsky tome.

The major role had a Marshall Plan. There was dirty deal. The USA has given "help" to the Western Europe but the governments had commit themselves to have the same foreign policy as the USA. And we see it today when Spain, Italy, France and Portugal don't allow to pass through its territory plan with Bolivia's president becuase the USA are convinced Snowden is on the board...

Besides there emerged The International Monetary Fund. Its obvious objective (besides oficial rather fictional ones) is maintaining the countries who want help form them in poverty in relation to the USA.

[Rocky Rococo]

Power functions in politics, as in math, are exponential. The more dominant arenas of power of a particular empire, the more hegemony it accrues. So with the US you have (1) by far the largest GDP in the world, (2) by far the most high-priced military which includes (2b) the world's most devastating nuclear arsenal, (3) the international reserve currency, (4) by far the largest elements of globalized corporate capital which fly the USA as their flag of convenience, and (5) the US as the ideological and paradigmatic dictator of the world system. Multiplied together, all of these elements remove the US from the normal calculus that measures the power of nation-states, and enshrines the US as a power above and beyond the reach and restraint of all others, and with a docile, thoroughly coopted population that will gladly march off to any conflict the US regime declares "necessary". All this happens in the context of the subjective American expression of exceptionalism, exhibiting a continued pattern of the US being unreachable by international norms or laws. What other result could possibly emerge, as long as the US population is happy serving as global gauleiter.

[MarxArchist]

What other result could possibly emerge, as long as the US population is happy serving as global gauleiter.

US workers are NAZI's. Ya sure (for those of you who don't know what a gauleiter is). I don't remember voting to go to war. In fact the current one the US government had to lie about there being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, granted the twin towers being destroyed did indeed ignite a fervor of patriotism. There's no democracy in the US and people are indeed mailable but the socialist left here in the US has even added to the problem. The sooner Obama goes away and a republican gets into office the better. A lot more opposition would exist if the "progressive" black face wasn't put on US imperialism. Speaking of NAZI's though, the US has used many of the same crowd control/social manipulation techniques. I don't think that makes the American working class totally complicit in war crimes.

edit-One reason Western European nations can sometimes publicly posture and rail on about "US imperialism" is because the US has taken on the face of it but it benefits the western bloc nations in general. It benefits the workers in Western Europe in so much as a large chunk of tax revenue isn't going to military as it is in the US but at the same time they benefit from the lopsided global capitalist order that the US military creates.