3 ms·
>The U.S went to wars, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to force open markets to its products This is a standard Marxist explanation for U.S. oversea
by _iyig 7y ago
>The U.S went to wars, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to force open markets to its products
This is a standard Marxist explanation for U.S. overseas military intervention [0]. It is also largely wrong.
Let’s look at the data. After 16 years of obscenely expensive American intervention in Iraq, that country exports more to China than the U.S., and imports more from China and Turkey together than from all other trade partners combined [1]. Likewise, Afghanistan today imports almost nothing from the U.S., but relies heavily on exports from China and Iran - two major U.S. competitors [2]. This is, of course, geographical common sense. If anything, recent U.S. wars have opened new markets for China, their number one geopolitical competitor.
Looking further back, Germany, Japan, and South Korea have all developed into financially independent trading partners. Far from U.S. capital dominating Japan, Americans were afraid for quite some time that Japanese cars, electronics, and industrial equipment would completely displace their American equivalents.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_explanations_of_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_explanations_of_warfar...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq
[2] http://stat.wto.org/CountryProfile/WSDBCountryPFView.aspx?Language=E&Country=AF http://stat.wto.org/CountryProfile/WSDBCountryPFView.aspx?La...
- AsyncAwait 7y ago> After 16 years of obscenely expensive American intervention in Iraq, that country exports more to China than the U.S. and imports more from China and Turkey together than from all other trade partners combined [0]. Likewise, Afghanistan today imports almost nothing from the U.S. but relies heavily on exports from China and Iran U.S military contractors got handsomely rich off both Afghanistan and Iraq and both nations are almost exclusively importing American military equipment. As for civilian items, the average income of an Afghan/Iraqi civilian is not enough to afford American products, but just because not every U.S economic sector benefited does not mean it wasn't worth it for the likes of Raytheon. As for Iran being very close to Iraq now, that certainly wasn't the plan, is just that there are other players in the world making moves and reacting to U.S. ones and sometimes they come out on top, particularly if they happen to understand the local political dynamic better, because they're actually from the area.
- _iyig 7y ago>As for civilian items, the average income of an Afghan/Iraqi civilian is not enough to afford American product OK, so that completely breaks the first part of traditional Marxist arguments. I will grudgingly admit, however, that the U.S. tried for many years and at great expense to improve the economic situation of average Iraqis to a point where they could afford American-made goods. >U.S military contractors got handsomely rich off both Afghanistan and Iraq and both nations are almost exclusively importing American military equipment. I’d 100% agree with you there. However, the military-industrial complex is a very different beast than Lenin’s theory of imperial monopoly capitalism. The M.I.C. is to me a far simpler and more boring explanation, and one which bears up better under scrutiny, than the Marxist theory of warfare which your OP postulated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_explanations_of_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_explanations_of_warfar...
- kick 7y agoThe explanation is not wrong.