US-China: Provoking the Creditor, Hugging the Holy Man

Washington’s Road to Ruin

The Obama Administration has heightened tensions with China through a series of measures which can only be characterized as major provocations designed to undermine relations between the two countries. These provocations include political support for separatist movements, such as the US-funded theocratic-monk led Tibetan secessionists and the Washington- based Uighur secessionists, as well as through the $6.4 billion-dollar advanced arms sales to Taiwan, a virtual protectorate of the US Navy. President Obama has publicly met with and openly backed these separatist and secessionists groups, flaunting Washington’s refusal to recognize China’s existing borders. This is part of the US strategy of encouraging the physical break-up of independent nations, which are viewed as ‘obstacles’ to its program of global military empire building.

In addition to continuing and escalating the hostile policies of his predecessor, the Obama Administration has exploited several other issues in order to rally American public opinion and mobilize overseas allies behind its confrontational posture. First, the Obama Administration claims that China’s currency (the Renminbi) is artificially undervalued to give Chinese exports an unfair price advantage, thus undercutting US manufacturing exports and costing “millions of American jobs”. And secondly, the Administration claims that, after the US had opened its domestic manufacturing market to Chinese firms, the Chinese would not ‘reciprocate’ and open their financial sectors to Wall Street investment banks.

In retaliation for growing Chinese exports, Washington has raised protective tariffs on steel pipes and automobile tires, and issued Congressional threats of further protectionist measures.

The US has insists that other nations support its aggressive policy toward Iran, including imposing trade, investment and financial sanctions, supporting the provocative US naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and backing Israel’s bellicose threats to bomb Teheran. In contrast, China rejects economic sanctions, in favor of negotiations, while increasing its trade and investments in strategic sectors of the Iranian economy. In the United Nations Security Council, the US has exerted diplomatic and mass media pressure to force China to vote for a Zionist-authored proposal of wide-reaching sanctions against Iran. Obama refuses to accept China’s rejection of the US military-driven policy of regime change and the Chinese pursuit of free trade with Iran.

The US Administration’s selective definition of “self-determination” includes giving support to secessionist ethno-religious regional movements in China, while, at the same time, invading and occupying independent states, like Iraq and Afghanistan, ordering missile attacks on other states, like Pakistan and Somalia, establishing over 700 military bases world-wide with extra-territorial jurisdiction and engaging in assassinations of its opponents abroad via the CIA and Special Forces.

In contrast, China is not at war and opposes military invasions of sovereign states. China does not have overseas military bases and is menaced by the US policy of encircling China’s frontiers with American bases in client states in Northeast, Southeast and Central Asia.

While US military occupation forces brutally violate human rights of millions of citizens in occupied or targeted countries, and threaten the civil rights of critical Americans with arbitrary rulings, secret trials and the suspension of habeas corpus, the Obama regime excoriates China for its prosecution of opposition activists.

The Obama regime has latched onto a conflict between a private US corporation, Google, and Chinese hackers, which it alleges are state sponsored, turning the issue into a major struggle for “internet freedom” at the level of state to state relations. Despite the expanding presence of scores of US-owned IT companies in China, the Obama regime has raised the issue of “internet censorship” to the level of a major ideological confrontation.

Climate change is another source of aggravation between the states. At the Copenhagen summit in December 2009, Obama rejected any formal agreement on the reduction of carbon emissions while deflecting criticism and blame on to China and other developing countries, which had agreed to informal substantive targets on CO2 reductions.

Of all these points of contention, the most serious is Washington’s financial, diplomatic and political support for ethnic secessionist groups in China, threatening the security and territorial integrity of the Chinese state. This paramount issue has re-awakened painful memories of earlier imperialist carving up of China, its rich port cities and territories and has forced the Chinese authorities to consider retaliatory measures.

Imperial Policies: At What Price?

The Obama regime’s political and diplomatic provocations against China in pursuit of its military-driven empire, come at a very high real and potential price. We cannot assume that China will remain a stoic punching bag for the US, absorbing territorial threats, economic pressures and gratuitous diplomatic insults without taking counter-measures especially in the economic sphere.

China’s Crucial Role as US Creditor

Obama’s provocative militarist posturing toward China endangers major US private and public economic interests, including China’s financing of the burgeoning US debt.

China is the world’s largest and fastest growing investor in US securities. According to a detailed study by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) (July 30, 2009), China holds a vast amount of long-term treasury debt, US agency debt, US corporate debt, US equities and short-term debt estimated at over $1.2 trillion. China’s investment in US Treasury securities were used to help finance the economic ‘recovery’ (such as it is). If the Obama regime persists in its provocations, China may decide to unload a large share of its US securities holdings, inducing other foreign investors to also sell off their holdings (CRS). This would lead to a sharp depreciation of the dollar and force Washington to raise interest rates, which could drive the US into a deeper recession/depression. Economists, who claim Chinese economic interests would suffer from such a sell off, overlook the fact that for Beijing, national sovereignty is more important than short-term economic losses, especially in view of US support for secessionist movements. Moreover, the Chinese have a high rates of savings, huge foreign reserves and increasingly diverse markets and suppliers of essential commodities. China is in a better position to absorb the ‘shock’ of a decline in US economic relations resulting from American bellicosity than the debt-ridden, negative-saving, military-driven North American economy.

Foreign Direct Investments

Almost all of the 400 biggest US multi-national corporations, listed in Forbes, have major profitable investments in China, which are growing. The Obama regime’s increasingly confrontational position toward China puts these investments at risk.

US foreign investments in China far exceed the latter’s investments in the US, according to a report published by the UCLA Asian American Studies Center. In 2006, China’s foreign direct investment (FDI) in the US was $600 million, while US investments in China were $22.2 billion. The Report goes on to state “…the complaints by many American businesses and politicians that China can invest in US companies with relative ease while China still tightly restricts access to Chinese markets and companies appear not to be borne out by the numbers”. The US government has, in fact, blocked several large scale investments by Chinese companies, including the multi-billion dollar purchase of an oil company (UNOCAL), an appliance company (Maytag) and computer company (3Com Corp). Chinese investments in the US are not always profitable. The Sovereign Wealth Fund (a Chinese government-run investment fund) lost over 50% of its $8 billion-dollar investment in the finance groups, Blackstone Group and Morgan Stanley, in less than a year.

The Obama regime’s complaints about China’s “restrictive” treatment of US companies fly in the face of economic reality. The attacks are part of a political strategy of anti-Chinese propaganda to heighten the American public’s antagonism against China and rally domestic support for any military confrontation. Even as US companies in China reap profits a thousand times greater than Chinese investments in the US, and the leading investment houses swindle Chinese sovereign investors of billions, the White House claims foul play!.

China’s much-maligned policy of restricting financial takeovers by Wall Street firms was one of the reasons the US speculative collapse did not impact its economy. And still Washington continues to attack Beijing on the issue of “opening Chinese financial markets to Wall Street”.

US-China Trade

The Obama regime has repeatedly raised the issue of China’s ‘undervalued’ currency, conveniently ignoring the fact that China’s imports from the US are growing faster than its exports to the US. Between 2006-2008 US annual exports to China grew 32%, 18%, 9.5%, while its imports of Chinese goods grew 18.2%, 11.7%, 5.1%. Moreover top US exports included electrical machinery and equipment, power generation equipment, oil seeds and oleaginous fruits, aero-space products, optical equipment and iron and steel – a broad spectrum of American industrial products with high value-added, well-paying skilled employment and lucrative profits.

Moreover, the fact that US exports to China include a diverse array of manufacturing sectors and are competitive at the current exchange rate, suggests that the vast US trade deficit with China has less to do with China’s currency policy and more to do with US public and private investment policies and the relative strengths of the productive forces of each economy. In large part, the majority of exports from China to the US are the result of US multi-national corporate decisions to produce and sub-contract in China. In other words, the trade deficit with China is directly related to US corporate global investment strategy, which, in turn, flourished after the US government liberalized it rules and deregulated US corporate conduct. Liberal investment policies under the US government, and not Chinese “unfair trade rules”, are a major cause of the trade deficit.

The angry posture adopted by the Obama regime toward China’s “undervalued” currency is a political ploy to deflect attention from its disastrous liberal economic policies and its support for the investment conduct of large US corporations.

The US annual trade deficit with China has grown almost four fold between 1999-2008, from $68.7 billion to $266.3 billion. The growth of the trade deficit coincides with the massive shift of US investment from manufacturing to speculative financial, real estate and insurance activities. In other words, the US re-directed its investment strategies from producing useful, quality commodities for domestic consumption and export to importing manufactured goods from abroad at a greater profit for the corporations. The weakening of US productive capacity — its productive forces — was reflected in its declining competitive position and its deepening trade imbalances. Given the tight relations between the White House and Wall Street, policy makers sought to blame Chinese monetary officials for an undervalued currency, rather than confront the bubble economy stimulated by the policies of the Federal Reserve and generated by the Wall Street investment houses, whose executives go on to occupy key economic posts in the US government and who provide substantial funding for electoral campaigns.

In those economic sectors where US investment has led to increased efficiency, like agriculture, the US has competed successfully. China is the leading buyer of American soybeans and cotton — accounting for over half world sales of the former and between almost a third of the latter according to the U.S. International Trade Commission and the US Department of Commerce.

Trade, Credit, Investments versus Militarism and Speculation

China’s economic relations with the US have been extraordinarily lucrative and favorable to the big US capitalists and the American government. By purchasing low-interest US Treasury notes, China has financed US trade and budget deficits, which are the result of exorbitant military spending, multiple imperial wars and occupations, and unproductive speculative investments. The US multi-nationals have reaped high rates of profit from their investments in China, profits far in excess of what they would have gained in the US, and many times more than what a few Chinese firms earn in the more restrictive US climate. Important US economic sectors in aerospace, agro business, port facilities, transport and giant commercial retailers and importers depend on and profit from trade with China. US speculators have been able to rake in huge profits from the Chinese Sovereign Funds by pumping and dumping speculative US stocks.

As China’s dynamic growth and rate of consumer demand continue to race ahead of the US, American exports to China outpace its imports from China.

The growing political antagonism and reckless diplomatic actions against China taken by the White House and Congress serve to undermine the basic economic interests of a broad swath of US capitalist enterprises as well as the credibility of the US economy. What is even more striking is that many of the charges leveled against Beijing, including its ‘unfair treatment’ of investors and ‘closed economy’ – apply with greater force to Washington.

The Paradox of Economic Gain and Political Hostility

The key to understanding this paradox of economic gain and political hostility lies in the fundamentally different political and economic structures and global strategies of the two countries. The US economy has been driven by its financial and speculative capitalist classes, which in turn wield decisive political influence over state economic policy. At the same time, the commercial capitalist class is more attuned to importing manufactured goods, rather than in long-term investment in research, development in the American manufacturing sector. Neither commercial nor financial capital has a stake in stimulating US exports and in investing in the productive forces of the country. The design and implementation of US global strategy is controlled by the civilian militarists and imperial ideologues, (especially the Zionists) in government and their counterparts in sectors of the military high command.

In contrast to the Chinese market-driven quest for global power, US imperialism is built around military conquest and appropriation of economic wealth. The disproportionate influence exercised by the civilian militarists in the US government has resulted in a series of foreign wars, which have severely strained the US economy and led to a military definition of US global objectives. Faced with China’s growing economic relations and influence in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East and Beijing’s opposition to US military-driven imperial policies against Iran, the Washington has escalated its political provocations, diplomatic pressures and interference in Chinese internal affairs. As these external pressures increase, Chinese public opinion turns more nationalistic, which in turn serves as a basis for US mass media charges of “xenophobia” and “chauvinism” on the part of the Chinese. The irrational nature of the recent anti-China propaganda promoted by the US mass media is most evident in the shrill warnings of a Chinese military threat to Asian security, especially when the US continues to expand its chain of military bases encircling China from South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Australia, Afghanistan and Central Asia. China has neither military bases abroad nor naval fleets off the coasts of any US or allied territory.

The greater the US reliance on military force, brutal economic sanctions and outright blockades to overthrow regimes and extend its network of client regimes, the greater its hostility toward China, which is expanding its economic ties with US ‘adversaries’, such as Iran, Venezuela, Sudan, Nicaragua, etc.

The US has severely weakened its productive forces in the process of funding a global military machine. China, on the other hand, has sought to become a world power on the bases of the long-term, large-scale development of its productive forces, even in the face of US opposition. At each and every turn, Washington has passed up enormous opportunities for the US economy from China’s dynamic growth, booming market and overseas economic expansion, in favor of petty provocations.


Ultimately what we have is a conflict between two diametrically opposing political economic systems.

On the one hand, a United States military driven empire, which focuses on conquering Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, backs the ambitions of a militarist Israel, seeks marginal client states in Latin America and militarizes Pakistan, Colombia and Mexico.

On the other hand, China deepens its economic ties with dynamic Asian countries; increases its oil links with Saudi Arabia, Iran, the Gulf States, Venezuela, Russia and Angola; displaces the US as the leading trading partner of Brazil, Argentina, Peru and Chile; and increases its trade and investment links with Southern Africa in minerals and related infrastructure projects. The contrast is striking.

China’s global economic expansion is confronted by US military encirclement, diplomatic provocations, and a massive anti-Chinese propaganda campaign designed to deflect US public attention from the extreme imbalances in its domestic economy. Instead of looking inward to understand why the US is declining, the Obama regime encourages the public to blame China’s supposedly unfair trade policies, its ‘restrictive’ investment policies, its manipulated currency rate and its tough response to secessionist movements funded by the US.

In the end the US will not resolve its budget deficits and trade imbalances, not to mention its endless imperial wars, by pandering to self-described divine rulers, like the Dali Lama, and provoking a dynamic economic power such as China. Nor can Washington escape its profound economic imbalances by catering to Wall Street speculators and ignoring the decline of America’s productive forces. Drones, military surges and surrogate puppet armies engaged in endless wars are no match for the surging investments, robust developing markets and joint ventures linking China with the dynamic emerging economies of the world.

18 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. bozh said on March 8th, 2010 at 9:32am #

    As a person who suggest we start building an idyllic society and hoping that chinese are doing just that, i fear for china.
    I hope it never blinks as did USSR. Not that i blame gorbachov for that. He gave in fearing, i assume, the worst scenario: a surprise nuclear attack under the usual US rationalization for their aggressions.

    No one shld underestimate capabilities of the ancient or modern asocialists for any evil; whether they’d be japanese, german, iraqi, colombian, et al. After all, they have been perping much evil against us for at least 10k yrs.

    It’s not gonna stop; one better expect more of the same. And by rendering their own domestics utterly dormant doormats, their rules is apsolute. tnx

  2. Josie Michel-Bruening said on March 8th, 2010 at 11:34am #

    Dear James Petras, thank you very much for another important and informative article!!!
    “Bozh”, you can believe it or not,
    but the vast majority of Germans is ashamed of those 12 years of their history of Nazi-Germany.
    Nowadays, however, the United States of America are much more threatening to the world than China or any other state.

  3. MichaelKenny said on March 8th, 2010 at 1:59pm #

    An amusing thought re Washington’s financial, diplomatic and political support for ethnic secessionist groups in China. What if Nepal’s “Maoists” were US-financed? Nepal is just accross the border from Tibet, which in its turn is just south of Sinkiang (Uyghurs!). It’s hard to imagine anything the Chinese government would want less than Maoists!

  4. bozh said on March 8th, 2010 at 3:19pm #

    in metioning germany and where asocialism ruled germans also, i meant germans since at least 3 k yrs ago. In fact, while writing the post for some reason i never thought ab the nazi rule.
    In talking ab any iniquitous society- and there was no land that had an idyllic society since 3 or 4 k yrs ago and some like egypt, sumer, et al since at the latest 10k yrs- i always add the full time-span; which is millennial.

    Actually, there may have not been germans, russians, czechs, swedes, et al 10k yrs ago, but our ancestral people numbering perhaps no m0re than 500k people; all speaking one language.

    In fact germans and and english were probabbly one people even as late as two k yrs ago.
    And the german people are not to be blamed for nazi crimes; the sole cause for it being division of people into less- and more-valued. Had germans had an idyllic society in 20th cent- which germans may have had just 3 k yrs ago- such a societies wld have never perped such crimes as nazis, israelis, and americans have perped in just a short time.
    And these criminal minds are just on the onset of it. Vast number of Germans israelis, or americans have nothing to be ashamed of.
    It is the hell-on-earth people; probably just one% who solely do crime but never time.
    And that’s why they do it! They know they can get away with it. One wld be in denial if one cld not recognize the fact that lies are as powerful as the truth.
    Trns of people have been deceived by just words and not just germans, serbs, americans, or japanese.
    No matter where the hell one goes, the lies work perfectly! It is simple as that!
    That’s why there is schooling, media, ‘educators’. tnx

  5. David Silver said on March 8th, 2010 at 5:32pm #

    Petras is correct but I have a problem with his “diametrically
    opposed political economic systems.” implying that China is Socialist
    as te US is capitalist.

  6. Deadbeat said on March 9th, 2010 at 12:00am #

    Petras is correct but I have a problem with his “diametrically
    opposed political economic systems.” implying that China is Socialist
    as the US is capitalist.

    That’s not how I read it. Petras was not making a simplistic Socialist vs Capitalist comparison. He was making a nuance and thoughtful analysis between the U.S. belligerent militaristic/interventionist vs China’s economic partnership and diplomacy.

    I didn’t read this article as praise for the Chinese system but an examination of U.S. hypocrisy.

  7. John Andrews said on March 9th, 2010 at 12:43am #

    “…China’s imports from the US are growing faster than its exports to the US. Between 2006-2008 US annual exports to China grew 32%, 18%, 9.5%, while its imports of Chinese goods grew 18.2%, 11.7%, 5.1%. ”

    Decreasing number series shows growth? No wonder no one understands economics.

  8. Max Shields said on March 9th, 2010 at 7:42am #

    John Andews, so true, what can be referred to as the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness. Simply put economists – neo-classical economists – have so abstracted economics as to have made it worse than meaningless – it is corrosive and its mantra of endless growth threatens the very existence of life on the planet.

    To the point regarding imports and exports. A simple balance of trade is what is called for. Imports should be balanced by exports. Exports pay for imports. The further away you get from either end of the spectrum the more out of balance you economic system is. But certainly an economy that imports more than it exports is moving toward depletion. Such import dependency destroys economies when they are not counterbalanced by exports.

    China is just too big to serve as an example of much of anything except how a billion plus people can manage to function in spite of their utter hugeness. There is nothing humanly meaningful in the context of 1 to 2 billion. There is no human scale. To create that there can be no “China”; only smally cities, villages, towns, communities of one sort or another. The rest is pure fiction…a fable of what happens with the folley of expotential growth.

    The US, though smaller in pop., has far exceeded its ability to govern and its value is only a negative one of war and meaningless consumption.

  9. Max Shields said on March 9th, 2010 at 8:20am #

    In fact the more I read about these activities described in the article the more it sounds like someone’s version of life on the planet Earth. The US does this, China does that, Germany does nothing, the allies sing where the boys are, we all rejoice about the coming of allah and the days of yore, the mind swells with images. The planet swings off its axis and the Moon Sun Earth collide – no embrace, it is a kiss of death as the little green planet becomes utterly chared…what a glorious ending to a meaningless story as God’s dream comes to an abrupt awakening and all is vanished as the lilputians play with their guns and planes of war…how cute the little people on the planet are, but I’m sick and tired of this game….off with your heads. Begone you devilish little heathens. Obama was an interesting character, but he’s lost the plot, FIRED. Get out out you nasty little presidenate, you useless fool. Where are all the good people? Where have they hidden themselves? Why can’t they learn? Or is it that there’s nothing to be learned from all this…what is a lie?

  10. bozh said on March 9th, 2010 at 9:05am #

    Seems to me that in a possessor-possessed relationship there are some DON’TS:
    Don’t expect to obtain an enlightenment, own ur work or job-place of work.
    Do not expect honesty, sharing the pie, ur country to be ever in peace, or such a system of life ever to change by itself.

    But do think how to set up an idyllic society or if we do not start building a better society, then we remain a possession in any progress or regress. In a progress stage we get a few more crumbs and in recession less or no crumbs.

    U shld have known that at any time u cld lose the job u do not own. Or lose some freedom in any serfdom! So, it is not too late to open wide the gate and stop eating discarded sweets and hit the streets.
    Also spricht Bozhidarevski; aber, bitte, vergessens sie nietzche! Er hat nichts gesagt! spasibo, fala!

  11. Deadbeat said on March 9th, 2010 at 11:00am #

    John Andrews writes …

    Decreasing number series shows growth? No wonder no one understands economics.

    Mr. Andrews misreads what Dr. Petras wrote. He writes the following…

    “…China’s imports from the US are growing faster than its exports to the US. Between 2006-2008 US annual exports to China grew 32%, 18%, 9.5%, while its imports of Chinese goods grew 18.2%, 11.7%, 5.1%. ”

    What Petras is comparing is the the export percentages versus the import percentages whereby the series of export percentages EXCEED the import percentages. In other words the comparison spells out as follows (export vs import)

    20006: 32% vs 18.2%
    2007: 18% vs 11.7%
    2008: 9.5% vs 5.1%

    Clearly it shows that U.S. exports to China is growing faster than imports from China.

  12. Max Shields said on March 9th, 2010 at 12:06pm #

    The only point is this is a race to destruction. The models are unsustainable. So, if China’s winning some kind of trade race or the West is really isn’t the issue, except in the most myopic view.

    If the US is poking China in the “eye” seems to be a simpleton’s game. Of course, Petras’s view is the enemy of my enemy is my friend…and so he sees China as “good” and the US/Obama as “bad”. In a simplistic world that’s fine; but it really is totally beside the point as will become apparent as the world turns.

  13. Deadbeat said on March 9th, 2010 at 3:28pm #

    Max Shields writes …

    Petras’s view is the enemy of my enemy is my friend…and so he sees China as “good” and the US/Obama as “bad”. In a simplistic world that’s fine; but it really is totally beside the point as will become apparent as the world turns.

    Petra’s article is an analysis of U.S. hypocrisy vis-a-vis Chinese relations with the rest of the world. His is neither praising nor condemning China. China has chosen to expand its reach via economic diplomacy while the U.S. chooses a militaristic path. In addition, China has also chosen a path that thwarts U.S. Imperialism and especially those Zionists who runs U.S. foreign policy.

    Petras is not analyzing Capitalism therefore Max you are interjecting issue that Petras is not analyzing. However I found this aspect of your prior remark curiously aping old adages…

    To the point regarding imports and exports. A simple balance of trade is what is called for. Imports should be balanced by exports

    Balance of trade is based on money and the arbitrary and inaccuracy of pricing exchange rather than use value and meeting real human needs. If trade was based on meeting human need you wont need to price it at all.

    As Petras points out in his article, it is American banking interests that want China open their market to their nefarious and greedy desires to rip off her population. Therefore you can obviously measure “balance of trade” in such monetary terms but that real use value to the China would be totally imbalanced and devastating.

    Unfortunately Max you are too focused on the assumption that production is environmentally unsustainable. That’s not true. What is unsustainable is Capitalism.

  14. Max Shields said on March 9th, 2010 at 4:37pm #

    Deadbeat no need to intrepret Petras. He can speak for himself and has.

    My comments stand.

  15. Max Shields said on March 10th, 2010 at 8:24am #

    Deadbeat not sowing confusion. Certainly you don’t disagree that China is on a deadend road with over a billion people and a continued use of the killer GNP index?

    I’m in agreement with the particulars of Petras article here, it is the big picture that needs our attention, not the liliputians who scammer around the planet cause horrible mischief, mayham and murder.

    If I knew the switch or lever to pull to end that madness I’d be on it in a NY minute. Otherwise we’re just bouncing off the walls as the ship sinks.

  16. bozh said on March 10th, 2010 at 9:48am #

    It is desirable that we all tighten our belts. But, equally or not? Or proportionate to what one has?
    I can give up my car [wife does not want to, so that’s the end of that] and gore gives up one of his car. Is that OK?

    China, which eats much less meat than US, cuts dwn on consumption of meat by 10gms per person and and an american who eats 4 times as much meat also cuts consuption of meat by 10 gms. Is that also OK?

    China closes dwn 10 smelters or eliminates 10 nukes so does US/nato; or even nato lands. And we can go on an on ab using less but strong remain strong and weak remain weak.

    And as hatred towards a more equall society by the stronger side grows, the stronger side wld prevail and any chance of building-creating a fair and just society wld possibly forever evanesce.
    So, a mutually-assured existence shld first be instituted and then only we talk ab cutting back on [ab]use!
    But, forget it; there never had been a law or agreement fascists, being always stronger, haven’t abrogated.
    So let us go to hell together or sanity prevails! tnx

  17. Deadbeat said on March 10th, 2010 at 11:52am #

    Deadbeat not sowing confusion. Certainly you don’t disagree that China is on a deadend road with over a billion people and a continued use of the killer GNP index?

    That wasn’t the point of the article. Petras was not writing a critique of Capitalist China. He offered a clarification to the anti-Chinese rhetoric coming from the U.S. policy makers and the media. I’m glad he did because it helped me understand some of the underlying motivations. It’s too easy to wipe the “empire” brush to explain everything that many members of the “Left” choose to do without presenting deeper analysis.

    The big picture, as you say, you seem to reject. Capitalism, racism, and militarism are still the big pictures which Petras in fact weaves into this article if you choose to read it carefully.

  18. Max Shields said on March 10th, 2010 at 2:19pm #

    Deadbeat said “”It’s easy to wipe the “empire” brush to explain everything…” just hold it….

    Petras says: “This is part of the US strategy of encouraging the physical break-up of independent nations, which are viewed as ‘obstacles’ to its program of global military empire building.”

    Deadbeat Petras uses your so-called “brush” with great agility….