Thread by @battleforeurope

🧵 Western corporations are refusing to go along with the US-Western strategy of decoupling from China — and the militarisation of great-power relations. Is the capitalist class revolting against the military-industrial complex and the neocons?

A THREAD.
unherd.com/2023/06/the-ca…

1/ After marshalling Europe in its proxy war against Russia, America is now determined to repeat this success against China. And despite a few grumbles (Macron, etc.), European leaders are largely playing along with this increasingly aggressive approach.
ft.com/content/042d43…

2/ Over the past 4 years, von der Leyen — “Europe’s American president” — has worked tirelessly to keep Europe aligned with America’s aggressive geopolitical strategy, often appearing to prioritise Washington’s desires over Europe’s strategic interests.
politico.eu/article/europe…

3/ Below the surface, however, views are hardening against the EU’s efforts to emulate America’s hawkish approach. Many European companies are pushing back against the EU’s China decoupling (or “de-risking”) policies. Unsurprisingly, German companies are leading the charge.

4/ Europe’s economic powerhouse has already taken a heavy it from its decoupling from Russian gas and other commodities; with its economy in recession and an inflation rate of 7.2%, Germany cannot afford to lose China as well. The same can be said for the EU as a whole.

5/ The fact that the VDL insists on mimicking the American strategy despite the bloc’s deep interdependence with China highlights the extent to which the EU, wedded as it is to a subservient interpretation of the bloc’s relationship to the US, is a threat to Europe’s interests.

6/ As Wolfgang Münchau (@EuroBriefing) noted: “The EU economy is not built for Cold War-style relations because it has become too dependent on global supply chains… Europe cannot easily extricate itself from its relationship with China”.
newstatesman.com/world/europe/2…

7/ In this context, it is hardly surprising that German businesses are pushing back against Chancellor Scholz’s call to weaken Germany’s economic relationship with China. Abandoning China is “unthinkable” for German industry, Mercedes’ CEO said in April.
bild.de/geld/wirtschaf…

8/ Similar comments were made by other German heavyweights — from Siemens to BASF to BMW — all of which have vowed to continue investing in the country. “We won’t give up on China,” Volkswagen’s chief financial officer made clear.
europe.autonews.com/automakers/vw-…

9/ Similar concerns have been voiced by business leaders in Italy and France, China’s other two largest trading partners in the EU. Whether this will translate into a decisive shift in Europe’s official China policy remains to be seen; for now, most national and EU leaders...

10/ ... seem more interested in pleasing the US establishment than thinking about Europe’s long-term economic and geopolitical interests. However, European business leaders can count on some powerful allies in the US — not in Washington, but among fellow capitalists.

11/ In America, a similar revolt is brewing over the administration’s decoupling with China. Despite the fraying of Sino-American relations at the political level, several American CEOs have visited China recently: J.P. Morgan, Starbucks, GM, Apple and most notably Elon Musk.

12/ According to the Financial Times, “in just two days… Elon Musk had more top-level Chinese meetings than most Biden administration officials have had in months”, including with Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang.
ft.com/content/eb360b…

13/ The foreign ministry quoted Musk as saying that he was willing to expand business in China and opposed a decoupling of the US and China economies, adding that he described the world’s two largest economies as “conjoined twins”.
aljazeera.com/economy/2023/5…

14/ Musk’s trip coincided with that by J.P. Morgan boss Jamie Dimon, who in a speech in Shanghai called for “real engagement” between Washington and Beijing.
cnbc.com/2023/05/31/dim…

15/ Such open defiance of Washington’s foreign policy by some of the most powerful CEOs in America represents a striking development. Critics of US-Western foreign policy and military interventionism have traditionally (and correctly) seen the latter as being essentially...

16/ ... aimed at enforcing the Western-led global capitalist order — in other words, as being in the service of big business by opening up new markets, securing control of resources or intervening whenever Western business interests were threatened.

17/ As Thomas Friedman put it in 1999: “The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for [American corporations] is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps”.
nytimes.com/1999/03/28/mag…

18/ But in light of the growing rifts between America’s economic and political elites, does this analytical framework still hold? It’s hard to see, after all, how the West’s aggressive US-led foreign policy vis-à-vis Russia/China serves the “general interests” of Western capital.

19/ How does antagonising and militarising relations with China, the world’s second-largest consumer market and largest rare-earth mineral exporter, or severing relations with Russian gas and commodities, serve the “general interests” of Western businesses?

20/ No wonder major representatives of Western corporate interests aren’t peachy about the prospect of a new Cold War — not to mention an actual war with China, which would have devastating effects on the US and global economy.
nytimes.com/2023/02/27/opi…

21/ However, their appeals today seem to fall on deaf ears in Washington and other Western national capitals. As @adam_tooze has observed: “The ‘peace interest’ anchored in the investment and trading connections of US big business with China...

22/ ... has been expelled from centre stage. On the central axis of US strategy, big business has less influence today that at any time since the end of the Cold War”.
ft.com/content/5e38ee…

23/ Yet this begs the question: if US-Western foreign policy no longer serves the interests of big business, whose interests does it serve? Well one social class that stands to benefit from the militarisation of great-power relations is, of course, the military-industrial class.

24/ The latter’s interests are clearly no longer aligned with those of the Western business community — in fact, the two are diametrically opposed. Unfortunately for the latter, however, the former exercise a much bigger influence on policy today, in Europe as much as in America.

25/ No longer is the military-industrial complex subordinated to the general interests of the capitalist class; rather, it is the latter that is increasingly subordinated to the interests of the military-industrial complex.

26/ Now, the military-industrial complex follows a capitalist logic as well, of course: war, or even just the constant preparation for war, is clearly good for business. But, ultimately, it’s about more than just profits: it’s about ensuring...
abc.net.au/news/2023-01-2…

27/ ... the reproduction of the military class, which extends well beyond the big defence companies to include civilian auxiliaries in defence-related government agencies, think tanks, academia, and many others.

28/ What’s slowly becoming clear, however, is that the old capitalist class doesn’t seem willing to go down without a fight. Indeed, we may be on the verge of a new historical class struggle: the owners of the means of production against the owners of the means of destruction.

29/ For now, one thing is clear: the greatest resistance to the new Cold War isn’t coming from a global peace movement — which, alas, is nowhere to be seen — but from the boardrooms of Western corporations.

If you enjoyed this thread, check out the article it’s based on: unherd.com/2023/06/the-ca….

And if you enjoy my writing, consider subscribing to my Substack: tfazi.substack.com.