 Comparing China to the United States as if it were just another imperialist power normalizes an error stemming from an ideological wound rooted in the discourse of neocolonial power: the belief that any economy reaching a certain scale is automatically an invading force. This comparison, besides being misguided, obscures the fact that the Chinese process no longer fits within the neocolonial phase, simply because this would imply the Asian country's ambition to become a unipolar power. Unipolarity is no longer viable; therefore, China is leading essential processes in the opposite direction, such as dedollarization, the use of national currencies in a network, overcoming the monopolistic monetary system, and decarbonization. A few days ago—while participating in a panel on economics at the Zócalo International Book Fair—an attendee suggested that the United States is comparable to China, identifying them as equally imperialist countries. It's not the first time I've heard this idea, but it is the first time I felt it wasn't just a question, but an ideological wound embodying the impossibility of imagining a large economy without hegemonic ambitions. This column stems from that wound. Not as a defense of China, but to ask ourselves: what if the problem isn't who dominates, but rather that there's no longer room for just one king on the chessboard? In the previous installment, we discussed how Immanuel Wallerstein recovers the dimension of "discourse of power" to remind us that the global economy is not only about the exchange of products, but also about the collective construction of a horizon of meaning, a model of society to be achieved, the establishment of a vision from which all actions acquire a particular meaning. It is a paradigm from which certain actions are normalized and others become unacceptable. The identification of two historical phases within the capitalist system itself has also become clear: the first, of a colonial nature, unfolded from 1492 until the mid-20th century; and the second, of a neocolonial nature, evolving from 1945 to the current crisis. From an economic and political perspective, the financial phase effectively ended in 2008, as it was during this Wall Street crisis that the financial strategy of offshoring in the United States demonstrated its inability to maintain control over global production processes. Since then, the rise of the Chinese economy has consistently shown impressive levels of productive capacity, not only quantitatively, but especially in its qualitative core. When asked whether China is another imperialist country like the United States, it has become commonplace to assume that any economy that reaches a certain scale is immediately an invading force. However, this actually stems from the neocolonial "discourse of power" itself, which has normalized the idea that a country can only follow one path—that is, the one that leads it to assume the role of absolute ruler. This is the discourse of normalizing hegemonies. This allows us to obscure a fact that we must emphasize forcefully: the Chinese process no longer fits within the neocolonial phase simply because this would imply the Asian country's aspiration to become a unipolar power. But this is not the case. In fact, the Asian project, in practice, has already demonstrated the understanding that unipolarity is unfeasible, and therefore the goal is to transition to polycentric or multipolar forms. Such a network precisely inhibits, even if intended, the aspiration to become a unipolar force. The essential processes, therefore, are, dedollarization the use of national currencies within a network, overcoming the monopolistic monetary system, and decarbonization, that is, avoiding the massive transfer of human costs to the natural system. With just these two elements, we are already talking about a civilizational process with a radically different horizon of meaning. But this multipolar project is still under development; we could say we are just at the beginning of its metabolic renewal. This is why it is also necessary to become aware of a process of de-Westernization, that is, to undertake a profound critique of the horizon of meaning normalized under neocolonialism. It is natural that, currently in this period of transition, we still have reflections of the colonial world in our vision, in which we have accepted a series of imposed principles that operate against the liberation process of peoples. Often, the enemy lies deep within our own minds, so de-Westernization means the search for supposedly universal elements that are not; that is, it is about opening ourselves to other possible forms. There is no such thing as one version being right and another wrong. In other words, the new post-neocolonial period needs to acknowledge other universalities. Just as Orientalism, even with its significant limitations, signified the recognition of "others" as civilizations (albeit "incomplete" because they did not evolve into the Western form), this time it is necessary to reaffirm the recognition of other civilizations, but as complete, in their own right. Just as it is a matter of ensuring that each national currency can be exchanged on the world market, it is a matter of recognizing that each culture is, in itself, both unique and universal. This recognition of the "other" is what founds the new era. It is the horizon of meaning for the Global South. In this sense, China is leading the way; now let us consider, analogously, what is happening in Mexico.  The Case of Mexico is Mexican humanism precisely a recovery of our historical identity, through the redemption of all popular liberation struggles during colonialism, from 1492 to the present day. It is about affirming the universality of the singular, not as a claim to domination, let us emphasize, but as the affirmation of another pole in the global economy. A fundamental way to begin the revision of our historical consciousness is to remember the different social struggles that have arisen and shaped our own history. It is no small detail that the 4T project has addressed plans for historical justice toward Indigenous peoples, promoting apologies from the Mexican state and even asking descendants of the Spanish crown to contribute to this healing process. This is not a matter of the past, but rather the recognition of centuries of a violent, slave-based economy. This is a starting point for addressing the colonial wounds we must overcome. But simultaneously, it is necessary to reclaim, in a positive sense, the type of collective organization achieved by our Mesoamerican ancestors. Western false universalism led us to erase all these antecedents; it is no small detail that the Spanish right still today promotes the propaganda of the “Black Legend” to try to whitewash history and emphasize its unilateral acceptance as representing a “civilizing force against barbarism.” Therefore, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s forthcoming book will be of great interest to this decolonization process, since it will recover this singular-universal root of the original civilizations of Abya Yala. Just as socialism with Chinese characteristics is a hybrid recovery of Eastern philosophy, Marxism, and experience within the capitalist market, Mexico needs to recover its original philosophy, its own political economy, and, of course, its historical experience within the capitalist market. I emphasize this triad because of the complexity of breaking with the ideological influence of neocolonialism. But here we arrive at a critical point in the debate: the problem with the current phase is that it was built on the ideology of democracy and human rights. The ideological trick was to create a fictitious liberation, a supposed political sovereignty, but without economic sovereignty. In fact, those countries that attempt to achieve the latter are immediately attacked under the stigma of being dictators, violators of democracy, human rights abusers, or drug traffickers. In other words, neocolonialism propagates the right to interference based on this discourse. But, moreover, it allows for the normalization of the US's ongoing intervention in any territory of interest to it. The implementation of these principles was projected through the United Nations (UN), which is now in terminal crisis because it has clearly demonstrated that the human rights system is unilaterally controlled by the United States. That is to say, all countries are required to strictly comply with these abstract principles, but at the same time, it is accepted, even normalized, that a particular country can be the exception. Thus, for example, when we are particularly demanding regarding the integrity of a certain electoral process, say that of Venezuela, but we downplay (normalize) the US economic blockade, then our supposedly democratic discussion is in reality a neocolonial reaction. Based on all of the above, I believe it is time to propose a concrete Latin American integration, especially one grounded in the principle of a network that mitigates the effects of economic sanctions; that is, the diversification of integrated channels to connect the region's economies under the principles of multipolarity. It is necessary to promote a continental master plan to achieve a first level of integration. Perhaps we could consider a Productive Cooperation Zone (PCZ) (instead of the standard Free Trade Area vision) which would begin with an assessment of the actual possibilities for integration. We should learn from the BRICS that a specific political form is not necessarily required for economic coordination. Currently, China's presence is already strong in the region, so the conditions of US dominance are not the same as during the neocolonial phase. What is needed now, in short, is to consolidate the autonomy of different countries under a model that allows them to overcome the paralyzing democratic instability. In other words, grassroots planning cannot be subject to a supposed balance of power, so the very concept of democracy needs to abandon its neocolonial form and now explore the dimension of substantive and popular economic justice. And for this, the State must be reformed, along with the political strategies for building a new post-neocolonial horizon of meaning—that is, from its own roots, capable of being universalized. Originally published on ContraLínea. Author Óscar David Rojas Silva is a Professor of Political Economy at FES-Acatlán UNAM. Archives October 2025
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
November 2025
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed