(In)Subordination and Global Context

In your books “La Insubordinación Fundante” (“The Founding Rebellion”) and “Insubordinación y Desarrollo” (“Rebellion and Development”), you claim that rebellion is what causes the development and success of nations. So, a country can only develop itself by means of rebellion – is that correct?

Yes. A country can only develop itself and build its national power by means of a process of a Founding Rebellion. All countries that are developed nations today and succeeded in getting themselves out of the periphery to become central nations are also countries which accomplished a process of Founding Rebellion.

The question thus is: how can one explain that? What is this process of Founding Rebellion? We must do a historical analysis.
From 1750, when England achieved its full industrialisation, she started to preach to the world a way which is the very opposite of what she had done herself in order to become industrialised, to develop itself, to build her national power. There is a tremendous falsification of the History of how England constructed its national power and its industrialisation, beginning with Queen Elizabeth I, from an enormous State's push, a gigantic economic protectionism. And when the country reached its industrialisation, it became the first self-conscious Power. Then, England asked herself: “How can I prevent other countries from reaching the same level of power I reached?”

With that in mind, England will then proceed to creating an ideology which claims the way to success is the very opposite of what she had done to develop herself. England, then, gives birth to economic liberalism, to the international division of labour as theory, from Adam Smith's “The Wealth of Nations”; that is, she tells others that the way to success is the opposite of what she had done. From that moment on, England accomplishes the cultural ideological subordination of elites and of the rest of the world; it will use ideological subordination as its first tool and strategy for domination without resorting to force – persuasion by intellectual means.

As a matter of fact, England employed ideological subordination as its main strategy for domination so that others would not reach the state of development she had reached herself. So, any process of political emancipation and successful development can only arise out of an ideological insubordination/rebellion plus adequate state push. That means every process of political emancipation, of national power building, of proper development can only be the result of a Founding Rebellion. And the very first example of that is precisely the United States revolution, headed by George Washington, who fulfilled the first Founding Rebellion which rejected the free market imposed by Great Britain. With Alexander Hamilton as Secretary of Treasury, George Washington implements a protectionist policy. In fact, Hamilton will even make the case for the Infant industry argument (it was created by him) to oppose the International Labour Division theory and to ideologically rebel against this theory, which England exported as a doctrine for domination.

Today England is no longer the main dominant Power, that being the United States. Do you believe that the United States hegemony might come to an end?

First, one thing is that which England did in order to industrialise herself and to reach progress. What she preached is quite another thing. When, after a hundred years of economic protectionism, after a hundred years of defending their economy and applying economic nationalism, the United States converted itself into the first industrial Great Power, after the World War II, they therefore replaced England and started doing the same thing she used to do: preaching free market and state non-intervention in the economy. Effectively, it was after Adam Smith that the great falsification of economic world history began and also the construction of capitalism; for Adam Smith falsified the history of Great Britain, deleting certain data (or ascribing no importance to it), thus becoming the father of ideological subordination. It is neither important nor possible to actually know whether Smith did so deliberately or was merely an intellectual seeking some answers for economic problems of an international nature.

What is important is that, with Adam Smith's works, England conquered more markets, more nations, more semi-colonies (that is, countries which preserved their sovereignty but were de facto British colonies) than it did with all its cannons and gun power.

The United States, in their turn, were the home of economic nationalism. With the independence revolution headed by George Washington and with the implementation of Alexander Hamilton's economic plan, the US were the first country to rebel against that ideology of domination which the English preached to the world. This American rebellion was the first Founding Rebellion/Insubordination and it started with George Washington. The next presidents proceeded with it and it ensured the ultimate triumph of the industrialised North over the agrarian South (which was pro-England and pro-free market). After the Civil War, Lincoln strengthened American economic nationalism and imposed the most severe protectionist measure that we know of in the history of mankind. When the US – after several years of tremendous economic protectionism – became the first World Power and the most industrialised country, they then adopted free market policies after World War II and that worked well until the end of the Twentieth Century. In the end of the century, a new phenomenon arises in American history – a phenomenon that actually had started to form around the seventies or eighties – around the eighties, the top American industrial bourgeoisie started transferring its industrial production to Asia (first to Taiwan, then to China). Why did they do it? Because in Asia they get surplus value, that is, the hugest capital gain – unparalleled anywhere in History. Thus, the American industry transferred itself to Asia where it produces goods to the US themselves. That was allowed by the Pentagon, because they explained to the Pentagon that they could start producing cutting-edge technology, which was a half-truth. However, as time went by, after the year 2008, this transfer of the American industry to Asia caused the de-industrialisation of the US and a structural unemployment that could not be absorbed by services. That made the country enter into an enormous crisis. So we can now say that free market no longer benefits the American people. It does benefit the large multinational corporations. We can metaphorically say that the hunter became the prey. The American benefited greatly from free market after World War II and they now see free market working against its national power. Clearly, the financial elite, the high-tech industrial elite and the bourgeoisie which made their production migrate to Asia are content, for they were and are benefited by this. The crisis clearly has no effect upon them.

However, the country now suffers a great crisis and the election of Donald Trump is the expression of such crisis – it can only be explained by the fact that the large masses of American industry workers are now without jobs and so decided to vote for this man, who comes from the realm of “not-Politics” and who promised to re-industrialise the United States.

Please, tell us more about the process of falsification of history and its consequences.

A falsification of world economic history is performed in the main academic centres of excellence in the US and Europe. It is done so when the history of how Germany, the United States, Japan and South Korea actually stopped being primary exporting countries to become industrialised ones is not told the way it really happened. The falsification of History hides the manner England industrialised itself and the fact that she was the home of economic protectionism. It hides the fact that the US were the economic nationalist country par excellence, the fact that they were actually the home of economic nationalism. It hides the fact that Germany went through a huge economic protectionism. It hides the fact the Japan's industries were state created.

This great falsification of history benefits mostly the international financial oligarchy, which has been an ally of England, promoting free market. When England started to decline in 1911, this very oligarchy started to seek an alliance with the US. They got it under president Woodrow Wilson, who gave them the control of currency, thus creating the Federal Reserve.

This international financial oligarchy which was an ally of England and was, later, an ally of the US, is now seeking an alliance with Chinese power. This oligarchy drives the ideological subordination of the world, by means of its great influence on media and its web of academic centres – by means of economic liberalism. Such economic liberalism only benefits that oligarchy, causing misery to the peoples, including those nations who were friendly towards the United States and who had achieved a certain level of development.

What about Trump? How do you analyse his administration so far? What one should expect of him?

Trump's victory was a gigantic loss for the international financial oligarchy and it was a triumph of the American people, a triumph for the real America, a triumph for the national forces. However, already in the first weeks of his administration, this great victory of the national forces started to dissolve. Its not clear now which direction Trump's administration shall take – it seems to hesitate. He flip-flops, either answering the mandate given to him by the real deep America (which demands the re-industrialisation of the US and the end of a imperialist foreign policy) or actually succumbing to the pressures the American oligarchy exerts upon him, so that the he keeps the imperialist policy over the world and the free market policy. Donald Trump is now undecided.

One must understand that in the world, beyond the national powers of important nation-states such as the United States, Russia, China and India, there also transnational powers, we can mention the power of the international financial oligarchy and the power of the Saudi petroleum oligarchy which are today the two great transnational powers in the world which bound the nation-states to their interests. This is the case with the US themselves, which have been for a long time tied to the power of the financial oligarchy. We can say, with no fears of exaggeration, that the American nation is, to a large extent,  a prisoner to that power. Trump was put there to free the country of such domination. But he shows confusion, which could be because the forces upon him are too powerful and he cannot impose his will upon them or because he is compromised with them. I cannot tell which and I am really curious.

You talked about Saudi oil oligarchy and its global power. However, even though the US depends on Saudi oil, they are not subordinate to its interest – you explain that in your book. It is Saudi Arabia that is subordinate to the US, even though it has the power (petroleum). How is it that Saudi Arabia is subordinate to the US if this oligarchy is globally powerful and has power over the US as well?

There is an Islamic oil oligarchy that has been developing since the seventies – it is a key player in international relations. Today this oil oligarchy is one of the major transnational powers that shape international politics. Saudi Arabia is the headquarters of such oligarchy, whose power is enormous, given its control over several industrial and financial corporations. This Islamic oil oligarchy has such an economic strength that it is capable of bringing to their knees many nations worldwide. However, it has a week spot: its Achilles heel is that it depends on the US military protection for its physical survival – the US are the ones who guarantee Saudi Arabia safety.

Now, back to the theme of revolt/insubordination: Do you think that the idea of Founding Rebellion has a fundamental importance for a multipolar world?

All successful emancipatory processes around the world and all countries that achieved development did it so far by means of a process of Founding Rebellion. Such was the case with the US, which was the first Founding Rebellion. Such was the case of Germany, the second Founding Rebellion. Such was the case of Japan, which went through a silent Founding Rebellion. And such is the case of Canada, that implemented a peaceful Founding Rebellion. Well, in the 21st century, a process of Founding Rebellion cannot take place as it did in the last century – as a strictly national process; it must be a continental process. It means it is no longer possible, not even for Brazil (which is the most important country in South America) to accomplish a Founding Rebellion in its own. Our Founding Rebellion must be, in this, a South-American Founding Rebellion. It is only by means of such a South-American rebellion that our nations will succeed in building the power and reaching the economic development needed to have a seat at the table and to have a place in a multipolar world. The multipolar world has to be created and in order for Brazil, Argentina, Peru etc to become part of a new pole of power in this multipolar world, South America must conduct its own Founding Rebellion. There is no way of constructing real multipolarity unless all South American countries engage in this process.

There is a saying that goes like this: “one cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs”. That is, any action that seeks to build national power, autonomy and development will of course be opposed by the international financial oligarchy and those countries that serve its interests. So, our best guarantee to resist such pressures against our development is South-American integration, which could form a protection shield sufficiently strong and ample in order to resist exterior aggressions.

It seems difficult. It is hard to imagine the countries of South America uniting in such an endeavour to seek a successful Founding Rebellion. What do you think about it?

The path for South-American union is hard, due to external factors as well as internal ones. It is a difficult path, but it does not mean that is a path we should not follow. It is the only way to form the protection shield needed. However, the integration of South America can only begin after an Argentine-Brazilian integration. Such integration would be the binding nucleus of South America. Such process has been tried in the last ten years, but the process has now backed up to the point of paralysis. Continuing this process is necessary, as soon as the peoples of Argentina and Brazil can get their nations back, get their destinies back, that is, as soon as the current heads of state of those countries leave office (they only care for foreign interests).

A lot is said about Russia, a country which has managed to assert itself in face of American interferences. Is Russia an example of a country that succeeded in challenging liberal unipolarity? What is it that Russia did to gain power? Is it her nuclear weapons? Perhaps the agreements she has made with other nations?

Seventy years of communism took its heavy toll, anthropologically. That led Russia to the brink of national dissolution, during Yeltsin administration. Under those terrible circumstances, when Russia risked being reduced to the former Duchy of Moscow, there arose that political figure, Vladimir Putin. He brilliantly understood that such anthropological damage could only be repaired by means of a recovery of Russia's deepest roots: that has led him to his conversion to Christianity and has also led him to taking the challenge of re-christianizing Russia so as to stop the social infection which was eroding Russian social fabric after years of militant atheism forced upon the people.
Possessing nuclear weapons is certainly the sole reason why Russia has not suffered military aggression in a direct way to stop her process of reconstruction of her national power led by Putin. However, if the possession of nuclear weapons is the only tactical guarantee that Russia has to maintain its security; the moral reconstruction of Russia, on the other hand, is her only strategical guarantee for national survival.

Would South America have more power if at least Brazil and Argentina had nuclear weapons?

A South American unity is the only guarantee for the security of each of its countries. Only an integrated South America could achieve the increase of its dissuasive capacity. Any isolated attempt to doing so would be severely punished and undone.

What can you tell us about Mercosur? What about the UNASUR project? Can they form a strong bloc for the integration of South America?

One needs power in order to being and we can only “be” – together. South American union is the sine qua non condition of possibility for the integration and union of Latin America – and the Argentine-Brazilian union is the sine qua non condition for the Union of South America. Mercosur and UNASUR are headed this way.

What about the BRICS bloc?

BRICS were but a midsummer night's dream, a Chinese tale, which Beijing never really believed.

You mentioned the attempt to integrate Argentina and Brazil. In Argentina, who started the project?

The first Argentine statesman to realise that the key to autonomy and independence is the South American integration was General Juan Domingos Perón. He realised that integration is that protective shield that all South American countries need to start their projects for Founding Rebellions and to develop themselves. Perón was also the first to understand that the key to South-American integration depended on Argentine-Brazilian integration. He understood that if Argentina and Brazil advanced their integration into a regional bloc they would thus work as a binding nucleus strong enough to attract the other South American countries towards this integration process. This Peronist reasoning was a really revolutionary idea at the time, when both the Brazilian and Argentine armies worked with a conflict hypothesis (between their two nations). Peron managed to change that picture to an integration hypothesis between the two countries. In 1952, he started the ABC project – the integration between Argentine, Brazil and Chile – as a binding nucleus for South America. Such plans, which were the only real and possible path to South America integration brought the wrath of sectors of the global oligarchy as well as the wrath of local oligarchies. This furious reaction of the Brazilian oligarchy as well as of the international elites corned Getúlio Vargas in Brazil, by the way, leading him to commit suicide. The same goes for Perón's project, which brought a harsh reaction from the oligarchs against him, which precipitated the coup de état which deposed him and then a really bloody revolution on September 1955.  So, Getúlio Vargas and Juan Perón both started processes of Founding Rebellions in 1930 (Brazil) and in 1943 (Argentina).

You claim in your book that the Argentine people is very much subordinated to liberal ideology. Why?

The answer to that is a long one. We would have to go back in history: after 1852, when President Juan Manuel de Rosas fell from power, an oligarchical government arose and it made Argentina a semi-colony of Great Britain. The main tool for domination employed by the Anglo-Argentine oligarchy to oppress Argentines was the falsification of History, preaching the free market of the International Division of Labour theory. Thus, generations were educated believing in the myth of free market and the myth of the Division of Labour theory. Under such arrangement, Argentine economy did grow and it grew much, but Argentina did not develop itself. It was a false development. However, what became engraved in the social imaginary by means of ideological subordination is that this historical period was a relatively successful period. This impression plus the ceaseless preaching of free market ideas as well as the doctrine that Argentine must be merely an exporter of raw materials sums up Argentine thinking to this very day. Therefore, Argentina since 1852 until today (with the exception of Peron's years – 1943 to 1955) has been an ideologically subordinated nation.

Such subordination, imposed by the Anglo-Argentine oligarchy, was very easy to accomplish because it started in this historical moment (1852 onwards), a period of great migration: of every 10 people in Buenos Aires, 8 were foreigners. So, the schoolchildren were the children of foreigners. Thus, having neither Argentine parents nor Argentine grandparents made it easier to falsify History. The falsification presented Argentine heroes as villain whereas villains, in their turn, were presented as heroes. The falsification of History was made easy because most of the population then had not been born in Argentine; they were the children of foreigners; so it was much easier preaching liberalism and later neoliberalism.

When this mass of migrants became nationals and started thinking in national terms – we must also remember that process of Founding Rebellion started by Perón which was tragically aborted on September, 1955 – a process of persecution against the Peronist rebellion started – that process took thousands to prison and killed many others. This period of ideological subordination was aided by an intense use of force – accomplished by the oligarch through the Army which it controlled.

Let's talk some more about Argentina. What is your take on the current administration?

The current political movement that now governs Argentina, which is the “Cambiemos” Movement (“Let's Change”) is made up of very well meaning persons who do not know what they are doing and also of very ill meaning persons who know perfectly well what they are doing. It is definitely an administration which is bringing Argentina back to that position of a mere exporter of raw materials, a country without industries. They have this imaginary, an idea of an Argentina which is basically a primary exporting country (agrarian exporter, meat exporter); they do not possess even the imaginary of an industrialisation of Argentina. We are living a new process of Argentine de-industrialisation led by the current government. The problem with this scheme is that even if Argentina were an efficient producer of raw materials, under such plan there would be job for 14 million persons only – that is, the rest of the population, in this scheme of things, is doomed to hopeless misery.

The economic model pushed by Macri's administration condemns Argentina to the misery of underdevelopment.

In the current global scene, it is rumoured that a war might start in Asia. Do you believe this might happen?

I do not in fact believe that a conflict in Asia shall take place because the third war, which we are witnessing now, is coming to its end. There is a possibility of a “New Yalta”, metaphorically speaking: this “new Yalta” happens between the United States and China (in the last meeting of their presidents). In this “new Yalta”, which manifest itself in the transnational forces as well, the chronic US deficit with China coming to an end was on the agenda – China has committed herself to it. So, this “new Yalta” will make sure there is no new war in Asia. Under this agreement, the US will no longer have their trade deficit with China and will not fulfil their promise of re-industrialisation either. That is, the American people is outside this “new Yalta”, just like the other peoples of the world see themselves officially; because this agreement represents the interests of the transnational forces and not the people.