Showing posts sorted by date for query CHINA IMPERIALISM. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query CHINA IMPERIALISM. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Wednesday, June 03, 2026

Stories of De-Dollarization and US Empire Decline

June 3, 2026

Image by Quilla.

Promoters of US empire decline make the claim that the world is de-dollarizing, the dollar is losing its role as the standard currency of international trade. If this were to happen, other countries would dump their trillions in foreign reserves, foreign loans would no longer be primarily made and repaid in dollars, nor would international trade take place primarily in dollars. Other countries would lose interest in investing in US bonds, such as Treasury bonds; the world banking system would slip out of US control; US economic sanctions and blockades on countries would lose their coercive impact. This would cause a clear drop in our standard of living, since the dollar would lose much of its buying power. De-dollarization would threaten the US empire’s survival.

Michael Hudson, Richard Wolff, Ben Norton, and Radhika Desai (“The dollar system is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions”) all claim de-dollarization is well underway, and will end with economic ruin. However, there is very little evidence for de-dollarization happening, nor would de-dollarization cause the end of the present US system.

Advocates of US empire decline note various economic factors related to de-dollarization. First, the US as a world economic powerhouse has seriously weakened, particularly in relation to China. Second, countries are turning away from the dollar as the currency for international trade. Third, the US national debt is becoming a weight that is sinking the economy.

1. Declining Role of the US in the World Economy vis-à-vis China

The US Gross Domestic Product as a share of the world economy has shrunk considerably since the end of World War II when 50% of world production came from the US. This fell to 40% in 1960 and to a low of 21% during 2011-2014. Since then, it has increased to the 24-26% share range. This was the US share in 1979, and in 1995 at the heyday of US power in the unipolar world, when Russia and China were minor players. Since 1979, almost half a century has passed, and no relative US economic decline as measured by its world share of GDP is evident.

However, note that one-fifth of US GDP today comes from healthcare spending, which is greatly overpriced and exaggerates the size of the US GDP. US health care expenditure as percent of GDP was 5% in 1960, and is now 18%. In Europe today the average is 10-11%, and China, 7%.

China’s share of world GDP is 20%, less than the US. But if we use the Purchasing Power Parity measure of GDP, China’s world GDP share is 19.8%, and the US drops significantly from 26% to 14.5%.

In terms of  total global manufacturing output, China’s share now almost doubles the US (28-30% vs 17%). In 1970, the US share of global manufacturing amounted to 29%. The US industrial base in relation to the world has clearly declined, but it is false to assert that the US has deindustrialized, as Michael Hudson often claims. It is the number two power and will remain so.

We should also not confuse a drop in US share of global manufacturing output with a drop in US manufacturing. And it has not dropped. The US industrial production index stood at 37 in 1970 (with 2017 =100). Today it is 102, producing almost three times as much as in 1970. That shows the US is not deindustrializing; it is the number of workers in manufacturing that has dropped dramatically. For instance, US steel production peaked at 130 million tons in the mid-1970s, has totaled 80 million tons annually since 2015 (while China produces about 1000 million tons), but the number of steelworkers has fallen from just under 500,000 to about 80,000 today.

The annual rate of economic growth may be a better measure than the world share of GDP for comparing the US and Chinese economies. The US economy grew 3.3% annually between 1980 and 1990, 3.5% between 1990 and 2000, 1.8% between 2000 and 2020, and 2.4% between 2020 and 2025. During most of these years, China’s GDP grew in the 9% range annually through 2015, and 5.5% annually since 2021. We can expect China to continue to expand its economic power relative to the US.

On the other hand, US world financial domination remains unthreatened. Lenin pointed out that imperialism involves the concentration of finance capital with production capital, with leading banks and monopolies controlling the global economy. Finance capital dominates, with the export of capital more essential than goods produced. However much US productive output has diminished relative to China, the US, not China, maintains world financial control – along with predominant military power, which enforces financial control.

The US has about 800 military bases around the world, enforcers of US economic and political control. China has one, Russia about ten.  Even more than its military power, the US media control is unequaled in the world. This media power is geared toward molding our understanding of events based on the information and disinformation it provides. US media control serves as a prime “regime change” tool. It can even manipulate the thinking of people on the left, who claim they know the US media lies. It made them believe that Syria used chemical weapons on its people, or that Trump colluded with Putin to steal the 2016 election. Russia and China have almost no weight in the world media.

In sum, there have been some signs of a slow decline of US world economic power, but nothing that heralds a change in the status quo.

2. Decline of the Dollar as the International Currency

Talk of de-dollarization runs up against the facts that first, the dollar continues to make up more half of the currency held in countries’ foreign reserves; second, half of the total value of international currency usage is in the dollar; third, the dollar remains most widely used in international currency exchanges; and fourth, half of the exchanges between international banks are made in dollars. There is very little de-dollarization.

According to the International Monetary Fund, as of the third quarter of 2025, the U.S. dollar makes up 57% of global foreign exchange reserves, being the different currencies each country maintains in its major banks. This makes the dollar the world’s most commonly used currency for international trade and savings. Thirty years ago, in 1995, at the height of US power in the unipolar world, the dollar constituted 59% of international reserve currencies. It has been as low as 47% (1990) and as high as 71% (1999), when European countries were switching their national currencies to the Euro. Today the Euro remains a distant second reserve currency, making up around 20% of the total; China’s RMB makes up just 2% of international reserves.

Talk of de-dollarization conflicts with the reality that the dollar retains its previous stature as the accepted international reserve currency.

The US still oversees the world financial or international banking system. This system includes countries’ national or central banks, multinational financial institutions (e.g., Bank for International Settlements, International Monetary Fund, World Bank Group, international development banks), and private commercial banks. These operate through the US controlled SWIFT system, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. About 90% of all world currency transactions and trade run through the SWIFT system. This system gives the US power to block transactions between countries. This is a key instrument to enforce unilateral coercive measures – sanctions – and disrupt the international trade of other countries.

In terms of the total value of international currency usage, in 2014, the dollar had a 52% share. Today, 12 years later, it amounts to 51%, also showing no sign of de-dollarization.

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) records the dollar share of foreign exchange transactions, the percent of time the dollar was one of the two currencies used in a conversion between any two currencies. This we do, for instance, when we travel to another country. In 1990, 90% of the time one of the two currencies was the dollar, meaning almost half the time one currency is being exchanged is the dollar. Today, 35 years later, it is 89%. There is no sign of de-dollarization here either.

SWIFT also records the currencies used for international bank transfers. The dollar has become the primary currency. In 2012 it was the currency used in bank transfers only 30% of the time. The Euro was used 43% of the time. The dollar is now used 49% of the time, entirely at the expense of the Euro, which shrunk to 23%. Here there is a dramatic re-dollarization, not de-dollarization.

China has challenged the US-dominated world financial system by making $2.2 trillion in foreign loans and grants between 2000-2023, typically on more favorable terms than the imperial West does. Nevertheless, the Brookings Institute finds 64% of world debt remains denominated in dollars; the Federal Reserve states this level has stayed the same since 2010.

It is true that countries are de-dollarizing by holding their reserves less in dollars and more in gold. Gold makes up about 25% of all global foreign reserves, the highest level since 1995. Russia and China bought most of the increase in gold since 2000, largely a result of international economic instability and US use of the dollar as a weapon. The US still holds the most gold, more than the next three countries combined (Germany, Italy, France – Russia and China rank 5 and 6). Most of the value of the increase of gold reserves comes from the rising price of gold, not by countries adding to the quantity of their gold (see Fig. 3) Gold has risen in price because it is seen as a safe place during economic uncertainty, largely created by the US.

De-dollarization has also occurred with the moderate decline of the petrodollar (the world must buy oil from oil producers in dollars). Since 2010, when almost all oil was sold in dollars, it has dropped to about 80%. This is largely due to US sanctions on Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, which have prevented them from selling their oil in dollars. However, in 2026 the percent sold in dollars has gone up, since the US now sells Venezuela’s oil in dollars, has recently lifted some sanctions on Russia, and because of the US-Israeli war on Iran, the world is now more dependent on dollarized US oil and gas.

3. US National Debt

The US government debt is now $39 trillion. In 2015, it was $18 trillion, meaning it has doubled in ten years. The debt now amounts to 16 months of US GDP.  How economically dangerous is this? Now the US government has to pay out over $1 trillion a year in interest on this debt, a serious drain. This is near the amount usefully spent on Medicare coverage for 67 million people.

For comparison, the total US household net worth is over $175 trillion, more than 4.5 times the national debt. (Total household debt is just under $19 trillion, 70% of it being mortgages). On a practical level, if we choose a safer investment than the stock market and buy a $1,000 US Treasury bond, this increases US debt by $1000. Treasury bonds pay over 4% interest, about the same rate as a CD, and earn more than checking or savings accounts. Nobody would say a Treasury bond is not a safe investment.

Most of the $39 trillion debt is not foreign-owned. The federal government owns 20%, making it money the government owes itself. More than 45% is owned by US savers, pensions and financial institutions, which hold Treasuries for the safety and interest yield. About 25% is held abroad, the same level as 20 years ago, before the world economic crisis the US created in 2008-9. Ironically, after that US crash, the foreign share of the US debt went up since the dollar is considered a safe investment in times of global economic problems. Today, foreign investors may unload their dollars if US inflation rises faster than in other countries. However, the rate of inflation remains 3-4% at present. The period of highest inflation for the dollar was almost half a century ago.

The US debt is not like that of other countries, since Washington is able to print dollars without backing it up by corresponding new productive output or material wealth, and not cause inflation. How can the US get away with this? Long been the stable international reserve currency, it is considered a reliable store of value. Countries also need dollars for their foreign trade and to pay most of their foreign public and private debt, estimated to be $76 trillion ten years ago. Consequently, the dollar will continue to be in high demand.

Nevertheless, there is unease around the world about the large US debt, the dollar, and the stability of the US political system. The problem is there is more unease with the alternatives. To state that the US has de-industrialized is false; this is true only in comparison with China, not in relation to Europe or elsewhere. Any de-dollarization happening is at a glacial pace; it misleads people into thinking it is happening in front of our eyes. Make note that Marxist economist Ernest Mandel wrote Decline of the Dollar – back in 1971. That is more than half a century ago – de-dollarization has long been a popular leftist just-so story. And it misleads people to think the US rulers are unable to reverse it. To claim the US empire and the dollar will somehow collapse seriously miseducates people. It can only end after an extended struggle against the US ruling class by tens of millions or more both inside the US and outside, one that establishes an entirely new and much more humane, egalitarian system. Very few on the left see that light at the end of the tunnel.

Stansfield Smith, Chicago ALBA Solidarity Committee, recently returned from a SOA Watch, Task Force on the Americas delegation to Venezuela.

AMERIKAN EXCEPTIONALISM

Arrogance Has Been on the Table by the US for a Very Long Time


 June 3, 2026

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

Vijay Prashad was interviewed by K. Swaminathan, Tamil Nadu Untouchability Eradication Front (TNUEF), Tamil Nadu, India, May 2026.

 K. Swaminathan: What is the fundamental difference between the wars waged by hereditary monarchs in the past to expand their kingdoms and the wars waged today by democratic governments against other countries?

Vijay Prashad: Hereditary monarchs reported largely to themselves and not to their own populations, although they could not fight wars that did not have some popular support and benefit. But there was no real need to inculcate support for these wars and there was no equality amongst peoples, so no expectation that they would have any input for the wars. After the emergence of a democratic consciousness, governments that claim to be democratic must provide governance that addresses the needs of the people and provides benefits to the people. Theoretically, decisions are not to be made by governments without the mandate or consent of the people. What happens, however, is that governments – in the name of national security or international terrorism – wage wars without seeking the mandate or consent of their populations, and so these wars are only made ‘popular’ through the manipulations of the press and of public opinion. That makes most of these modern imperialist wars ‘undemocratic’.

KS: Today, the United States is responsible for most of the wars taking place around the world. What are the reasons behind America’s military offensive? What advantages does the United States gain from these wars?

VP: The United States has attempted to manage a world system to the advantage of multinational capital, rooted in the United States and its Western allies (including Japan and South Korea). The system allows these firms to go into the Global South, steal resources and labour for under their value, and use these regions as markets for substandard industrial goods. The use of the dollar as the international currency has also allowed the US to create wealth out of nothing and to dominate countries by their reliance upon the dollar system. It is to defend this system that the US by and large goes to war, trying to break the will of any part of the world that defies the US agenda. By pain of war and sanctions, the US attempts to impose its view of the world on the rest of the planet. That is the reason for these wars.

KS: How does the United States construct false narratives for wars? How does the United States grant itself the authority of being the ‘world’s policeman’? How does this authority become accepted or legitimised?

VP: The United States has been losing its grip on various aspects of modern life, such as control over technology and raw materials. But it maintains its control over information through control over the infrastructure for news media (cables, satellites, platforms) and through the content delivered over them (particularly for international news). It is through this control that the US can argue that its view of the world is ‘normal’ and that others are defined by the US. However, this has been gradually changing through the failure of the US to be able to control every narrative, such as over the genocide by Israel of the Palestinians and by the US illegal war on Iran.

KS: What are the political, humanitarian, and economic impacts — both on the people of West Asia and globally — of the ongoing wars in Gaza and Iran?

VP: First, there is the genocidal language and practice of the Israeli and US actions in West Asia. Israeli officials speak bluntly about the genocide, and Trump says that he wants to wipe out Iranian civilisation. These kinds of statements are illegal but routine from these countries. And second, they are realised in the actions of Israel and the US to destroy civilian infrastructure and to kill civilians – all illegal under international law. The wars result in economic chaos, particularly the attack on Iran, but this does not directly bother Washington, which seeks to create chaos as a way to disrupt the peaceful economic development of the large BRICS+ states, allow their own populations to bear the cost of the crisis, and then in the long run reestablish their own power over the world system.

KS: The Trump administration claims that the United States and its allies have severely damaged Iran’s military and strategic infrastructure. How much truth is there in these claims?

VP: It is impossible to know accurately the status of the war machines because in a time of war, this is information that everyone either exaggerates or denies. But Iran continues to defend itself, so that itself is a refutation of Trump’s statements.

KS: A section of the global media often portrays Iran as a politically unstable country and frequently reports on public dissatisfaction and protests against the government. What is the current mood among the Iranian people?

VP: No country in the world is without its own contradictions, and no country has a population that is totally happy with the government. So, protests in Iran are not an illustration of instability by itself. In fact, after all this bombardment, the government remains in charge. An unstable country would have collapsed under the weight of the bombs. The illegal US-Israeli war has in fact brought the people of Iran together to resist the imperialist attack.

KS{ To what extent has Donald Trump’s return as President intensified military aggression and diplomatic arrogance?

VP: We must be careful not to personalise the US government. There is a structure in place. But the structure can afford different strategies. Trump is certainly far more aggressive in language and tone, but not necessarily in policy. Arrogance has been on the table by the US for a very long time.

KS: Although global finance capital has economically integrated the major capitalist countries and somewhat muted contradictions among imperialist powers, have Trump’s recent actions intensified contradictions between the United States and its NATO allies or other Western countries?

VP: I believe that the emergence of the BRICS+ states allowed the European bourgeoisie to seek new opportunities for itself through integration with Russia and China, for instance. This is what the US sought to control and reverse with the pressure campaign via Ukraine and through the new Cold War on China. So, yes, the US is seeking different ways to recover its hegemony over the European bourgeoisie through the means of pressure around NATO and around instability against BRICS+. Now, the European Union is suicidally going to not only continue and deepen its sanctions on Russia, but it will potentially start a trade war with China.

KS: What is the current position of NATO countries regarding the military actions being carried out by the United States in West Asia?

VP: The only NATO country to take a position contrary to the US-Israeli war on Iran has been Spain, and even there the government is under pressure. So, most of the NATO states are perfectly at ease with the illegal war.

KS: How do you assess the role of Russia and China in the present situation, as well as their diplomatic and economic relations with Iran?

VP: Russia and China are defensive, not offensive powers. They do not have the military capacity, especially the global footprint, to challenge the US in places such as Venezuela, Cuba, or even Iran. They are trying to defend themselves not to fight off the US attempt to establish its own hyper-imperialist power over the world.

KS: What impact will these wars have on countries in the Global South?

VP: The most immediate impact is that it has created food and fuel inflation around the Global South and has destabilised countries greatly. But secondly, these wars have placed on the table the old idea of imperialist defined sovereignty, namely flag independence: countries can be independent, but they cannot defy the United States. If they do, then they can be clobbered. This is a warning to the processes of sovereignty underway, such as the BRICS+.

KS: What is the current political situation in Latin American countries, especially in Venezuela? Has the new government in Venezuela taken a conciliatory position toward U.S. pressure?

VP: The government in Venezuela is in a tactical retreat to recover from the horrendous sanctions process inflicted by the US and because Venezuela does not have the means (political or military) to withstand the kind of war that the US and Israel have inflicted on Iran. This was a decision made by the political leadership to step back now to preserve their gains. How far this will impact morale in the country is to be seen. Whether these retreats continue will also need to be seen. The situation in Venezuela is in flux.

KS: To what extent are the Palestine issue and the conflicts involving Iran influencing global public opinion — especially among youth, workers, and democratic movements?

VP: Most young people who have an awareness about politics are heartsick about the genocide against the Palestinians. The issue with Iran is more complicated because the US has managed to define the government there as brutal. But over time, the US propaganda will suffer the biting reality of its own brutality. The Palestinians and Iranians as well as the Cubans are showing us what resistance is made of – the grit of national liberation in all three cases evident. We must study the power of national liberation movements and their hold on popular consciousness. Without that study, we will not be able to understand the resilience of the Iranian people or the Palestinian people or the Cuban Revolution.

What role should progressive, democratic, and anti-caste movements in countries like India play in opposing imperialist wars and defending world peace?

India’s people who seek dignity and justice in our own country must stand with others who also seek dignity and justice. US hyper-imperialism is contrary to dignity and justice. Our future is through our struggles and through our solidarity. Not through our surrender.

Even as wars and authoritarian tendencies are increasing globally, do you see possibilities for the emergence of new forms of international solidarity and people’s movements?

Yes, solidarity movements are growing globally. These have taken on different forms, whether direct solidarity (flotillas to Gaza, aid to Cuba) or political solidarity (governments and peoples sending messages to these countries). All of this is important. It must be increased. Working in the platform of the International Peoples Assembly, I see the impact that this solidarity has – you go to small towns in Cuba, and the act of solidarity gives them courage in their resistance. We must continue.

 

Vijay Prashad is the Director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. His most recent book (with Grieve Chelwa) is How the International Monetary Fund Suffocates Africa (from Inkani Books).