Reading the World Today--Three Comments on Two Commentaries

So, this morning I came across two "big picture" interpretations of what's going on in the world today. (Thanks to JD Blaha for bringing the first one to my attention.)

They are, "Why Trump's Tariff Chaos Actually Makes Sense (big picture)" a commentary publicized as part of The Economist's "Money & Macro" page on youtube; the other is longtime Marxist economist Richard Wolff's current reading of the world, titled "American Empire Is In Decline," presented in an interview on the radio show Democracy Now.

I have a few comments on the two of them together.

1 They are both trying to apply 1970s-1980s-style, western economic common sense--the former from a middle-of-the-road "liberal" perspective, the other a class-based Marxisant US-left one--to a mid-2020s global reality. (I can't resist mentioning this: The argument that the US is on a downward slope is of course nothing new by now and, as a world-systemite, I would have certainly appreciated Wolff's mentioning the name of Immanuel Wallerstein and Giovanni Arrighi who not only noticed but extensively theorized that decline a good two decades or so ago.)

Source: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/international-migrants-country-destination-1960-2020?width=1000&height=850&iframe=true

But, back to the two contemporary readings. I'll say this first: I get a light itch from the fact that both still neglect the social dimensions of global integration, especially the ever increasing frequency of people-to-people contact, the stubborn growth in the intensity of human movement (not only object-form-merchandise trade and commerce in ideas and information but also commodities embodied in human beings--be it labor migration or leisure migration--the latter being tourism.

Source: https://www.statista.com/chart/21793/international-tourist-arrivals-worldwide/

Add to all that, most important, the most pernicious development of the post-1970s world: the oppressive, matter-of-fact near-omni-presence of global "race" cognition / racism, despite the progenitor of "race"-based schemas and awful prejudice--the European-centered global colonial system--being widely considered to be gone in its original form. Neocolonialism of course flourishes and humanity continues, in fact ever more loudly and arrogantly, to think of itself as segmented into disjunct (internally homogenous, externally distinct) populations, attaching an outrageous, unacceptable form of hierarchic interpretation to it. Creep1 and his bros are now the global champions of this nazi movement. But don't be mislead: outright, "Hitler-salute" nazis are not the only promoters of "race"-based ideologies of identity: virtually the entire political spectrum is infected by this virus, including pretty much all people occupying the so-called "liberal middle" (think about the pervasive presence of Eurocentrism in the core of their ideas about "society") and even many on the self-labelled "left."

2 Both seem to forget about the global climate catastrophe. Something that might, just might, impact on the global economic order. Ought not to do that.

3 Both commentators neglect--and I do realize this sounds a little wacky, but bear with me for a moment--the near-certainty of coming, or already present, extraterrestrial effects: clues, traces, and even contact. I'd say it's a "near-certainty" as nobody in their right mind thinks, at least not any more (e.g., see here) , that humankind represents the only sentient form of sociality in the universe. Even the US federal government thinks otherwise. And, if there are "others out there," the question of us becoming aware of them is a matter of time. Maybe exorbitantly (pun intended) long time, and this whole issue won't "really" affect anyone alive on Planet Earth right now. But in the future: for sure. Think about it--I have said this many times, but here it is again--the situation outlined in "The Dark Forest," volume two of Liu Cixin's magnum opus The Three Body Problem is absolutely real. That is where a serious, scholarly approach to what Liu calls planetary sociology, or cosmic sociology, should begin. I am not entirely sure about Liu's dark (another pun, sorry) Carl Schmitt-ian view of intergalactic sociality, but it is quite certain for me that our sense of the scope of real-life phenomena we take into account when we talk about the future of humankind ought not to be completely restricted to what we think we know right now about life on Planet Earth. I can't say more about that here--just read Liu's work, he is an unquestionable genius and that experience it will change your outlook on the universe, Planet Earth, and China. At least those.

But anyway, once you've read Liu--may I ask, who would you appoint to deal / negotiate / make historic choices on the level of the universe, for humankind? Of the top, say, ten most powerful people in the world?

So?