Imperial Circular 09/13/18: On Steel Tariffs (STEEL-cam 1 Tech-Comm 0).

Economics is a matter of national security.”

That was the central claim we made in our post STEEL-cam v Nick Land’s Tech-Comm Accelerationism.

Today, we read in the Wall Street Journal:

The president acted because steel and aluminum imports have helped erode the domestic industry to the point that it threatens national security. Unfair trading practices from countries like China have distorted the global steel and aluminum markets. It is time to halt the damage.

Read the rest here.

In our post on Land’s Tech-Comm, we explained that the demands of statecraft and the logic of accelerationism are in fundamental conflict with each other and that the state will ultimately  win this conflict:

As spatial entities structured to jealously delimit their own territories, to assert their exclusive control within them, and variously to attempt to influence events beyond their borders, states are inherently inclined to strive for relative advantage against like entities on the international scene, even if only by means other than force. (Edward Luttwak.)

The Trump administration’s recent ruling, by happenstance,  coincides with our recent entry in the STEEL-cameralist Manifesto  The STEEL-cameralist Manifesto Part 11: The Grand Strategy of the American Empire.

There, we cover the topic of geoeconomics and statecraft more thoroughly and we recommended the kinds of policy that the Trump administration has taken.

Neocameralism is not techno-commercialism and the main philosophical and ideological challenge to Land’s vision is the kind of STEEL-cameralist vision that China pursues and that the Trump administration is beginning to develop and not “romanticism” as Land thinks.

What counter arguments does Land and his students have, if any?




3 thoughts on “Imperial Circular 09/13/18: On Steel Tariffs (STEEL-cam 1 Tech-Comm 0).

  1. well, i’ve written on free trade before:

    the main response is: tariffs are against a country’s own self-interest, since it makes *real* (as opposed to nominal) wages plummet. but it’s a lesson to be learned through experience (Brazil has been trying this same kind of protectionist move for pretty much all of its existence, to no avail). capital have been finding its way around this creeping humanism for over a century already.


    1. It is not about “humanism” though from our perspective. It is about the logic of state or national power. The libertarian arguments, which we are well acquainted with, do not touch the arguments we have made.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s