Vijay Prashad: The US is withdrawing to its own backyard

Yusuf Tuna Koç

We discussed the new reality indicated by the latest National Security Strategy document published by the United States, Trump“s aggression towards Venezuela and Cuba, and the debates on socialism in Turkey that claim to 'surpass Marx” with Indian socialist writer Vijay Prashad.

Venezuela has been under constant attack from the United States for some time. Compared to indirect interventions such as civil-judicial coups and embargoes at the beginning of the 21st century, why do you think Trump insists on a more military approach towards Latin America today?

The answer lies in the US National Security Strategy, which was published in an environment of serious distrust in global relations and in the way we understand global relations. Trump's tariff war and NATO's reinforcement in the Pacific and Indian Oceans signalled that the West would collectively pose a greater threat to China, thereby increasing the likelihood of armed conflict in the region. However, this new Strategy document indicates that the US will withdraw to its own region, acknowledging that it is not yet in a position to compete with China's economic rise. The emphasis on focusing on the Western Hemisphere is critical in the text, indicating that, beyond reviving the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, Trump's interpretation is that the entire hemisphere is in the US's reserve, and that the American government can intervene aggressively at the slightest problem to maintain its hegemony in the region. However, even in the Western Hemisphere, there is a problem for the US: China is either the largest or second-largest trading partner of 35 countries in the Americas (China is even the leading trading partner of the US). Therefore, it is impossible to truly eliminate Chinese influence in the Americas; Beijing's economic presence is both inevitable and deeply entrenched. For example, China is the largest trading partner of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Panama, Paraguay and Peru. Despite being close political allies of the US, none of these countries can find an alternative to trade with China. This means that even a strategy claiming that the Western Hemisphere belongs to the US and that all competitors in the region will be eliminated is impossible to implement. Ultimately, if the US cannot create economic surplus by reviving its dormant industrial capacity, it will not be able to replace China as the mandatory buyer of raw materials.

Behind the aggression towards Venezuela and Cuba lies the desire to eliminate two parts of the continent that challenge US power.

THE US COULD NOT DEFEAT CHINA

As you emphasised, the recently published National Security Strategy paints an extremely passive picture in all areas outside Latin America. How do you view the current imperialist strategy, particularly with regard to China and Russia?

The US has adopted a realistic stance on the world. They have realised that it is impossible to weaken China's economic hegemony through military force and that a war with China would not be profitable. All attempts to coerce China came to an end with the meeting between Xi and Trump in Korea, from which Xi emerged victorious. What remains for the US is to conclude the war in Ukraine, manage relations with China, build its own economic power, and determine which power will dominate Latin America. That is the fundamental message of the strategy document. The US realises it can no longer dominate the entire world alone and must first secure control in its own backyard by implementing the Trump amendment to the Monroe Doctrine, which it had previously established for itself. This means implementing the Doctrine in a more aggressive manner. The US is aware that Russia's position on Ukraine is complete and that, contrary to the European approach, Russia does not pose a threat to European countries. However, Trump is using this threat claim to persuade Europeans to spend up to 5% of their GDP on defence budgets, which is an extremely unreasonable amount. But this would reduce the burden on the US and allow Washington to focus its own military resources on Latin America and the Caribbean.

A SOCIALISM THAT TARGETS ONLY THE STATE IS OUTDATED

Are you aware of the discussions, centred on the state-communist conflict rather than class struggle, based on the latest statements by Öcalan and Halloway, regarding the possibility of a socialism that “transcends” Marx? What do you think of such approaches?

First of all, I am not particularly fond of schools of thought characterised as “transcending Marx”. Marx offered a critique that remains valid today in terms of his conceptual tools regarding capitalist structure and systems. It is an indisputable fact that there are new elements in the capitalist system; these must also be studied and incorporated into Marx's analysis, or this analysis must be expanded and developed. Marxists are doing precisely that, but they are not pursuing a path of “overcoming Marx”; they are striving to advance and develop the Marxist method regarding the capitalist system.

Secondly, class remains a vitally important category today, just as it was 150 years ago, for understanding the world economy and its forms of capital accumulation. The majority of humanity is forced to sell their labour power in order to survive, and in this way they form the working class. Whether they are couriers, landless peasants or brick kiln workers, they are part of the working class. Even the unemployed exist within a dimension of this structure and the daily life it establishes. This is not a reality imposed by a trade union. What a trade union does is simply to consciously involve workers in the struggle that is already being imposed on them. Therefore, class struggle is not a choice. It is the reality of the capitalist system. That is why replacing class struggle with something else cannot be your or my choice. Class contradiction exists and is real.

Thirdly, the state is not the centre of class power itself, but merely an instrument of class domination. Abolishing the state does not transform property relations or social relations, as anarchists believe. These relations transform themselves into another instrument of class domination. The aim cannot be to reject social relations and view only the state as the enemy; such approaches mistakenly believe, in an outdated manner, that the state is at the centre of power, as it was during the era of monarchies. While the financial system suffocates people, we want them to abolish the state. Yet the state is neither the cause of the hardships experienced nor the creator of socialism; it is merely an instrument.

Note: This article is translated from the original article titled Vijay Prashad: ABD arka bahçesine çekiliyor, published in BirGün newspaper on December 21, 2025.