We still need to get to the point where the means of production are actually run democratically by workers before the argument holds any weight.
The US Empire doesnt care who is president
- Thread starter Lime
- Start date
We still need to get to the point where the means of production are actually run democratically by workers before the argument holds any weight.
The Nordic model is absolutely not socialist, nor has it ever been. It's a capitalist system with varying degrees of state monopolization and state welfare. Currently, it's one of the more free-market oriented systems in the world, it's just combined with high income taxes. Most state monopolies were sold off during the early 90s. Did you know, for instance that - unlike the US - Sweden no longer has a state-owned postal service?
That's a fairly long way of saying "never". That type of socialism is as unrealistic as libertarianism because it simply assumes that there won't be an oligarchy ready to exploit the power vacuum. Even near-anarchic states like Somalia eventually end up with warlords if everyone else lives in communes.
Ok I'll humor you, how do we get to that point? How do we prevent someone from just seizing power and becoming an authoritarian dictator?
I'm not saying what the US is doing is great. You asked if doing these things was defensible as an empire.
I'm saying empires, historically, committed genocides, enslaved whole cultures, ruthlessly subjugated neighbouring states if it suited them.
And that's not some medieval fantasy that's every empire right up to WWII.
US hegemony is not great, but people wishing for a multipolar world should be careful what they wish for. The alternative is not world peace, the alternative is China, Russia and others stepping into the power vacuum. And they don't care for the feelings of minorities and human rights nearly as much as the US, as hypocritical a caring that is.
Orniletter
Banned
Europeans should not cheer the US' waning influence, US hegemony is still far preferable to a Russia or China dominated world and anyone saying otherwise is either stupid or extremely ignorant. Or both.
Like, I get that it's about time we (as in Europe) somewhat emancipate ourselves from the US' extreme level of influence (especially because we do have the ressources to become a great power ourselves), but this spiteful and thankless "enjoy while it lasts !!!"-tone is incredibly inappropriate.
The prosperity Europe gets to enjoy right now (structural and economically) can be attributed in large parts to steps taken by America after Europe was well and truly on it's last leg after WWII concluded and nothing, from Afghanistan over Vietnam to Trump, will change that.
I'm all for pouring some cold water on all too arrogant and patriotic Americans' backs (looking at ginger ninja), but all in all, the US has been a force of good for Europe.
as a non white person, this really just comes off as "Russia and China would subjugate not only the minorities, but also white people, so I'm definitely not okay with that. But I'll continue to convince myself that America's track record on minorities is the best we have to offer and everybody should be okay with that"
Like, seriously. Think about your rhetoric, and then think about what that means to a latinx, black, or native american person.
I'm comparing the current World order with the Pre WWII one.
The one where England, France and the other european superpowers carved up the globe between themselves. That was not a good time for the world.
I'm looking at how Russia and China are treating their minorities and neighbours right now and in recent history.
That doesn't absolve the US of any atrocities they have done, and they deserve to be called out, and protested against. ect. No one needs to love or thank the USA for their empire. But it's barely 70 years ago when having colonies was accepted foreign policy and expected of powerful states. And that this had been the case for thousands of years.
And I'm telling you that whataboutism with Russia and China isn't a strong rhetorical argument.
What power vacuum?
The US will loose power in the coming decades, that is a given if nothing extraordinary happens.
Not because it gets weaker, but because others will get stronger (faster).
In the end it's all just a numbers game.
And you forgot to mention the EU as a possible alternative, probably because it wouldn't paint the US in such a favorable light.
GoodCoffeeJoey
Banned
Oh dear, (((Rothchild))) conspiracy theories. Have we reached rock bottom yet?
El_Tiguere
Member
That government-backed paper currency pioneered by John Law in France was a favorite for international trade in the 18th century (the Mississippi Company), hence France's foothold in the history of reserve currencies that ultimately yielded to the next one. The US dollar is on its way out, to be replaced with a likely basket of currencies sponsored by the IMF (hint: global bankers want that).
I'm not sure how you read whataboutism out of my posts especially since the genocides in the americas and the slave trade were the result of the imperial policies of the European colonial powers. Which is exactly what i don't want back.
I'm also not sure how the US's status declining is going to help US minorities. South america might be happy though.
I don't think the EU is nearly united enough to be a counterweight to the others. And the EU will protect it's own interests too.
The EU is too divided to ever come close to becoming a strong power comparable to the US. The EU depends on the US much more than the US depends on the EU.
The EU doesn't have the military nor the natural resources the US has to ever displace the US as a world power, that why the EU is never put forth as an alternative, it is incapable of becoming one.
A truly multipolar world still functions as a vacuum of sorts, with competing interests seeking to fill the void as the preeminent first among equals or, best case for each individual state, the new hegemon.
The vacuum left by America ceding the mantle as unquestionably strongest state is just that: the unquestionably strongest state.
And we know the alternatives in a world where power devolves from America to regional superpowers without the overbearing presence of the hegemon: China v India, China v East Asia, Russia v EU, Iran v. Saudi Arabia. We know the actors. These aren't unknown hypotheticals without knowledge from which to draw upon to predict.
MisterFalcon
Member
To get to that impressive number of countries they need to count such massive deployments as:
Tunisa: 8
Argentina: 21
Sweden: 9
Laos: 6
Russia: 19 (don't tell Putin)
Finland: 13
India: 19
South Africa: 11
I'm not sure how it's even a conspiracy. Like, a bank would like to open more branches on more countries, color me surprised.
Muffin1611
Banned
We're seeing massive distancing of the EU from the US right now.
That it's a more loose union right now is true, but I don't think it's so far out a possibility that that could change in the next few decades.
Its not nearly as massive as you think. Most of it is political theater. Saying " we want an EU army" is a whole lot different than actually doing it.
And where is the money for this army going to come from? The US was able to build up its military post WW2 because they were the only entrant not decimated by the war, barring an extremely unlikely world war there just isn't a feasible way to do it. That doesn't even include the fact that US has far more natural resources than the EU.
this displays an incredible and frankly extremely disconcerting level of ignorance of what actually led to the korean war. what responsibility does america have then, besides helping divide the country in the first place and the ideological framing that justified it from both sides of the spectrum. the ideological crusade that would define america's policies for the next half-century and the consequences of we still live in today. korea certainly still does.
what the fuck does china have to do with 'responsibility' in the korean war. they certainly didn't set the table for the conflict like the usa did. and chinese forces only entered the war once america crossed the yalu river - a proclamation they made very clear, against a general who we now know wanted nothing more than to overthrow their newly formed government - by nuclear force if necessary.
i don't know what the hell they teach about the korean war in the american education system but it sure as fuck wasn't north korea and china getting up to no good and the american saviors. the fact so many americans can so confidently divest themselves of any of the responsibility they had in the cold war and its' many scars. south korea suffered under military dictatorship for decades with american support all because they trumpeted a tune of capitalism and anti-communism.
this is how the american empire solidified and how it kept telling itself that it was anything but - their pursuits became less couched in oblique financial interests (though certainly those played a huge role) and more in ideological or moral conquests as a pretense for intervening in and conquering by any other name. and doing a good enough job of selling that to its' people at home and printing that in its' history texts.
That depends on the circumstances of the country that socialism develops in but it's literally no different than asking how you prevent any democratic revolution from becoming a dictatorship. We've seen that happen a milllion times (just look at Egypt if you want a recent example) but nobody seems to ever knock "democracy" for that as being some unattainable goal for some reason.
In the context of the U.S. a literal revolution is impossible due to the strength of the state and the mass amounts of reactionaries, particularly among the white populace. A better strategy would be incrementally adopting socialist policies prior to the advent of a fully automated economy.
A capitalist government inherently protects from a totalitarian taking over due to the government not having control over industry. An authoritarian government needs to control industry in order to maintain power. Capitalism naturally separates power into two separate sectors: public and private. If one sector controls everything, authoritarianism is pretty much inevitable.
Muffin1611
Banned
EU officials clearly stating that the US can't be relied on anymore or that Europeans have to take their matters into their own hands is way, way beyond political posturing. It's clear that the transatlantic relationship is shifting fast.
Integration isn't limited to an EU army and that idea is way older than this shift in foreign policy.
Go read a history book, your blatant ignorance is astounding, and frankly insulting to those who suffered and died in the wars.
The US actively supplied arms and resources to the belligerents during the First and Second World Wars. It intervened on behalf of American interests in the First World War when Britain and France threatened to default on their loans and were about to lose the stalemate on the Western Front.
During WWII, It also provided lend-lease to Britain which reaped a nice profit before it formally entered the war through Pearl Habour. America was more than willing to intervene in foreign wars once it got its population rallied to the cause.
You are assuming that my desire is a USSR command economy.
Capitalism can absolutely have dictatorships (see Pinochet), but even aside from that literal sense there is a class dictatorship that exists under capitalism, which is the rule of the capitalist class. So long as the means of production are controlled privately, it is impossible for the masses of common people to have true control over their society since so much of society and politics revolves around who owns, controls, and benefits from capitalism.
That is the definition of political posturing. They are making big talk, but not actually doing anything. The fact is, Europeans like the idea of breaking away from the US, so their leadership says that they want to. They haven't actually done anything to advance that though. They will inevitably do incredibly minor things to "prove" that they are breaking away, but not anything of actual consequence.
Look at the French President making big talk and taking shots at the US President, but a month later receiving him in Paris and talking about working together.
The fact is, capitalism is the best option in a mountain of shit options. Capitalism takes parts of socialism and adapts it.
So how do you suggest that the government control the economy without being a "command economy"?
Pinochet was a fascist.
El_Tiguere
Member
Which is why in the United States we have INVERTED Totalitarianism: industry is the one that controls government to maintain power.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Sarcasm righ...
...Oh
You're actually serious. Ugh. Wow.
lmao are you for real
It's true that it's not strictly speaking socialism, but the nordic model is just about the best model for society we have right now and possibly ever. So if it's not that great, go ahead and name a better one?
Uh, what the hell was he supposed to do?
Spieler Eins
Member
Nordic/Western Europe has revised socialism. Socialism doesn't solely mean communism.
hydragonwarrior
Member
Sorry but this dumbass president is causing international grief with his lack of knowledge in dealing with NK and making everyone nervous and stressed thanks to him talking about nukes like it's a normal military action.
UGH.
UGH.
Pandora012
Member
It's nicer to think of only the noble reasons for entering the war.
For WW1 there were many reasons why they entered. Of course there was the possible defaults. But there was also the issue of Germany's naval warfare that resulted in American casualties. Then there was the pesky telegram, that stated that Germany wanted Mexico's help to invade the US.
Compare the pre-ww2 world to post-ww2. It is world peace with incredibly minor conflicts breaking out, but not nearly as bad, as it used to be.
The Nordic model works the best for a smaller population, it wouldn't work well for a country the size of the US.
And your last point proves my point entirely, European leadership talks up big game in breaking away from the US, but are actually powerless to actually do it.
It's not socialist at all though. It's capitalism with high income tax.
Dammit double post
Muffin1611
Banned
Merkel and Macron both have made several statements on advancing EU integration, starting with an EU finance minister. Because as you said, it's a loose union, and more unified economic policy would be a great way to start. Since an integrated EU is needed if it wants to get more independent from the US.
That in your book the EU apparently has to suddenly severely diminish diplomatic relations by not receiving the president and not work together on anything anymore if it wants to become independent is not the EUs fault. It doesn't work like that.
Nomadic Sparks
Banned
That atomic atrocity line from that article still bothers the fuck out of me, as well as the Korean War thing.
The US deserves all kinds of shade for it's human right abuses.
I'm far more interested on hearing how EU would become a world power, if/when US/China implodes upon themselves. How would that happen if the EU is talking big but not walking big.
The US deserves all kinds of shade for it's human right abuses.
I'm far more interested on hearing how EU would become a world power, if/when US/China implodes upon themselves. How would that happen if the EU is talking big but not walking big.
And_Gignac
Member
Capitalism "naturally" (there's nothing natural about capital) concentrates economic wealth and thus polítical power in a few hands. Even Smith admitted to this.
It's always capitalist defenders who understand capitalism the less.
Muffin1611
Banned
I think the term you guys are searching for is social democracy.
South Korea's alternative to what happened is being like North Korea now. I know which one I'd prefer.
It's just statements, no actual action.
Sure in a pure capitalist society that is true, which is just as unfeasible as a socialist society. The US isn't a pure capitalist society though. The government has the power to break up monopolies, it has tax brackets to tax the wealthy a higher percentage than the poor. We have laws against insider trading and the public has the ability to own pieces of the largest companies in the world.
I also never said it was perfect, no system is, it is just the best option available. It is also telling when people argue for socialism, its mostly arguments about how horrible capitalism can be, and whenever you ask for a successful socialist society, it's just excuses for why one doesn't exist. We know that capitalism can be bad, it's just that there aren't any better options available.
Netherscourge
Banned
Well, not to defend but...
A lot of other countries are enablers.
And I don't mean the provocateurs. Look at NATO. They're one of the reasons the US is so powerful.
NATO uses the US as a ginormous bluff against other imperialist countries, like Russia. The trade-off is that the US doesn't have to worry about Russia expanding. There is a whole lot of fucked up psycho-politico shit going on there.
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
Do you know what caused the Korean War?
This is the cliffnotes version of what happened. I'd make it longer but I don't have access to JSTOR right now to properly cite and my primary source collection isn't readily handy.
The future PROC trained and supplied Kim Il-Sung to fight the Japanese. The future ROC trained and supplied the Provisional Govenrment of the Republic of Korea to do the same. The United States officially backed the PGROK as the legitimate government of Korea.
One day after declaring war on Japan, the Soviet Union began to invade the Korean peninsula. The US rushed to make an agreement to split the occupation of the peninsula at the 38th parallel, as to include Seoul.
A general election was proposed under the administration of the U.N. and the Soviets and Kim Il-Sung refused to cooperate, as a result the ROK and DPRK were formed.
As a result of its support of the PROC in the Chinese Civil War, the DPRK ended up with well over 50k battle-hardened troops and massive caches of supplies. The PROC had a policy of vassalizing neighboring states to counter a perceived US threat.
All the while the DPRK had been sending guerrilla fighters into the South and tried to convince Stalin to support an invasion of the South. Which he eventually did with Mao promising to supply and reinforce the DPRK. While Rhee did support the idea of the South conquering the North, the South never made any preparations for an invasion and only focused on defense of the South.
The North invaded, pushed the Southern forces to the brink, massacred hundreds of thousands of people suspected of having sympathies for the South, enslaved thousands others.
But no, it's the US' fault.
Muffin1611
Banned
It might surprise you, but statements come before actions.
You're expecting a union of 27 members and 510 million citizens to perform integration in a few months when it could take decades. And act like since "nothing has happened yet" (no shit, it's been eight months), nothing's going to be done.
Alone introducing a common finance minister and a way to manage national debt in one place instead is expected to take time until 2025.
Nomadic Sparks
Banned
Korean war had to be fought
Vietnam could've been handled so much better but most people on the ground had no idea how to do it and were being fed complete lies to the point that it took the Tet Offensive to get them to realize how fucked up the war was. Let's note even add on to the Nixon completely sabotaging the negotiations because that's a can a worms that still needs to be resolved
America needs to face facts and start paying repatriation to so many countries that have suffered.
Vietnam could've been handled so much better but most people on the ground had no idea how to do it and were being fed complete lies to the point that it took the Tet Offensive to get them to realize how fucked up the war was. Let's note even add on to the Nixon completely sabotaging the negotiations because that's a can a worms that still needs to be resolved
America needs to face facts and start paying repatriation to so many countries that have suffered.
Nomadic Sparks
Banned
I eagerly await the day the EU gets it's shit together and starts throwing their weight around
perferably in the near future, when there can be economic sanctions against America for the human rights abuses inside the country
perferably in the near future, when there can be economic sanctions against America for the human rights abuses inside the country
My point is, that politicians make a lot of statements to score political points, but until they actually do something I will continue to be skeptical.
Also want to point out that the EU made big statements about the Russian sanctions the US passed and so far have done nothing about it.
Steeped in a Sea of Games
Member
I just don't see it ever happening in the EU unless they decide to come together in a more stable union (IE more like the US). You can't 'throw your weight around' if people can just up and leave whenever they feel like it ala the UK.
Utterly ridiculous.
Nomadic Sparks
Banned
Hitting the capitalists in their pocket book is the only way they learn
Sanctions against the US for human rights abuses in the US and imperialism in the world is one way to make the US mega corps feel the burn. Repatriation to all countries affected by US imperialism is another way to make the empire crumble
Sanctions against the US for human rights abuses in the US and imperialism in the world is one way to make the US mega corps feel the burn. Repatriation to all countries affected by US imperialism is another way to make the empire crumble