I think an end in this way was foreseeable. I think a segment of the left, particularly the authoritarian left, had a naïve notion that the end of the US empire would inevitability result in some form of class awareness instead of just nostalgic fascism and evangelical millenarianism.
We’ll need each other more than ever in the death throes.
Also that the Pax Americana was just propaganda. The war in Ukraine is pretty obvious. However the conflicts in the Sahel have also gotten a lot worse since the US has mostly withdrawn itself from that region. Sudan is especially bad(chemical warfare, mass starvation and so forth). The Congo conflict is also flaring up again.
I would not be surprised if things get a lot worse in the near future.
There were far fewer deaths in western Europe in 1941-1943 than in 1944. Does that make the “Pax Nazi-Germanica” a good thing?
When an empire built on exploitation collapses, it is almost always a good thing to remove that empire’s puppets and replace them with representative governments. If those puppets desperately cling to power they no longer have the backing to maintain, then it’s usually a good thing to remove them violently to end their exploitative ways.
Thus an increase of violence during the collapse of an oppressive empire is both natural and probably a good thing in the long term.
Once an empire has subjugated it’s territory by force, there is often a time of “peace,” enforced through domination and the elimination of any threats to the empire’s authority. Of course, empires rise and fall, so it is inevitable that that peace will end, as the empire retracts to deal with internal problems. This generally leaves the subjugated territories in a position of chaos and instability, as the existing power structures no longer have foreign backing to prop them up.
This is why, even the most moral and well-intended empire (if such a thing could exist) is still problematic on a fundamental, systemic level. I actually made a post about this concept a few years ago. Countries and governments need to be able to stand on their own two feet, backed more by domestic popular support than foreign powers. Of course, there are sometimes pragmatic compromises that have to be made, and no country can be fully isolated from “The Great Game.” But I would hardly consider chaos and conflict coming from the retraction of the US empire as a reason to think that empire was a good thing. To me, it just shows that the geopolitical order has been dependent a single point of failure.
I think that’s their point, that a segment of the left thought pax americana was pure propaganda and it wasn’t. It wasn’t benevolent but for years it did keep global conflict tamped down.
Oh right. I guess I really need to focus on my reading comprehension, its been shit for like two weeks now. This is not the first time in recent times that I have completely misunderstood something.
Or maybe I have finally become as stupid as I always thought I was.
i think the ‘authleft’ (at this point the political compass as a phenomenon should be a gen-ed 3 credit-hour class btw) was mostly gen x and millennial doomers with a lapsed DSA membership who thought if America didn’t decline we’d start a nuclear war. you experienced the optimistic slice of the terminally online slice who were fans of pretending to have read theory and then arguing with anarchists, please keep in mind that every group of terminally online people you are tempted to generalize should be treated as about 1% of their representative population, assuming posting on social media is their only hobby.
no matter what set of ideological clothes you put on, the fall of America and rise of China was clear to anyone with open eyes as early as Obama and to schizos as early as Tienanmen square
I mean it’s good that it’s ended, but the way it’s ending is far worse than most ways it could’ve.
I think an end in this way was foreseeable. I think a segment of the left, particularly the authoritarian left, had a naïve notion that the end of the US empire would inevitability result in some form of class awareness instead of just nostalgic fascism and evangelical millenarianism.
We’ll need each other more than ever in the death throes.
Also that the Pax Americana was just propaganda. The war in Ukraine is pretty obvious. However the conflicts in the Sahel have also gotten a lot worse since the US has mostly withdrawn itself from that region. Sudan is especially bad(chemical warfare, mass starvation and so forth). The Congo conflict is also flaring up again.
I would not be surprised if things get a lot worse in the near future.
There were far fewer deaths in western Europe in 1941-1943 than in 1944. Does that make the “Pax Nazi-Germanica” a good thing?
When an empire built on exploitation collapses, it is almost always a good thing to remove that empire’s puppets and replace them with representative governments. If those puppets desperately cling to power they no longer have the backing to maintain, then it’s usually a good thing to remove them violently to end their exploitative ways.
Thus an increase of violence during the collapse of an oppressive empire is both natural and probably a good thing in the long term.
Doesn’t that sort of support Pax Americana being a real thing? If conflicts get worse when America withdraws?
Once an empire has subjugated it’s territory by force, there is often a time of “peace,” enforced through domination and the elimination of any threats to the empire’s authority. Of course, empires rise and fall, so it is inevitable that that peace will end, as the empire retracts to deal with internal problems. This generally leaves the subjugated territories in a position of chaos and instability, as the existing power structures no longer have foreign backing to prop them up.
This is why, even the most moral and well-intended empire (if such a thing could exist) is still problematic on a fundamental, systemic level. I actually made a post about this concept a few years ago. Countries and governments need to be able to stand on their own two feet, backed more by domestic popular support than foreign powers. Of course, there are sometimes pragmatic compromises that have to be made, and no country can be fully isolated from “The Great Game.” But I would hardly consider chaos and conflict coming from the retraction of the US empire as a reason to think that empire was a good thing. To me, it just shows that the geopolitical order has been dependent a single point of failure.
I think that’s their point, that a segment of the left thought pax americana was pure propaganda and it wasn’t. It wasn’t benevolent but for years it did keep global conflict tamped down.
Oh right. I guess I really need to focus on my reading comprehension, its been shit for like two weeks now. This is not the first time in recent times that I have completely misunderstood something.
Or maybe I have finally become as stupid as I always thought I was.
Interesting idea. Have you ever considered not being a mouthpiece?
Removed by mod
i think the ‘authleft’ (at this point the political compass as a phenomenon should be a gen-ed 3 credit-hour class btw) was mostly gen x and millennial doomers with a lapsed DSA membership who thought if America didn’t decline we’d start a nuclear war. you experienced the optimistic slice of the terminally online slice who were fans of pretending to have read theory and then arguing with anarchists, please keep in mind that every group of terminally online people you are tempted to generalize should be treated as about 1% of their representative population, assuming posting on social media is their only hobby.
no matter what set of ideological clothes you put on, the fall of America and rise of China was clear to anyone with open eyes as early as Obama and to schizos as early as Tienanmen square
Foreseeable for sure, but ideal, obviously not