cmbabul comments on The American Age Is Over

The American Age Is Over (www.theatlantic.com)

submitted 1 month ago by Midnight@slrpnk.net to c/collapse@slrpnk.net

132 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] cmbabul@slrpnk.net 42 points 1 month ago (91 children)

I mean it’s good that it’s ended, but the way it’s ending is far worse than most ways it could’ve.

hideshow 91 child comments

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago

Yeah… there was a graceful and positive way for this to occur at one point, but definitely not anymore, I think. The last couple years have been less “ripping the bandaid off” and more “stabbing oneself in the neck”.

I know there will be some real benefits in a handful of contexts and regions, but overall, I shudder to imagine the implications of this rapid and violent abrogation and dismantling of Pax Americana.

That’s not to say that I’m expressing “wooooo ‘MURICUH”, or pining for days of Cold War yore when we fucked around with fomenting coups in tons of countries - nothing of the sort, in fact. Simply pointing out that nobody fully comprehends what all the fallout from this tectonic geopolitical shift will ultimately encompass. The American global security/enforcement apparatus has underpinned the vast majority of the geopolitical and global economic context and (relative) stability since the end of WW2, and even moreso since the end of the Cold War, and now that we’re… uh… not doing that anymore… this is completely new territory. We are in the geopolitical Wild West now. It’s arguably too broad of a generalization to say “all bets are off”… but a lot of them actually are, in a meaningful sense.

parent

[–] Midnight@slrpnk.net [S] 43 points 1 month ago (89 children)

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.

parent

hideshow 89 child comments

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 21 points 1 month ago (8 children)

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 However the conflicts in the Sahel have also gotten a lot worse since the US has mostly withdrawn itself from that region.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.

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] BeelzebubEiNukuKoskaan@piefed.social 5 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Doesn't that sort of support Pax Americana being a real thing? If conflicts get worse when America withdraws?

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago

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.

parent

[–] noodles@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 month ago (4 children)

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.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] BeelzebubEiNukuKoskaan@piefed.social 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] undecidedyellow@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Bro, like, go easy on yourself. The rest of the world is ready to eat you up. Don't join them in the feasting.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] BeelzebubEiNukuKoskaan@piefed.social 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

Hehe no worries. I just enjoy self deprecating humor :D I'm actually pretty happy with myself.

Other than the crippling depression and anxiety issues. (:D)

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] undecidedyellow@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Oh, well those are a given. If you didn't have crippling anxiety and depression in 2026, THEN I'd be really concerned.

Glad you're doing (mostly) well :)

parent

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 month ago

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.

parent

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

As an "authoritarian" leftist, I have been predicting this collapse in US power for years. It was abundantly clear that the US could not maintain so many engagements in so many parts of the world, which is why I have been advocating for years for a peaceful, managed withdrawal to prevent a sudden collapse. Because, also contrary to what you guys always say about us, I don't believe that a collapse or worsening conditions will somehow automatically lead to a victory for the left.

My plan, what I've been saying all this time, is that the US should try to emulate China's approach of staying out of military entanglements while investing in domestic economic development, that we should accept a role as one of several great powers and should work to win countries over peacefully, by offering them better deals. I have been saying this for around 20 years, from back when we were occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. It is literally this position that defines me as an "authoritarian."

Why? Because:

When I said we should stay out of Afghanistan, I was an authoritarian for "supporting Al Qaida."
When I said we should stay out of Syria, I was an authoritarian for "supporting Assad."
When I said we should stay out of Yemen, I was an authoritarian for "supporting the Houthis"
When I said we should stay out of Venezuela, I was an authoritarian for "supporting Maduro."
When I said we should stop funding Israel, I was authoritarian for "defending Hamas."
When I said we should not get involved in Ukraine, I was an authoritarian for "Supporting Putin."
When I said we should not attack Iran, I was an authoritarian for "Supporting Khomeini."

Maybe if we had been more selective about what conflicts we got involved in, if we had picked our battles, then we might have been able to focus on one or two of those conflicts. Instead, we've had this absolutely unhinged foreign policy where we do things like fund multiple sides in Syria that kill each other with our weapons, or beg China to sanction Russia while at the same time starting a trade war with them. And burning out after getting involved in every conflict everywhere was the most predictable outcome ever.

What is your plan? To keep burning ourselves out, to keep pouring more and more blood and treasure into maintaining and expanding the empire, while domestic conditions become worse and worse, and the fascists at home become more and more powerful? You just want to play Superman, acting like we're invincible, acting like petty material concerns and limitations are beneath us. It's pure hubris.

And now that the exact thing we've been trying to warn you of has come to pass, you complain that we "can't articulate a goal or plan?" Every time that we've pushed for a more cautious and reserved approach that would preserve our resources and stamina, y'all have just accused us of being secret agents of whatever your current enemy-of-the-week is.

I would have hoped that seeing the exact thing we've been warning you about come to pass would make you stop and consider if maybe we actually have a point, but of course, I know better than to expect it. None of you know anything about what we believe because you'd rather make up beliefs and assign them to us than listen to anything we actually say.

parent

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago

Marxists have very clear plans depending on which country they organize in. For the US, as an example, the primary tasks are to build up a disciplined worker party that can effectively educate the rest of the working class, struggle alongside them whenever they come into conflict with the capitalist class (such as labor disputes, housing struggles, etc.), and organize them. This is the best way to prepare for the inevitable and regular crises of capitalism, to hopefully take the working class as a whole in a unified direction against the capitalist system itself.

After establishing a socialist state, we can begin addressing societal problems more effectively than ever before. Full right to self-determination for all indigenous peoples, mass expansion of public housing and an elimination of landlordism, full employment via a planned economy, and more. Healthcare and housing can be made free, same as education, which develops a far more productive labor base that will be necessary for the grand projects of infrastructure improvements and addressing historic inequalities for oppressed peoples.

All military bases will be closed down overseas, leaving only a small defense army in case of capitalist invasion. The dominance of the US dollar will be no more, nor will IP be respected, as it is leveraged against the global south. Rather than plundering the world, we can cooperate with countries like China to develop mass transit and a green energy transition, free countries like Cuba and Korea, and more.

The idea that Marxists have no plans is silly. Just talk to one of us.

parent

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago* (71 children)

I mean. They can. They do. Over in .ml land, they talk about how NK, USSR, and China should expand their reach globally.

It's just that even the tankies realize that nobody really wants to live in North Korea.

parent

hideshow 71 child comments

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago (70 children)

What we talk about is more how the US should reduce it's reach globally. It is exactly that reach which has caused the overextension that we're now seeing, which is going to mean a much less controlled drawing back than if it had been done intentionally.

It's y'all who can't get over the fact that a more cautious and reserved US foreign policy could allow its rivals to gain influence. That's the whole reason that you label us as "tankies." Because you literally cannot conceive of the idea that the US has been overextended and that there might be people wanting to correct that overextension before it blows up in our faces, entirely predictably. To try to address US overextension is something you see as inherently treasonous, and it is precisely because of that perspective that we're in this mess.

parent

hideshow 70 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (49 children)

well…it’s time to use military force.

Utterly idiotic. The US is weakening and you want to continue expending it's remaining resources on avoidable conflicts halfway around the world instead of actually addressing the reasons it is in a state of decline and confronting the domestic threat of fascism. You are an accelerationist, whether you realize it or not.

Unfortunately, bullies only speak one language. If you could talk to Kim jong un and be like “hey, let’s work together to make the world a better place”, NK wouldn’t be NK.

Lmao. What has Kim Jong Un ever done to "bully" the US? It's the US that performs the largest military exercise in the world, every year, right on his doorstep, where they practice invading his country and bombing everything to smithereens the way they did before.

But he’s rather rule ashes than let the country grow outside his control.

Sounds familiar. Except instead of one country, it's the world. You don't want a single place on earth to be free of the US and you're willing to let the US destroy itself with these conflicts than to show an ounce of caution or restraint. You are the one who would rather rule over ashes.

parent

hideshow 49 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (47 children)

NK has shown that having a military force in SK is necessary, although thankfully military exercises seem to be enough for now.

And yet you can't answer when I ask for an example of how the tiny, impoverished state of NK has "bullied" the US. In reality, it's not about responding to bullying, it's just about extending the scope and authority of your empire.

China is the only country that seems to be able to function in a peaceful way. Ideally, there would be more cooperation between China and the US, and ideally, the other countries would just continue to focus on peaceful cooperation. But instead they start wars.

Aww, peaceful smol bean America just wants to live in peace and harmony with everyone, but everyone else is just so aggressive.

Meanwhile, back in this reality:

Again, it's just empire building. You think you're somehow different from every other empire because you have all these justifications, but every empire has had similar justifications:

There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive such an interest—why, then it was the national honor that had been insulted. The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbors, always fighting for a breathing space. The whole world was pervaded by a host of enemies, and it was manifestly Rome's duty to guard against their indubitably aggressive designs. They were enemies who only waited to fall on the Roman people.

Historian Joseph Schumpeter

Likewise, the British empire was said to have been built in "a fit of absentmindedness," as if it kept acquiring territory accidentally through "keeping the peace" around the world.

You are no different, and history will remember your empire no differently than those of the past.

parent

hideshow 47 child comments

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago (46 children)

They attacked South Korea. There was a whole war about it. Technically the war still hasn't ended. For some reason, people don't seem to forget when you try to conquer them.

And that's why the US has allies, because they helped prevent the conquest of SK. That's why the US military is still there, to prevent the conquest of SK again.

parent

hideshow 46 child comments

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (45 children)

They attacked South Korea. There was a whole war about it.

Yeah, real imminent threat right there. I mean, what if the Soviets give them aid again? Will President Eisenhower be able to handle it?

Did you just wake up from a 70 year coma? That's the most relevant example you can come up with for the claim that Kim Jong Un, who hadn't even been born, is a "bully" who "can't be reasoned with" and "keeps starting wars?"

For some reason, people don’t seem to forget when you try to conquer them.

Yeah, and they don't forget when you drop chemical weapons and murder 5 million people, primarily civilians, either. You sure that's a talking point you want to use?

parent

hideshow 45 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (43 children)

"One of the largest militaries in the world?" Are you actually for real right now?

The US spends more on the military than the next 9 countries combined! Obviously, anyone sane who's in the US's crosshairs is going to desperately try to muster whatever military strength they possibly can, for fear of invasion! Which the US has done, not only generations ago before any of us were born, but with a full scale invasion and decades-long occupation in living memory, ending only a few years ago! Before going straight into attacking Iran, with no provocation!

Jesus Christ, you imperialists are completely nuts! What is it about militaristic, authoritarian empires that makes you completely abandon any sort of reasoning or common sense, and start acting like a tiny hermit country halfway across the world that hasn't been in a conflict for 70 years is somehow a threat to the most powerful and militaristic country on earth? It's completely ridiculous.

Fucking, Rome had more plausible arguments for "defending itself" when they conquered Gaul!

You just keep licking the boot of the US government and accepting every bullshit justification it gives as it expands to every corner of the world, until it collapses on itself from the overextension, until the fascists take advantage of the decline and seize power at home, and when we're both being matched into the gas chambers, I'll ask you again whether fucking North Korea was really the threat we needed to be worrying about.

parent

hideshow 43 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (41 children)

My money is not on NK.

Yeah, no shit! You realize that's a point against you right? I'm the one arguing that North Korea isn't a real credible threat. That's exactly why they have to try to make up the difference in manpower! Even South Korea, on it's own outspends the north.

Did you get distracted by the blood rushing to your dick, thinking about how your empire has a greater capacity for violence, and you lost track of what the conversation was about?

Meanwhile, as all our money is poured into that idiotic nonsense so that people can get their rocks off and so that billionaires can profit off it, roads, infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc decay more and more each year, causing actually real suffering and danger to people's lives. But who cares? Building hospitals doesn't let you live out a juvenile power fantasy like setting off bombs and rockets does.

parent

hideshow 41 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (39 children)

It's not at all clear that North Korea would be allowed to follow the same path that China did. However, the point is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Again, we are not evaluating the North Korean government or their domestic policy, we are evaluating whether they pose a credible military threat, both in terms of their aims and their capabilities, and the answer to that is a resounding "No," by your own admission.

In any case it's incredibly hypocritical to lecture another country about their military spending while the US is spending more than the next 9 countries combined. You can't pretend that you have some principled commitment towards deescalation if you're just focused on getting weaker countries to put down their arms so that powerful countries can dominate them. That is just imperialism, plain in simple. You might as well be a British colonizer calling for Zulus to not be so militaristic and to put down their bows and arrows, as they slaughtered them with machine guns.

parent

hideshow 39 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (37 children)

NK doesn’t pose a credible military threat to the US. It poses a credible military threat to SK. That’s why the US acts as a deterrent.

Of course, if Rome's interests are not threatened, then it's those of Rome's allies. Nevermind that SK outspends NK on the military, or that the north hasn't attacked in 70 years.

The difference being: the US can afford to spend that money on the military much easier than NK can.

First off, so what? This is a talking point I always see that makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever, to look at expenditure as a percent of GDP instead of in absolute terms. As if it's just natural to keep pouring money into the military for no reason, just because you can!

Military expenditure is only justified if it is countering a real, legitimate threat. If a small poor country is threatened by a large rich country, then the small country is of course justified in spending a higher percentage of its GDP on defense, because otherwise it would be completely defenseless. Conversely, to spend not only more than any other country, but more than the next nine countries combined, clearly means that the expenditure has nothing to do with responding to threats. Rather, it is about being a threat, which other countries then have to respond to.

Secondly, I disagree that that the US can more easily spend the money. Because, despite how much richer the US is, it is also trying to hold together a globe-spanning empire through military force. Korea is only one of many theaters that the US is involved in, and what we're seeing now is that the US is being forced to pull military equipment away from Korea to the Middle East, where it's once again gotten over it's head. The money that we spend on trying to dominate Korea also has to be spent on every other imperial project, from Cuba to Iran to Syria and so on.

Because of how massively overextended the US is, it is now $40 trillion in debt, many countries are turning to or at least considering dedollarization, and the US is scrambling to make trade deals more extractive which is causing long-term harm to its alliances. And that's just internationally! Domestically, the situation is even worse. Trump rose to prominence in a large part because he distinguished himself from the political establishment, both sides of which fully supported the disasterous, failed imperial project in Afghanistan. The far-right has jumped on the opportunity to take advantage of people'e frustrations with all these foreign entanglements, and the declining economic conditions such as inflation, while holding and promoting all kinds of extremist ideas (and while continuing to engage in such projects). The only prominent voices in American politics with a platform to present an alternative are useless liberals who refuse to adapt to the situation in any way, stubborning clinging the same kind of imperialist talking points you've said and not addressing people's actual material needs.

The longer this situation is allowed to continue, the more likely it is that the fascists will seize power, permanently. If you think things are bad with Trump now, you have no idea how much worse the right is capable of becoming, and how much worse they will become. The US, at present, cannot afford to be involved in any conflict abroad. Frankly, I'm not even sure that the US could fix itself if it did drop everything and adopt the correct focus. The core of the empire is in a state of decay and crisis. And while that it happening, it absolutely cannot afford to be preoccupied with anywhere like North Korea, which certainly does not present any kind of existential threat.

Every dollar wasted on pointless military exercises on the Korean peninsula is a dollar that isn't being spent revitalizing the domestic economy, and if the economy is not revitalized then it is inevitable that the fascists win. Why should I care about this absurd, exaggerated threat on the other side of the world, when there's an actual, real threat that my next-door neighbors could vote for me to be sent to a camp? It's delusional, it's complete and utter nonsense.

Who cares if the empire is maintained and expanded, if it turns full-on fascist?

parent

hideshow 37 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (35 children)

You're insane. "Attacked?" A couple scouts wandered across the border. SK fired warning shots and they left. You call that an "attack?"

How many Americans have been killed by police shootings and ICE raids? Those are attacks! When fascists mobs beat trans people to death and the cops look the other way, that is an attack! We are currently under attack, right now. Not an attack 70 years ago, not thousands of miles away, not an "attack" that's a random soldier with a bad map, but intentional, organized acts of violence, with the intent of establishing a new, oppressive order in the United States itself.

It is beyond unreasonable and just full on delusional to think of anything else but complete and total focus on destroying the one, singlural existential threat that actually exists! They're at the fucking gates, my dude! They trying to kill us all! And there's a damn good chance they actually will!

What the fuck is going on in your mind to worry about this non-issue half a world away? A border skirmish? It couldn't even be called that! Warning shots, fired by South Korea? Are you out of your mind? Fucking hell! Look at what our own government is doing to our own people! I can't even go to work without thinking what would happen if a bunch of jackbooted masked thugs showed up and started shoving everyone into a van, to be taken to a secret torture dungeon in El Salvador!

Drop everything else. North Korea could be rolling tanks across the border as we speak, and it would still be less urgent then dealing with the fascists here at home! They want us in the fucking ground! What part of that do you not understand? They are an imminent threat to the entire world! North Korea doesn't give half a shit about us, except to the extent that we fuck with them! How can you have such completely ridiculous, mixed up priorities??

parent

hideshow 35 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (27 children)

Why do I even bother? This country is doomed by it's own stupidity, it's own chauvanism and arrogance, and you are the perfect example of all of those traits, exactly the reason why we're so fucked. Maybe it's better to do it your way, where the whole fucking thing will collapse, and the world will be thrown into total chaos. Maybe we just deserve this. Humanity has survived the fall of empires in the past, so no matter how destructive you make this one's fall, perhaps we will even survive the complete and utter idiocy of people like you.

I just can't understand why you want to do this the hard way and ensure we live through one of the most chaotic and unstable periods of human history, for no fucking reason, when we could just, not. If people like you would simply pull your heads out of your asses and look around.

parent

hideshow 27 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (25 children)

But we both know that the above is just dumbass wishful thinking, because the ruling class of every country is psychopathic. Kim doesn’t give a fuck, Xi gives few fucks, trump gives no fucks, Putin gives no fucks, that’s what leadership and hierarchy is. Identifying the person who truly has the fewest fucks to give when it comes to others.

So then who the fuck gives a shit whether one country's ruling class controls a region or another country's ruling class does? This whole argument has been about you saying that you want to prioritize the interests of the US ruling class and expand their empire, instead of actually doing something that would actually benefit people's lives!

This is so dumb. You realize that the ruling class doesn't give a shit but you don't care, you're fully on board with advancing their interests because, why? Because you just hate the people they told you to hate?

If the ruling class of North Korea and South Korea are both bad, then why the fuck do you want us to keep going bankrupt from medical debt, just so that one shitty ruling class can control a piece of land thousands of miles away instead some other country's shitty ruling class? It makes no goddamn sense!

parent

hideshow 25 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (21 children)

Edit: I am incorrect. I do not wish to put words in your mouth.

Honestly, I'm impressed. Correction accepted.

I believe you argued for less US dominance, in which case we are left with a multipolar world, with great powers fighting for dominance. The US is now one of those great powers.

Yes. That is the most practical and realistic pathway towards reducing the scope of existing heirarchies. Saying that you want to abolish the state is meaningless, unless you plan on winning a war against the most powerful military (or militaries) on the planet. After justifying their funding, strangely enough.

When one country is global hegemon, then it has undisputed, centralized power and everyone has to do what it says or face severe consequences. In a multipolar world, smaller countries have more freedom to choose who they do deal with. Therefore, the heirarchies are weaker.

Regardless of whether you want a multipolar world or not, it's the direction we're headed. The only real alternative is the accelerationist path where the US overextends itself and collapses altogether. I am not an accelerationist.

parent

hideshow 21 child comments

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago (20 children)

Not necessarily. To go back to my example with China: they were unable to compete with the US in the military sense. They probably can now, but we don't know that for sure.

So China began to compete in the economic and political sense. Manufacturing development, BRI, etc. there didn't need to be conflict to collapse the hegemony.

In a multipolar world, we have the NK situation but on a global scale. With no undisputed champion, lots of people begin disputes. Which means wars. More military spending as a fraction of the global economy, as countries fight for dominance, instead of figuring out ways to economically outcompete each other.

parent

hideshow 20 child comments

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (19 children)

Maybe you should just spell out how, exactly, you plan to "abolish states" without conflict arising in the process.

parent

hideshow 19 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (17 children)

So basically you hate my approach because it falls short of your perfect ideal, which you yourself acknowledge is impossible and unrealistic.

And since you acknowledge that the ideal is impossible and unrealistic, the only real point of holding it is to maintain a pretense that that's what you stand for. What you actually stand for are the things you believe should be done in the meantime, but those things are pretty much just nakedly imperialist, so you don't want to actually stand by them.

Just utterly ridiculous. The only reason you even pretend to be an anarchist is because you think the aesthetics are cool.

That being said, I think the most likely course of action to prevent conflict is to make individual people uninterested in conflict.

Great! That's what I have been doing this entire conversation! The question is, if you're "trying to make people uninterested in conflict," why are you justifying the military that costs more than the next nine militaries put together? Why are you talking about how necessary and important it is to have soldiers go all over the world looking for fights? Why are you scaremongering about a tiny hermit country and acting like is super important that we use the military to stop it?

What a load of horseshit. That's a blatant contradiction, it's blatant hypocrisy.

Genuinely, I would need a degree in psychology to even begin to make sense of the bizarre mental gymnastics you're using to try to hold both of those ideas simultaneously and pretend they aren't completely contradictory.

parent

hideshow 17 child comments

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago (16 children)

...wut?

I don't even know what your approach is, apart from disagreeing with people.

But yes, in a multipolar world where every pole feels like they have a chance to make the world unipolar with them on top, the end result is conflict. This is what happened between 1945-1991, where there was a multipolar world and a whole lot of proxy war.

I am not advocating using the military to stop NK. I am advocating having enough military in place that NK doesn't think they might have a chance with a second invasion of the South. Essentially a unipolar Korean peninsula. Because if NK thinks they can win a war against SK, they will go to war. That's why they maintain a massive military presence and routinely send raiding parties across the border. By "accident".

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (15 children)

I am not advocating using the military to stop NK. I am advocating having enough military in place that NK doesn’t think they might have a chance with a second invasion of the South.

That's not how that works, my dude!

How the fuck is it remotely "anarchist" or "anti-militarist" to support a state intimidating people into submission through military force? That's absolute nonsense. Basically every power-hungry dictator since the dawn of time has been exactly as "anarchist" as you. "I don't want to use military force to make those people submit, I just want to intimidate them into submission. But I will use force if I have to."

Forget about the Roman Empire, fucking Ghenghis Khan held that position!

At best you can argue that you're just trying to enforce the status quo. Which is about the least "anarchist" thing you could possibly do! It's fucking ridiculous! There is zero difference between your position, and someone who is full on, 100% statist, full on, 100% in favor of imperialism. Zero difference whatsoever. The only distinction is in rhetoric.

Even then, while you try your best to maintain the empire, you're not even taking the right approach to it. I know you want your empire to span the entire globe, I know your ambition is to stamp out, sorry, intimidate into submission, anyone who would dare to stand against your authority, but I'm telling you it's just not possible. If you try to hold everything, you're not going to wind up not having any empire at all. The empire is overextended and if it collapses, which it is on track to, then you won't be able to make anyone submit to your authority. And the world will be thrown into chaos, potentially even setting of global thermonuclear war.

You have to restrain your ambition, my liege, your lust for power and authority, at least a little bit! If you just accept that you can only dominate and control part of the world, instead of being dead set on total domination, then we can actually achieve some degree of peace and stability. No matter how much you want world domination, it's just not sustainable or viable. I'm sorry, liege, I know how much you hate the idea that anyone could be free from your authority, but it's just something you have to accept.

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Your shitty attempts at taunting me are noted. Perhaps I was too generous in correcting myself earlier.

You'd actually have a point if we weren't talking about North Korea. If we were comparing similar governments, not one that is problematic to one that is essentially a slave state.

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

Well, I'm glad that you're finally taking the mask off and admitting that you're an imperialist instead of doing that silly bit where you pretended to be an anarchist or a leftist. I don't know who you thought you were kidding with that.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

load more comments (1 reply)

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (1 child)

You seemed to take offense at that, and began singing the praises of NK.

I'll take "things that never happened" for $2000, Alex.

Go ahead. Quote me "singing the praises of NK. I'll wait.

You're just lying.

What would really benefit people’s lives is getting rid of the entire concept of states and hierarchies.

Utterly laughable! You think you're an anarchist? You're one of the most imperialist people I've talked to on here, and that's a high bar.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago

Correct, you are right. I apologize for that, I was editing my earlier comment to account for my mistake as you responded. Please accept my retraction of that false accusation.

parent

load more comments (1 reply)

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

happened to fire some warning shots.

Idiot! Read your own fucking article! South Korea was the only one that even fired shots!

You really just compared Vietnam, a full scale, years-long invasion and occupation, complete with a bombing campaign and chemical weapons, to someone walking into the DMZ and then leaving, without harming a single person. That's the single dumbest thing I have ever read in my life.

Calling that an "invasion" somehow manages to be even more delusional than the right calling immigration an "invasion," because at least then there are multiple people, who don't just immediately leave.

Are you trolling? Is this a joke to you? It's not gonna be a joke when the fascists put us both in camps.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago* (3 children)

You're gonna get us all killed. Idiot.

None of that shit matters at all.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

It's not a real threat. Fascists are.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

load more comments (1 reply)

load more comments (1 reply)

load more comments (1 reply)

load more comments (1 reply)

load more comments (1 reply)

load more comments (1 reply)

load more comments (1 reply)

load more comments (1 reply)

load more comments (1 reply)

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (14 children)

It is possible to be for example against US influence in Syria and against Assad the same time, you know?

Of course, but pretty much nobody who uses terms like "tankie" acknowledges that in practice.

When I say that I oppose US intervention in, say, North Korea, then I'm immediately hit with all kinds of horror stories about how everyone has to get the same haircut or whatever. If I refute that misinformation and insist that I don't want the US to overthrow their government, then I will inevitably be accused of "defending North Korea," labelled as a "tankie" and then subject to the whole rumor mill about "what tankies believe" that's completely detached from reality or anything I actually say or believe. Next thing you know, I'm being accused of wanting every country in the world to become like North Korea. If I deny that, then it's assumed that I'm just concealing my "real" views.

It's the same way in every conflict in history since the dawn of time. When I was 10 years old asking why we didn't respond to 9/11 by "turning the other cheek" like I'd been taught, people looked at me like I was some kind of "terrorist sympathizer" because "you're either with us or against us." Every single time I have opposed any conflict, I have been accused of "supporting" or "defending" the other side, regardless of what I actually say or what reasons I actually provide.

There's no use trying to fight it. Instead of trying to, and looking like I'm trying to weasel out of the label like I have something to hide, I'd rather just accept it so that I have some ability to speak for what us "tankies" actually believe. Starting with, opposition to building more tanks. Opposition to building tanks is the defining characteristics of a "tankie" because if you don't want to build and deploy tanks then you're assumed to "support" whatever enemy-of-the-week they're to be used against, who is no doubt "authoritarian." Likewise, anti-militarism will cause me to be labelled as a "campist" for "supporting" the target of that militarism. When you're being accused of such things, nobody gives a shit about the nuance between "supporting" or "opposing action against," and even if you insist on it they'll just say you're lying and that you actually do support the "bad guy."

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 month ago (13 children)

I find it very hard to believe people would label you a tankie if your position were that of a principled pacifist. Sure, many people also dislike pacifist positions, but it is not possible to mistake the one for the other. Thus I have to assume you are not being genuine here and did in fact give reasons to people to call you a tankie 🤷

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] poVoq@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 month ago (11 children)

It is very easy to counter such accusations by making clear that it is a pacifist position you take. The arguments then will by around pacifism and the issues with that and not if you secretly support Assad. Try it some time 🤷

But since you avoided that term until I brought it up, I must assume you are indeed not considering yourself a pacifist, and then your rethoric falls flat and becomes a "if for some reason I can frame a conflict as class war then it is ok". And if you in turn apply that to conflicts like the Syrian civil war, then people accusing you of a double standard when it comes to your favourite dictator of the day might have a point.

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (10 children)

Try it some time

I did. I did when I was 10 years old and knew nothing but the stories about Jesus my parents told me, well into my 20's, reading Tolstoy, and the rhetoric and accusations were always the same.

Are you an American? Do you understand what the mood was like, trying to oppose war while growing up in a "post-9/11 world?" "It is very easy to counter such accusations by making clear that it is a pacifist position you take," what an utterly ridiculous thing to say. As if all the people whose blood was boiling with bloodlust, thirsting for revenge, fantasizing about torture and mass murder, talking about "turning the sand to glass," will suddenly be cool if you just say, "Um, actually, I'm only against you because I'm a pacifist." Only someone who's never experienced it could think that way. Nobody gives a single shit about your reasons, you will always be the villain and you will always be assigned the most damning motives possible.

You are childishly naive, and I wish that I could live in the world you think we live in.

I must assume you are indeed not considering yourself a pacifist

You don't have to assume, I just told you that I'm not a pacifist.

“if for some reason I can frame a conflict as class war then it is ok”. And if you in turn apply that to conflicts like the Syrian civil war, then people accusing you of a double standard when it comes to your favourite dictator of the day might have a point.

Do you seriously believe that I tried to frame Syria as a class war with Assad as some kind of socialist hero, and I'm now lying about it? And you think that's more plausible than that people simply tried to discredit my opposition to US intervention?

This is an utterly ridiculous conversation. You're claiming "this would never happen" while simultaneously doing the exact thing you claim wouldn't happen! You are ignoring my actual positions and assigning me the most damning positions you can, while simultaneously trying to deny that anyone would ever do such a thing.

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (8 children)

the discussion would still be around issue people percieve with pacifism

No it wouldn't. Because they would simply accuse me of not actually being a pacifist, and instead being a "terrorist sympathizer." Just like how you are, currently, accusing me of not actually holding the positions I claim to. How is this difficult to understand when you're literally doing it right now?

No one seriously accused Germany of supporting Saddam Hussain for refusing to join the 2003 Irak war for example.

No one? Did President Bush not say, "You're either with us or with the terrorists?"

But if you go “uhm actually I am not a pacifist” and then name a highly selective list of conflicts you oppose like you did here (which included Syria btw), then you can’t really complain about people pointing out the hypocracy of that and suspect that you based your opposition purely on a campist mindset (which given the list, is pretty obvious).

"Highly selective" and "pretty obviously based on a campist mindset." Or, I'm talking about the US because I live in the US and it's the only country that I have some nominal ability to influence. Why would I focus on condemning Assad, do you think he'd read it and have a change of heart? And it's also literally in a thread about the US.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You expect me to constantly shift the focus to criticizing other countries, and anything short of that means that I'm secretly loyal to them. It's ridiculous. No different than accusing me of being a terrorist sympathizer when I condemned the war in Afghanistan, because, "Why are you talking about that, why aren't you talking about Al Qaida's crimes?"

At the very least you can't have it both ways, you can accuse me of whatever motives you want (believe me, I'm used to it) but you don't get to keep accusing me of having such secret motives while simultaneously trying to claim that no one would ever accuse me of having such secret motives.

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago*

You haven't pointed out any contradictions, nor shown my mindset to be in any way campist, nor am I trying to play the victim. Bullshit as usual.

The only contradiction in this conversation is your implication that wars against dictatorships are automatically justified, while refusing to answer what I asked about Saudi Arabia.

parent

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (1 reply)

load more comments (1 reply)

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] mHtt@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago*

yes perfect the Authoritarian left that, checks notes exists solely within your head?

Surely you can give some examples of leftists authoritarianism, if its so ubiquitous that is.

Also, while your at it, please explore the idea of something being 'manifestly incapable'. This term seems like an oxymoron an I'd like to see you flesh it out a bit.

parent

[–] cmbabul@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 month ago

Foreseeable for sure, but ideal, obviously not

parent

[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

What are you trying to say here? Who are you accusing Midnight of being a mouthpiece for? What is your sarcasm intended to do? What makes you think such a shitty low-quality snipe is worth your or anyone’s time?

I know you aren’t a bot or professional troll. So why act like one here? Leave reddit behind.

parent

[–] story@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 month ago

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

parent

load more comments (2 replies)