Objection 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

[–] 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

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 month ago (18 children)

Eh, if I knew how to do that, I would be a household name worldwide, not shitposting on Lemmy.

That being said, I think the most likely course of action to prevent conflict is to make individual people uninterested in conflict. Most people already aren't. Soldiers need to specifically be trained to kill, because that's not something the majority of people want to do.

If the general says "fight!" And the foot soldier says "no, I think I'd like a nap", does the war happen?

parent

hideshow 18 child comments

[–] 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

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 month ago (14 children)

I think you're responding to the wrong person dude. When did I say this was the anarchist approach?

This is the deterring Korean War 2 approach.

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (13 children)

When did I say this was the anarchist approach?

When you talked about "abolishing the state," obviously.

This is the deterring Korean War 2 approach.

Sire, I fear that your focus is misplaced. There is a growing threat of banditry within your own realm, sire. These are no ordinary bandits, my lord, they are organized and well equipped. I fear they are plotting to seize your throne, milord. The rabble is discontented, there are whispers that the king cares not about protecting the people, that they cannot afford to pay the apocathary for treatment when they fall ill, and that even basic necessities have become harder to come by. I even have reports sire, that even the loyalty of the guardsmen is in question, as many are loyal to the bandits. Even the courts and magistrates are not free of their influence. And let's not even discuss the state of your treasury.

You must turn your focus inward, my liege, for the security of the realm. Let us appease our allies with gifts and honeyed words, but not allow ourselves to be drawn into their campaigns. If we try to aid them while there is turbulence at home, it will only create more problems, my liege. I beg you, my liege, put aside your pride and ambition and see reason! I know you long for the field of battle, that the tribulations of the peasants bore you, but it is upon their backs that your power rests, lord. They will only answer the call of battle if they see that you are a wise and cautious ruler, who tends to his realm.

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago* (12 children)

Yeah. Can't really abolish the state when the state is being conquered by another, more oppressive state.

By the way I've been skipping over your chargpt bullshit.

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago (11 children)

By the way I’ve been skipping over your chargpt bullshit.

Not a single thing I've said has been chat-gpt.

Yeah. Can’t really abolish the state when the state is being conquered by another, more oppressive state.

Right, so then it's exactly what I said. You are not an anarchist, you do not believe in abolishing the state, that is purely rhetorical. You are an imperialist who believes in maintaining the empire (badly), and who likes to pretend that you're not.

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago (10 children)

Okay, then your shitty attempts at fantasy writing. Basically your second paragraphs in most of your posts I've just not bothered to read.

You really don't understand the concept of harm reduction, do you? A less oppressive state is better than a more oppressive state. Abolishing the state is less likely with an opporessive state.

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (9 children)

Okay, then your shitty attempts at fantasy writing.

I thought I might have more luck addressing you as a king since that's what you actually want to be and are acting like.

You really don’t understand the concept of harm reduction, do you?

No, I do understand the concept, and I also understand the fact that it's generally just an excuse to rally around the flag and support imperialism.

When the British socialists rallied around their imperialist state as it sent people to the pointless meat grinder of WWI, to kill Germans and expand the power of their empire, they called it harm reduction, because they pointed to the flaws of the German government, and said at least we're not that bad, and we have to stop them from winning. When the German socialists did the same, they justified their imperialism by pointing to the Russian government's flaws and calling it harm reduction the exact same way. And so, ordinary people all over Europe got drafted and sent off to slaughter each other for the sake of expanding the power of their respective empires, with the full endorsement of supposedly "socialist" parties, justified with harm reduction.

The only country where socialists that rejected that nonsense about "harm reduction" or "lesser evilism" was, in fact, the only one that was able to overthrow their government and set up a new system. And you can disagree with the direction it went all you want, but this idea that revolution would somehow be easier if the state is secure and has no other threats to worry about is obviously nonsense.

You don't give a rat's ass about abolishing the state, or about opposing the ruling class in general. You only care about preserving the status quo, with the ruling class on top, and you can call that "harm reduction" or whatever else to justify it, but at the end of the day you're just a rube working to protect the interests of the ruling class.

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] 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

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

Your shitty attempts at taunting me are noted.

Nothing I say could ever be as shitty an attempt at taunting as calling a random soldier wandering around "an invasion." If your imperialist views weren't enough to make me not respect you, that bit of trolling certainly was.

You’d actually have a point if we weren’t talking about North Korea.

If some random, dirt poor country a thousand miles away is enough to make you rally behind the ruling class, then you just wanted to rally behind the ruling class and found that to use as an excuse.

There has never been, nor will there ever be, a state that doesn't have a threat at least as large as what NK poses. You will always find a reason rally behind the state and the ruling class, and any pretense otherwise is completely unserious.

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)

Tell me, if a dude with a gun walked into your living room and said "hey don't worry I'm not gonna go in your bedroom", you'd be cool with that?

The problem with NK isn't the fact that they could pose a threat. The problem with NK is that they could pose a threat, as well as constantly talk about how they will invade, as well as probe SK's defenses with repeated armed incursions.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

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

Tell me, if a dude with a gun walked into your living room and said “hey don’t worry I’m not gonna go in your bedroom”, you’d be cool with that?

If someone with a gun wandered into my living room, and I said, "I would like you to leave now" and he turned around and walked out of my living room, then I would certainly have an interesting story to tell but I absolutely would not claim that I was "attacked" or "invaded" no. And that's someone literally walking into my own residence and not just wandering around in the woods outside my house, technically within my property line.

If a hunter crossed into my property line and then left when I told him to, calling that an "attack" would be even more ludicrous. I would absolutely laugh at anyone who tried to say that and not take them remotely seriously, just as it's impossible to take your claim seriously.

The problem with NK isn’t the fact that they could pose a threat. The problem with NK is that they could pose a threat, as well as constantly talk about how they will invade

And what I'm telling you is, again, that your precious beloved empire will fall to pieces if some poor country halfway across the world talking shit is enough for you to pour endless resources into the military while neglecting actual problems at home.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

Alright. We're down to standard .ml discourse.

Let me know when ~~Ukraine~~ the US collapses!

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

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

You're right. Your empire will never fall. All those other empires that thought the same way were different. This one will last 1000 years.

The US is already in the process of collapsing. That's what the OP article is about. International alliances are weakening. The military is facing shortages. More and more countries are abandoning the dollar. The extreme right is growing stronger and stronger. Trump got elected, twice, and he is only a symptom of the problem that you refuse to acknowledge or address.

You clearly deserve the future you're creating with your stubborn imperialism. It just sucks that you're subjecting the rest of us to living under fascism because people like you couldn't get over your lust for power.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Given a choice between western imperialism and eastern imperialism I pick western imperialism. We have tacos.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] 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

[–] impairedimperator@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 month ago

I never wore a mask. I have always been open about my preference for the Western world compared to the eastern world. If I preferred it the other way around, I wouldn't have left the USSR.

Of course we could do better...but we could also do much worse.

parent