There is not a single politician that is capable of stopping the decline of the America. The exact character of that decline is alterable but the violence and destitution is not. This is how empires die.
Stop blaming other working class people and start destroying the system that made this all inevitable. Continuing to fight amongst ourselves over the details of a problem instead of the problem itself is counter productive.
It can take a long time like Rome or it could be short like the third reich. It will be violent though. The “graceful” British decline hasn’t been anywhere close to peaceful. I think the best explanation for this relatively low magnitude of violence is that the British empire never died, it just lost rank. It was supplanted. It still benefits heavily from imperialism, just in a different form and to a lesser degree. The Suez Canal crisis is a great case study on how the British empire came to understand its lost of supremacy and accept its new place in the world hierarchy.
The big difference with America (and the collective Western imperial system) is that should China succeed in dominating the world economic hierarchy, it could be the end of that hierarchy. At least that’s what capitalist leaders are currently thinking will happen. I believe this decline has to be violent because it is the last flail of a system that knows it is dying rather than a country accepting second best. They think if China wins the jig is up basically.
Let me rephrase. Politicans do not have the power to prevent the economic decline of an empire losing its hegemonic power as a result of the contradictions within its system of production. But I think you know what I meant.
There is not a single politician that is capable of stopping the decline of the America. The exact character of that decline is alterable but the violence and destitution is not. This is how empires die.
Stop blaming other working class people and start destroying the system that made this all inevitable. Continuing to fight amongst ourselves over the details of a problem instead of the problem itself is counter productive.
I mean yes, but also very much no.
The decline of the Roman Empire, from Trajanus Maximus to the fall of Rome, took more than 300 years.
The British empire peaked in the 1920s and has been managing its decline somewhat gracefully since then.
But leave it to the Americans to just throw everything into the woodchipper yelling “FUCK YOU LOSERS WE’RE STILL NUMBER ONE” all the way down.
It can take a long time like Rome or it could be short like the third reich. It will be violent though. The “graceful” British decline hasn’t been anywhere close to peaceful. I think the best explanation for this relatively low magnitude of violence is that the British empire never died, it just lost rank. It was supplanted. It still benefits heavily from imperialism, just in a different form and to a lesser degree. The Suez Canal crisis is a great case study on how the British empire came to understand its lost of supremacy and accept its new place in the world hierarchy.
The big difference with America (and the collective Western imperial system) is that should China succeed in dominating the world economic hierarchy, it could be the end of that hierarchy. At least that’s what capitalist leaders are currently thinking will happen. I believe this decline has to be violent because it is the last flail of a system that knows it is dying rather than a country accepting second best. They think if China wins the jig is up basically.
Correct. There is not a single politician that is capable of it. The nature of democracy is that any change requires movement and many supporters.
Let me rephrase. Politicans do not have the power to prevent the economic decline of an empire losing its hegemonic power as a result of the contradictions within its system of production. But I think you know what I meant.