Who Wants to See the End of The American Empire?

We are already entering a multi-polar imperialist balance of power between US and China. Presently the US is pursuing its global empire militarily and China is pursuing financial global domination, which will inevitably eventually include a military dimension to protect its financial/strategic interests.

Realistically, the Age of Empires is so yesterday, as history repeatedly shows a similar curve of rise and fall - inevitably via economic and military over extension. If only nations can get over themselves...

The US is clearly on a downwards curve, although an inspired statesman can yet alter or slow, or even stop the decline. Short of a global natural catastrophe or global World War, nothing can realistically stop China from rising to an even balance of power or even superseding the current world order.

Don`t expect the new boss to be any better than the old boss.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The observation that any particular polity eventually exhausts itself does not entail any consequences for the "Age of Empires." As history - and your own assertions in that post - repeatedly shows, there is typically a new empire ready to take over where the previous ones left off.

Also, nations are a much newer form of geopolitical organization than empires. The question of empire is a much bigger one than the question of nations - we've only been politically organized into nations for a few hundreds years. Indeed, it may be that nationalism is among the more potent forces militating against expansive, durable empire yet seen. Building and maintaining an empire is one thing when all you need to do is subsume some king or chieftain into your system. It's a very different matter when you run up against incompatible national identities.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course. My sentiment reflects the notion "Why can`t we all just get along?" aka "Time to stand upright". Idealism, pure and simple.

Still, these modern nations have pursued Empire, all with the same predictable outcome that befell the Romans.

That is an interesting point, I think you are spot on, if only governments and foreign policy were representative of nationalism?

From what I can gather, this remains the modus operandi.

As in indefatigable tribal clans?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Errr... I thought we were dealing in observations of how geopolitics actually functions in the present, there, and not what we'd like to see?

I think this "predictable outcome" thing misses the point. Polities don't pursue empire (or whatever else) because they are under some misapprehension that such is permanent and immortal. All of man's works are mortal, necessarily. The motivation for doing them has to do with what they get you during their lifespans, not some vain pursuit of immortality.

I.e., you might as well suggest that people not bother going to the gym and working out, or working hard to advance in their careers, since they're guaranteed to die eventually regardless. The point of fitness or avarice is not immortality, but improved strength and longevity and lifestyle between now and death. To bring that analogy back around: Rome ran the known world for centuries. The fact that it didn't last forever is beside the point. Nothing lasts forever, so that's a useless yardstick for assessing such things.

Is the implication supposed to be that empire necessarily leads to hastened national decline or something? It isn't clear that Rome would have lasted any longer, nor existed in preferable circumstances, if it had eschewed empire. Nor is such clear when it comes to more recent empires.

Aren't they? I mean, isn't nationalism the definitive driving force in geopolitics today? I'm unlcear on what it is that you think that states and their policies are representing, generally, if not nationalism.

In the few backwaters where such systems persist to be co-opted, I suppose. But that has little bearing on the geopolitics of, say, the Americas, Europe, East Asia, Oceania, etc.

No, nations are much bigger, newer things than your age-old tribe or clan identity groups.

 

Successive generations of politicians attempt to build and maintain Empire. The vision seldom has a realistically finite end. At the turn of the century nobody suspected that the sun would ever set on the British Empire.

Yes of course, in the grand scheme of things that`s exactly right. Do you think Imperial governments include such redundancy into their policies?

The implication is that if one looks at history, the common theme responsible for crumbling empires are financial and military over extension. One would hope mankind can learn somewhat from history and thus advance civilization in an upward direction, by outmodeing the notion of Empire.

Fair point, but men and money clearly ran out due to pursuit and attempt at maintaining of empire.

I believe nationalism is driven by the ruling elite, the masses are generally too busy sheltering and feeding themselves to worry about such. The majority of Americans want and end to US foreign wars. Is this anti war movement a national sentiment as it certainly is not represented by government?

The modern term for this is regime change or installing puppet governments.

 

That's real pretty phrasing and all, but unless you have some argument that the British are worse off for having pursued Empire, I don't see the relevance.

What "redundancy?"

And the common theme responsible for people dying is lack of oxygen to the brain. So what? What does this tell us? It sounds like you're simply arguing for Empires to be careful and conservative, and so prolong their lifespans.

This is ill-posed - what defines "upward" direction for "civilization" and why? If "Empire" is "downwards," then what ideal is it that we're supposed to be approaching? This flowery language sounds nice and all, but I can't actually tell what you're really saying there.

That's true of all forms of politics, identity groups, etc. That's simply the definitions of "elite" and "masses."

? You're referring to the government that is currently removing all troops from Iraq, and bringing home the troops from Afghanistan in a year-and-change?

Yes, I know. And the point remains that there aren't any of such to be found in the Americas, Europe, Oceania or East Asia.

 

No Imperial entity ever believes it will end.

No, its time to change the entire system/ideology. As you correctly noted, nothing lasts forever, not even administrative and ideological/political systems. I believe the revolution to a new ideology has started already.

And end to Barbarity.

bar·bar·i·ty (bär-br-t)
n. pl. bar·bar·i·ties
1. Savage brutality or cruelty in actions or conduct.
2. A cruel or savage act.

Why? - the survival of the species.

Empire is attained via exploitation of humanity. We should be embracing brotherhood and equality.

Correct. So nationalism is not borne from the average Joe, its borne from the governing elite and propogised as a legitimate sentiment - thus it does not necessarily represent the people of a nation.

You are sharing words, and not deeds - yet.

Jalal Talabani, Hamid Karzai, Abdel Rahim al-Keeb, etc.

 

Just like no teenager ever believes he will die, I guess?

I don't think that's true, though. Quite a bit of political conduct, at the "imperial" scale and otherwise, is premised on evading destruction. Moreover, I'm not sure that the observation that entities defined by power always focus on how to maintain and grow their power tells us anything. It seems to follow directly from the definition.

Such never stops. It's a continuous process that has been ongoing for as long as human politics have existed. The world order today would have been inconceivable a generation ago. It was not that long ago that the idea of popular self-determination was considered a lunatic fringe idea - and it is still one that is openly resisted amongst various polities.

What does that mean, in actual concrete, political terms? In what ways is the current order premised on "barbarity," and what, specifically, would have to change to alleviate that?

Except - again - that the survival of the species doesn't seem threatened by political violence, in the present day and age. Wars are now killing a much lower percentage of the human population than at almost any time you care to look back to. Instead, we have the world population surging and the average standard of living continuing its upward trajectory - to the point where the primary threat to the survival of the species is climate change. I.e., the problem is that we have so many humans, consuming so much resources, that we may burn out our environment. A few huge wars that eliminate large numbers of people and set back the development of large segments of the world might well be the single most effective thing for extending the survival of the human species (if not many other worthwhile goals dealing with the condition of the human species).

"Humanity" in what sense? You mean "the group of humans, collectively," or some set of moral principles?

It's more complicated than that. Things like nationalism are epiphenomena - emergent systems that arise from the interaction of large numbers of people with their own conceptions and interests, working within some common framework. It isn't some conspiracy of politicians and bankers and generals who sit down, write up some ideology, and then brainwash everyone through a hierarchical media interaction. While individual members of the elite are, by definition, more empowered than individual members of the masses, it does not follow that the elite has all of the prerogative to define the game. It's a symbiotic relationship, with each component imposing various contraints and incentives upon the other.

Er... you're saying that nationalism "does not necessarily represent the people of a nation?" I think you're missing something fundamental about identity politics there - once you've got people divided up into "nations," then their respective nationalities represent them by default, and nationalism is systemically empowered totally irrespective of how it relates to the interests of any particular nation, or subset thereof.

But, yes, the system of nationalism can indeed work against the (common) interests of the masses of various nations.

The rub is that there are real, powerful reasons that nationalism proliferates. Replacing nationalism with something else is consequently not a simple task - it requires difficult answers to the powerful incentives to nationalism, and not simply airy theories about international brotherhood. Practically, you're going to require some even-larger system of identity politics that can subsume national differences. Possibly "civilizationalism" is capable of that - but this probably doesn't do away with the fundamental conflicts that bother you about nationalism. What you really need, is a pan-national global identity. The difficulty there is that political identity politics typically require opposed, hostile identities to prop the entire system up. It's unclear what can play that role for a global identity politic, short of alien invasion.

The level of American forces in Iraq has already been reduced drastically from its peak, and will hit zero by the end of next month. That's "deeds." Afghanistan is a slower prospect, but likewise a matter of time. The appetite and funding for staying there are absent, and are understood to be such by the political classes. It's a question of "how" and "when," rather than "if," at this point.

For "puppet governments," certain of those guys seem to do an awful lot of things that the USA pointedly disagrees with. And make points of doing so over direct American opposition.

And in the third case you are, again, trafficking in nothing but prejudice. I've asked you multiple times now to substantiate your claims that Libya's transitional president is an American stooge, and you have responded with nothing more than innuendo and suspicion. The African Union, Arab League, European Union and United Nations have all recognized those guys as the legitimate government of Libya, and I don't hear Libyans complaining about such. Frankly, it seems to me that you're making the mistake of analyzing Libya in 2011 as if it were Iraq in 2004.

 

When people can vote directly on bills via the internet (why not? We trust banking to the internet, so why not voting?) That way we no longer require politicians. America, I am convinced, would be a much greater place.

 

Because there is value to preventing the tyranny of the majority, and there is value in not giving popular and fleeting passions the weight of law.

If, right after 9/11, people could have voted to outlaw gatherings of Muslims, most Americans would have. We have to protect ourselves! We were attacked! Think of the children! But engage the ponderous mechanism of government, and by the time such a sentiment rises to the level of a bill and gets voted on - cooler heads prevail.

 

As a nation increases its economy, the need for raw materials becomes insatiable, and China is no exception. I do not see less explotation in the world than in the past, rather the opposite as global trade continues to expand. Overall quality of life is increasing due to greater technology, not necessarily less imbalance of power.
If you need any proof, take a look at current events in Zambia and its relationship to China. This is only one of many nations China will begin to dominate, eventually militarily if they become the largest economy.