The U.S. empire is headed for a cliff. Maybe it will even collapse within our lifetimes. But that collapse likely won't be the end of capitalism as a system; it has survived the collapse/diminishing of other hegemonic powers before. But what would the next hegemonic power even be? The EU? Russia? Japan?
I want to believe that the U.S. is the last stop on Mr. Capital's Wild Ride, but that seems naive.
China until 2049, then Brazil or something maybe, or a wildcard like a Ghana-led West African Federation
at that point they would cease to be a capitalist hegemonic power :think-about-it:
China is a socialist country. If they become the leading power, the world will move to socialism.
China's not really making any effort to push their ideology in other countries. Personally, I think that's best for everyone. The USSR wasted a lot of time and resources trying to impose Socialism in Afghanistan and other places where it was doomed to fail.
More countries will choose socialism, but it will be more from the US collapsing and finally having the option (or need) than from China's actions.
I'm not necessarily saying China will push it's ideology on other countries, but if they get to rewrite the rules of the international economy, they can potentially do so in ways that are more favorable to the socialist- or at least state led, publicly owned- mode of development. This is why you see so much fearmongering about them pushing their "authoritarian" system internationally when they become a peer of the US.
The USSR wasted a lot of time and resources trying to impose Socialism in Afghanistan and other places where it was doomed to fail.
Also, sorry, this is not at all what happened in Afghanistan. There was a socialist revolution that unfortunately fell into infighting, prompting a Soviet intervention that the Soviet leadership didn't want at all.
A "Socialist Revolution" without popular support, which was unable to sustain itself even with the aid of the USSR.
The Soviets realized how absurd and hopeless the situation was, which is why they consistently pushed for more moderate leadership and policies.
It literally was able to sustain itself, and had popular support, at least in the cities. The Afghan socialist government lasted longer than the Soviet Union did, and the only reason they fell in the end was because the US told Yeltsin to cut off their oil and he obliged.
It literally was able to sustain itself
Until it wasn't.
and had popular support, at least in the cities.
Popular support of a minority of the population.
The Afghan socialist government lasted longer than the Soviet Union did,
By 6 months. They literally didn't last a year on their own. For all of that time, they held only small slivers of land.
And that was all years after having renounced socialism.
Ok you're right, cities are dependent on energy so that means they had NO support. Though they did stop being Marxist-Leninists, they never renounced socialism, and the Watan party is still active in Afghan politics to this day. Saying that the PDPA never had a chance or real support is active rewriting of history, and frankly, I think it plays into an imperialist narrative of Afghanistan as some hopelessly backwards primitive hellhole. Afghanistan had a real revolution, and a real chance to be something different than it is now.
But would Brazil's potential hegemon status be challenged by there being a lot of left-led states surrounding it?
EU, but their power is also fleeting and with the US' demise they'll likely turn into a bunch of bickering states again for a time as they try to futilely resist the necessary to survive restructuring process for the next economic system.
I think the EU would be strengthened by the crises that follow America's retreat. They could also surpass American power if they wanted too. They just haven't shown any interest. Partially because it was basically designed by the US to be subservient, but also because as such a diverse coalition of states, it's hard to find common interests to act on.
We certainly won't see another unipolar world order like we did in the 90s and 2000s. Most likely scenario is a pre-WW1 deal, with a few countries (probably China, India, maybe EU) being the most dominant but none having full dominance. There would also be plenty of regional powers, like Brazil, Indonesia, Turkey, and some others that I just can't predict. Each of these countries could change, but you get the point: the world will, and is already becoming, a multipolar one. The bipolar world order that has arisen this past decade with the rise of China keeps the anti-American coalition (China, Russia, Iran etc) together despite massive ideological differences) together. Without the the US I don't see a reason for it to remain as strong
There would also be plenty of regional powers, like Brazil, Indonesia, Turkey, and some others that I just can’t predict.
Cough cough Iran cough
Brazil is strong, but more in the way of not needing to listen to anyone else than actively having power. Between the Andees and the Amazon, they're kind of isolated from their neighbors.
I don't think Indonesia has done much of anything. It could be a regional power, but China's already filled that void and isn't leaving anytime soon. They'd lose any competition with China, so they don't seem to try.
Turkey is trying, just not that well. They've occupied exactly as much of Syria is Russia allowd them to. A lot of their support for foreign groups has been religiously motivated, but if Erdogan and his brand of Islamism/nationalism fall from favour, all that geopolitical activity would stop. Qatar's probably more influential and has more of a future in regional geopolitics. Still not doing as bad as Saudi Arabia.
I don't think we're going to see another globe-spanning hegemony once the US starts to decline, at least not right away. I don't see China or Russia or Brazil or India or wherever deciding to take up the mantle of global police. There's probably going to be a lot of unrest due to climate change and we'll see less stability than we've seen in the last century or so. The next few decades are likely going to be about power blocs consolidating around diminishing resources, rather than trying to expand. I think capital is with us for a while yet, but as the US foreign influence fades, there will probably be opportunities to challenge capital in a way that has been difficult or impossible in recent decades. Also a lot of suffering, but possibility will come with the suffering as the status quo buckles and cracks under the pressure.
I don’t see China or Russia or Brazil or India or wherever deciding to take up the mantle of global police.
I sure hope that's the case. Though it does make me worried/wonder about overseas U.S. military bases, especially the ones with nukes. I wouldn't put it past some five-star jackass to make wherever they are a U.S. rump state and dare any regional powers in the area to try and dig them out.
Without the support of the global logistics and supply management chain that the bloated US military maintains, how does a military base sustain itself? Sure, you've got a defensible position and enough guns to fight god, but if the country you're sitting in doesn't let your trucks on the road then no one is getting any food.
if the country you’re sitting in doesn’t let your trucks on the road them no one is getting any food.
That's a very good point but I think it depends on where the base is, how big it is, what the relationship between the host territory and the former U.S. was, and whether it's a nuclear site or not. Like Guam or Okinawa bases I could see implementing de facto control of the surrounding waters without much pushback, unless China is absolutely dominant in the Pacific by that point.
The nuclear bases in Turkey and Europe.. I don't know. Even if the host nations want those bases gone and feel like they can starve them out, a nuke is a hell of a bit of leverage.
One more reason to hope for U.S. nuclear disarmament, I suppose.
On our current track, either Russia or more likely the EU (unless China is capitalist in which case the answer is obvious). Russia and the EU won't surpass the US for another century or so, but global warming is going to drastically change the climates and the dynamics of international shipping in favor of countries in the northern latitudes.
Russia's sheer size alone will make it an agricultural powerhouse with the capacity to rebuild its Soviet era industrial base. They can easily project power into the Arctic where melting ice will open up trade routes and they are already rebuilding ties with China. Their main problem would be actually reaching the political will to develop in a manner that would fully seize the opportunity they have, which will not be a short term investment.
The EU could see a similar development but I think with Brexit and US decline we'll see a tightening grip of France and Germany on the remaining member states. This will cause Southern Europe to be pushed further to the periphery. If this is the case, we'll see an actual rebellion of the European periphery which would keep Europe as divided and weak as it is currently.
India, Brazil, or some sort of African Union could also rise up, but there's a lot of hurdles they would need to get over and I don't think they will. The labor and natural resources are there though so it remains a possibility.
