- cross-posted to:
- chapotraphouse
- cross-posted to:
- chapotraphouse
Does not bode well.
it was from my latin american history course, favourite one I took, professor taught it from a 100% openly Marxist perspective. Final slide he displayed during his last lecture just said
"There can be no socialism without democracy nor democracy without socialism"
Fuckin based prof.
But anyway this "hegemonic cycle" thing scares the shit out of me given where we are right now.
You must log in or register to comment.
a variable that mixes things up is china aiming to eventually escape the capitalist world-economy, which would mean the united states' biggest competitor wouldn't compete with them anymore along the same capitalist lines
scientifically, these aren't enough examples to mean anything concrete, so we are in uncharted waters here
I think the point of the table is that imperialist competition implies war. That the American hegemony is over is quite clear, so we're entering a competition among the imperialists regardless of whether China participates.
What other imperialists are there these days? France? Multi-national corporations?
Multi-national corporations are part of the definition of imperialism. However they cannot be considered actors of imperialism, since they don't have their own militaries but they need to rely on a bourgeois state to conquer new markets for them.
France yes, but it's increasingly integrated with Germany and the rest of Western Europe so unless I'm missing something I doubt there will be intra-European competition. So the EU instead of France, even though multiple states may exit the union and realign. The USA will definitely struggle to keep its hegemony. Russia is another imperialist power directly confronted to the previous two. They are all in deep economic recessions, weakened, distrustful and ripe with internal contradictions, like in all pre-war periods. China is none of those things, but they will attempt to preserve the Belt and Road project and their control of the South China Sea.
there's PMCs though, so they don't even really need a state's military anymore now.
there's also blackwater or "acadami" as they're calling themselves now.
Those have always existed, and actually company armies were predominant in the first (mercantilist, East India Company) period of the table. Today they are limited in scope, cant project sufficient air or naval power to be effective except in states that have already been conquered for them by more overt American military action.
Erik Prince is somewhere in Africa or China trying to prove you wrong. Gonna be cool living through MGS V, I loved that game
During "Peak Hegemony":
:amerikkka: Hey UN it's time to murder a fifth of Korea!
:yes-honey-left: Yes honey.
During "loss of hegemony" they could not even convince NATO that Iraq had WMDs.
The fact they he has to try is the proof of their decline.
500,000 dead in the imperial core and no one bars an eye. Get ready for the biggest and bestest meat grinder yet.
Nuclear war is such a bogeyman that I find it incredible that 1) it's already happened in WW2, 2) it's very likely to happen again.
I'm trying to imagine what it would be like if nuclear war were actually happening, and I can't.
I remember a few years ago watching a bunch of doomer post-apocalyptic movies in a row and being stuck in a state of existential despair for a week straight. Nuclear war is a such a frightening concept that my brain just refuses to think of what would actually happen if it did.
Even if it were happening in Europe and the middle East and Asia, and not in North America, and I didn't die, I don't think I can shine what it would be like for that to actually be happening.
Like, so, the ultimate worst thing is now here, and it's real. It's happened there, it could happen anywhere.
china aiming to eventually escape the capitalist world-economy
:agony-deep:
The world war 3 hypothesis alignes with the analysis in prolekult's documentary History is marching, they propose that world war 3 is inevitable due to complete division of the world by imperialist powers and overaccumulation present in them which can only be solved by redivision of the world
I think it would probably be the fallout from the Iraq war.
The fact that USA couldn't convince the UN to get on board with their obviously bullshit war and had to go it alone with their "Coalition of the Willing" plus the impending clusterfuck it caused
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
It's attributed to him. Snopes says it's unverified, but I didn't read the article.
"1890 - loss of hegemony" is interesting because the UK is generally not considered to have fallen from great power until the Suez Crisis 1956. I guess your prof is basically predicting a humiliating final nail in the coffin of America's loss of superpower status circa ~2070?
Yeah there's always a lot of overlap - even if America like, loses territory in 2070 and is totally surpassed by China, they might still be doing jolly imperialist gags for another 100 years. Just in a limited sphere of influence.
Hell I'm sure the Netherlands is doing something fucky right now, that they owe to the 17th century.
Doesn't seem like he is taking climate change into account because if so I'd bet before 2050 realistically maybe even before ~2035 It will only take a few natural disasters going on concurrently to fuck everything.
2050 would be a good year to predict if you're an optimist, imagine China converting to communism as promised while being the dominant economic power.
My guesses? Gilded age stuff. USA gaining steam leading up to overseas imperial designs and hence the Spanish-American War.
Yeah I was just assuming that there was some sort of important treaty signed in that time, or the fallout from one conflict or another would be relevant. I think there was a global recession in the 1890s, maybe countries became less reliant on british manufacturing after that?
My knowledge of history ends at about the start of the 20th century, I have no idea.
the empire got everything they wanted out of it.
its liberal handwashing to make like it was some kind of failure or mistake
So they had a quick and cheap victory, established a reliable puppet state, and then went on to defeat Iran and remake the entire region in their image? Damn I guess I'm out of the loop, I thought they got bogged down for 20 years, wasted a couple trillion bucks, accidentally installed a government that likes Iran better than the US, and only looted some oil as a consolation prize.
"wasted" money from these wars are in capitalists bank accounts. they don't give a fuck about 'public' expenses, in fact it helps them justify austerity back in the imperial core.
lol GOOD LUCK implementing socialism through "democracy" when money buys votes and sets polling stations and most of the plebs are dumb as fuck
It's interesting how much variability there is in the competitive stage. I wonder how long our "competitive" period will take this time and how nukes will influence the development of major wars. Cold war, proxy war and nuclear holocaust are the only options we have left at this point.
Or if 50 years is just the minimum and I'm just fucked. Aw hell I already knew I was fucked.
