I think an end in this way was foreseeable. I think a segment of the left, particularly the authoritarian left, had a naïve notion that the end of the US empire would inevitability result in some form of class awareness instead of just nostalgic fascism and evangelical millenarianism.
We’ll need each other more than ever in the death throes.
Also that the Pax Americana was just propaganda. The war in Ukraine is pretty obvious. However the conflicts in the Sahel have also gotten a lot worse since the US has mostly withdrawn itself from that region. Sudan is especially bad(chemical warfare, mass starvation and so forth). The Congo conflict is also flaring up again.
I would not be surprised if things get a lot worse in the near future.
I think that’s their point, that a segment of the left thought pax americana was pure propaganda and it wasn’t. It wasn’t benevolent but for years it did keep global conflict tamped down.
Oh right. I guess I really need to focus on my reading comprehension, its been shit for like two weeks now. This is not the first time in recent times that I have completely misunderstood something.
Or maybe I have finally become as stupid as I always thought I was.
Once an empire has subjugated it’s territory by force, there is often a time of “peace,” enforced through domination and the elimination of any threats to the empire’s authority. Of course, empires rise and fall, so it is inevitable that that peace will end, as the empire retracts to deal with internal problems. This generally leaves the subjugated territories in a position of chaos and instability, as the existing power structures no longer have foreign backing to prop them up.
This is why, even the most moral and well-intended empire (if such a thing could exist) is still problematic on a fundamental, systemic level. I actually made a post about this concept a few years ago. Countries and governments need to be able to stand on their own two feet, backed more by domestic popular support than foreign powers. Of course, there are sometimes pragmatic compromises that have to be made, and no country can be fully isolated from “The Great Game.” But I would hardly consider chaos and conflict coming from the retraction of the US empire as a reason to think that empire was a good thing. To me, it just shows that the geopolitical order has been dependent a single point of failure.
There were far fewer deaths in western Europe in 1941-1943 than in 1944. Does that make the “Pax Nazi-Germanica” a good thing?
When an empire built on exploitation collapses, it is almost always a good thing to remove that empire’s puppets and replace them with representative governments. If those puppets desperately cling to power they no longer have the backing to maintain, then it’s usually a good thing to remove them violently to end their exploitative ways.
Thus an increase of violence during the collapse of an oppressive empire is both natural and probably a good thing in the long term.
i think the ‘authleft’ (at this point the political compass as a phenomenon should be a gen-ed 3 credit-hour class btw) was mostly gen x and millennial doomers with a lapsed DSA membership who thought if America didn’t decline we’d start a nuclear war. you experienced the optimistic slice of the terminally online slice who were fans of pretending to have read theory and then arguing with anarchists, please keep in mind that every group of terminally online people you are tempted to generalize should be treated as about 1% of their representative population, assuming posting on social media is their only hobby.
no matter what set of ideological clothes you put on, the fall of America and rise of China was clear to anyone with open eyes as early as Obama and to schizos as early as Tienanmen square
What are you trying to say here? Who are you accusing Midnight of being a mouthpiece for? What is your sarcasm intended to do? What makes you think such a shitty low-quality snipe is worth your or anyone’s time?
I know you aren’t a bot or professional troll. So why act like one here? Leave reddit behind.
As an “authoritarian” leftist, I have been predicting this collapse in US power for years. It was abundantly clear that the US could not maintain so many engagements in so many parts of the world, which is why I have been advocating for years for a peaceful, managed withdrawal to prevent a sudden collapse. Because, also contrary to what you guys always say about us, I don’t believe that a collapse or worsening conditions will somehow automatically lead to a victory for the left.
My plan, what I’ve been saying all this time, is that the US should try to emulate China’s approach of staying out of military entanglements while investing in domestic economic development, that we should accept a role as one of several great powers and should work to win countries over peacefully, by offering them better deals. I have been saying this for around 20 years, from back when we were occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. It is literally this position that defines me as an “authoritarian.”
Why? Because:
When I said we should stay out of Afghanistan, I was an authoritarian for “supporting Al Qaida.”
When I said we should stay out of Syria, I was an authoritarian for “supporting Assad.”
When I said we should stay out of Yemen, I was an authoritarian for “supporting the Houthis”
When I said we should stay out of Venezuela, I was an authoritarian for “supporting Maduro.”
When I said we should stop funding Israel, I was authoritarian for “defending Hamas.”
When I said we should not get involved in Ukraine, I was an authoritarian for “Supporting Putin.”
When I said we should not attack Iran, I was an authoritarian for “Supporting Khomeini.”
Maybe if we had been more selective about what conflicts we got involved in, if we had picked our battles, then we might have been able to focus on one or two of those conflicts. Instead, we’ve had this absolutely unhinged foreign policy where we do things like fund multiple sides in Syria that kill each other with our weapons, or beg China to sanction Russia while at the same time starting a trade war with them. And burning out after getting involved in every conflict everywhere was the most predictable outcome ever.
What is your plan? To keep burning ourselves out, to keep pouring more and more blood and treasure into maintaining and expanding the empire, while domestic conditions become worse and worse, and the fascists at home become more and more powerful? You just want to play Superman, acting like we’re invincible, acting like petty material concerns and limitations are beneath us. It’s pure hubris.
And now that the exact thing we’ve been trying to warn you of has come to pass, you complain that we “can’t articulate a goal or plan?”
Every time that we’ve pushed for a more cautious and reserved approach that would preserve our resources and stamina, y’all have just accused us of being secret agents of whatever your current enemy-of-the-week is.
I would have hoped that seeing the exact thing we’ve been warning you about come to pass would make you stop and consider if maybe we actually have a point, but of course, I know better than to expect it. None of you know anything about what we believe because you’d rather make up beliefs and assign them to us than listen to anything we actually say.
Marxists have very clear plans depending on which country they organize in. For the US, as an example, the primary tasks are to build up a disciplined worker party that can effectively educate the rest of the working class, struggle alongside them whenever they come into conflict with the capitalist class (such as labor disputes, housing struggles, etc.), and organize them. This is the best way to prepare for the inevitable and regular crises of capitalism, to hopefully take the working class as a whole in a unified direction against the capitalist system itself.
After establishing a socialist state, we can begin addressing societal problems more effectively than ever before. Full right to self-determination for all indigenous peoples, mass expansion of public housing and an elimination of landlordism, full employment via a planned economy, and more. Healthcare and housing can be made free, same as education, which develops a far more productive labor base that will be necessary for the grand projects of infrastructure improvements and addressing historic inequalities for oppressed peoples.
All military bases will be closed down overseas, leaving only a small defense army in case of capitalist invasion. The dominance of the US dollar will be no more, nor will IP be respected, as it is leveraged against the global south. Rather than plundering the world, we can cooperate with countries like China to develop mass transit and a green energy transition, free countries like Cuba and Korea, and more.
The idea that Marxists have no plans is silly. Just talk to one of us.
yes perfect the Authoritarian left that, checks notes exists solely within your head?
Surely you can give some examples of leftists authoritarianism, if its so ubiquitous that is.
Also, while your at it, please explore the idea of something being ‘manifestly incapable’. This term seems like an oxymoron an I’d like to see you flesh it out a bit.
What we talk about is more how the US should reduce it’s reach globally. It is exactly that reach which has caused the overextension that we’re now seeing, which is going to mean a much less controlled drawing back than if it had been done intentionally.
It’s y’all who can’t get over the fact that a more cautious and reserved US foreign policy could allow its rivals to gain influence. That’s the whole reason that you label us as “tankies.” Because you literally cannot conceive of the idea that the US has been overextended and that there might be people wanting to correct that overextension before it blows up in our faces, entirely predictably. To try to address US overextension is something you see as inherently treasonous, and it is precisely because of that perspective that we’re in this mess.
The reason people get called “tankies” has nothing to do with the US and all to do with the kind of horrible dictatorships they support. It is possible to be for example against US influence in Syria and against Assad the same time, you know?
It is possible to be for example against US influence in Syria and against Assad the same time, you know?
Of course, but pretty much nobody who uses terms like “tankie” acknowledges that in practice.
When I say that I oppose US intervention in, say, North Korea, then I’m immediately hit with all kinds of horror stories about how everyone has to get the same haircut or whatever. If I refute that misinformation and insist that I don’t want the US to overthrow their government, then I will inevitably be accused of “defending North Korea,” labelled as a “tankie” and then subject to the whole rumor mill about “what tankies believe” that’s completely detached from reality or anything I actually say or believe. Next thing you know, I’m being accused of wanting every country in the world to become like North Korea. If I deny that, then it’s assumed that I’m just concealing my “real” views.
It’s the same way in every conflict in history since the dawn of time. When I was 10 years old asking why we didn’t respond to 9/11 by “turning the other cheek” like I’d been taught, people looked at me like I was some kind of “terrorist sympathizer” because “you’re either with us or against us.” Every single time I have opposed any conflict, I have been accused of “supporting” or “defending” the other side, regardless of what I actually say or what reasons I actually provide.
There’s no use trying to fight it. Instead of trying to, and looking like I’m trying to weasel out of the label like I have something to hide, I’d rather just accept it so that I have some ability to speak for what us “tankies” actually believe. Starting with, opposition to building more tanks. Opposition to building tanks is the defining characteristics of a “tankie” because if you don’t want to build and deploy tanks then you’re assumed to “support” whatever enemy-of-the-week they’re to be used against, who is no doubt “authoritarian.” Likewise, anti-militarism will cause me to be labelled as a “campist” for “supporting” the target of that militarism. When you’re being accused of such things, nobody gives a shit about the nuance between “supporting” or “opposing action against,” and even if you insist on it they’ll just say you’re lying and that you actually do support the “bad guy.”
I find it very hard to believe people would label you a tankie if your position were that of a principled pacifist. Sure, many people also dislike pacifist positions, but it is not possible to mistake the one for the other. Thus I have to assume you are not being genuine here and did in fact give reasons to people to call you a tankie 🤷
I actually agree with your definition of tankie, tankies are generally those who support socialist states and critically support nationalist states that are under imperialist siege. I disagree that all of these are “horrible dictatorships,” or at least for the socialist countries, and see the nationalist dictatorships of capital as generally more progressive in the international context than the imperialist dictatorships of capital, but the through line here is that tankies are defined by the countries we support/critically support above all else.
As for opposing US/Israeli influence in Syria while opposing Assad, who do you support there? I think it’s pretty easy to say “the people of Syria,” but are they any better off now under the Israeli-backed HTS regime than they were under Assad? What groups actually stand to challenge the existing status quo and implement a more progressive system?
No, we call you tankies because you have a history of supporting dictatorships crushing their opposition with tanks.
Those same dictatorships will, if they are allowed to, continue to crush their opposition with tanks. Sure, you would call NK invading SK “reunification”, and youd probably call the Russian invasion of Europe “denazification”, and you’d probably call the Chinese extermination of anyone that isn’t han Chinese “cultural defense”. But in reality what you’re supporting is eastern imperialism and genocide.
I don’t support any of that. I just don’t believe in the US using military force to stop it.
Guess that means I’m not a tankie?
if they are allowed to
Oop, there you go. By not supporting military action by the US, I am “allowing” them to do all that stuff. So I am a tankie on the basis that I’m opposed to using tanks. There you have it.
The US hasn’t had to use military force for any of that. The threat was adequate deterrent. Now that the deterrent is breaking down, well…it’s time to use military force.
Unfortunately, bullies only speak one language. If you could talk to Kim jong un and be like “hey, let’s work together to make the world a better place”, NK wouldn’t be NK. It would looks more like SK. But he’s rather rule ashes than let the country grow outside his control.
Yeah… there was a graceful and positive way for this to occur at one point, but definitely not anymore, I think. The last couple years have been less “ripping the bandaid off” and more “stabbing oneself in the neck”.
I know there will be some real benefits in a handful of contexts and regions, but overall, I shudder to imagine the implications of this rapid and violent abrogation and dismantling of Pax Americana.
That’s not to say that I’m expressing “wooooo ‘MURICUH”, or pining for days of Cold War yore when we fucked around with fomenting coups in tons of countries - nothing of the sort, in fact. Simply pointing out that nobody fully comprehends what all the fallout from this tectonic geopolitical shift will ultimately encompass. The American global security/enforcement apparatus has underpinned the vast majority of the geopolitical and global economic context and (relative) stability since the end of WW2, and even moreso since the end of the Cold War, and now that we’re… uh… not doing that anymore… this is completely new territory. We are in the geopolitical Wild West now. It’s arguably too broad of a generalization to say “all bets are off”… but a lot of them actually are, in a meaningful sense.
I mean it’s good that it’s ended, but the way it’s ending is far worse than most ways it could’ve.
I think an end in this way was foreseeable. I think a segment of the left, particularly the authoritarian left, had a naïve notion that the end of the US empire would inevitability result in some form of class awareness instead of just nostalgic fascism and evangelical millenarianism.
We’ll need each other more than ever in the death throes.
Also that the Pax Americana was just propaganda. The war in Ukraine is pretty obvious. However the conflicts in the Sahel have also gotten a lot worse since the US has mostly withdrawn itself from that region. Sudan is especially bad(chemical warfare, mass starvation and so forth). The Congo conflict is also flaring up again.
I would not be surprised if things get a lot worse in the near future.
Doesn’t that sort of support Pax Americana being a real thing? If conflicts get worse when America withdraws?
I think that’s their point, that a segment of the left thought pax americana was pure propaganda and it wasn’t. It wasn’t benevolent but for years it did keep global conflict tamped down.
Oh right. I guess I really need to focus on my reading comprehension, its been shit for like two weeks now. This is not the first time in recent times that I have completely misunderstood something.
Or maybe I have finally become as stupid as I always thought I was.
Bro, like, go easy on yourself. The rest of the world is ready to eat you up. Don’t join them in the feasting.
Hehe no worries. I just enjoy self deprecating humor :D I’m actually pretty happy with myself.
Other than the crippling depression and anxiety issues. (:D)
Oh, well those are a given. If you didn’t have crippling anxiety and depression in 2026, THEN I’d be really concerned.
Glad you’re doing (mostly) well :)
Once an empire has subjugated it’s territory by force, there is often a time of “peace,” enforced through domination and the elimination of any threats to the empire’s authority. Of course, empires rise and fall, so it is inevitable that that peace will end, as the empire retracts to deal with internal problems. This generally leaves the subjugated territories in a position of chaos and instability, as the existing power structures no longer have foreign backing to prop them up.
This is why, even the most moral and well-intended empire (if such a thing could exist) is still problematic on a fundamental, systemic level. I actually made a post about this concept a few years ago. Countries and governments need to be able to stand on their own two feet, backed more by domestic popular support than foreign powers. Of course, there are sometimes pragmatic compromises that have to be made, and no country can be fully isolated from “The Great Game.” But I would hardly consider chaos and conflict coming from the retraction of the US empire as a reason to think that empire was a good thing. To me, it just shows that the geopolitical order has been dependent a single point of failure.
There were far fewer deaths in western Europe in 1941-1943 than in 1944. Does that make the “Pax Nazi-Germanica” a good thing?
When an empire built on exploitation collapses, it is almost always a good thing to remove that empire’s puppets and replace them with representative governments. If those puppets desperately cling to power they no longer have the backing to maintain, then it’s usually a good thing to remove them violently to end their exploitative ways.
Thus an increase of violence during the collapse of an oppressive empire is both natural and probably a good thing in the long term.
i think the ‘authleft’ (at this point the political compass as a phenomenon should be a gen-ed 3 credit-hour class btw) was mostly gen x and millennial doomers with a lapsed DSA membership who thought if America didn’t decline we’d start a nuclear war. you experienced the optimistic slice of the terminally online slice who were fans of pretending to have read theory and then arguing with anarchists, please keep in mind that every group of terminally online people you are tempted to generalize should be treated as about 1% of their representative population, assuming posting on social media is their only hobby.
no matter what set of ideological clothes you put on, the fall of America and rise of China was clear to anyone with open eyes as early as Obama and to schizos as early as Tienanmen square
Foreseeable for sure, but ideal, obviously not
Interesting idea. Have you ever considered not being a mouthpiece?
What are you trying to say here? Who are you accusing Midnight of being a mouthpiece for? What is your sarcasm intended to do? What makes you think such a shitty low-quality snipe is worth your or anyone’s time?
I know you aren’t a bot or professional troll. So why act like one here? Leave reddit behind.
Someone has to be, since the authoritarian left themselves seem manifestly incapable of articulating anything as crass as a goal or a plan.
As an “authoritarian” leftist, I have been predicting this collapse in US power for years. It was abundantly clear that the US could not maintain so many engagements in so many parts of the world, which is why I have been advocating for years for a peaceful, managed withdrawal to prevent a sudden collapse. Because, also contrary to what you guys always say about us, I don’t believe that a collapse or worsening conditions will somehow automatically lead to a victory for the left.
My plan, what I’ve been saying all this time, is that the US should try to emulate China’s approach of staying out of military entanglements while investing in domestic economic development, that we should accept a role as one of several great powers and should work to win countries over peacefully, by offering them better deals. I have been saying this for around 20 years, from back when we were occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. It is literally this position that defines me as an “authoritarian.”
Why? Because:
When I said we should stay out of Afghanistan, I was an authoritarian for “supporting Al Qaida.”
When I said we should stay out of Syria, I was an authoritarian for “supporting Assad.”
When I said we should stay out of Yemen, I was an authoritarian for “supporting the Houthis”
When I said we should stay out of Venezuela, I was an authoritarian for “supporting Maduro.”
When I said we should stop funding Israel, I was authoritarian for “defending Hamas.”
When I said we should not get involved in Ukraine, I was an authoritarian for “Supporting Putin.”
When I said we should not attack Iran, I was an authoritarian for “Supporting Khomeini.”
Maybe if we had been more selective about what conflicts we got involved in, if we had picked our battles, then we might have been able to focus on one or two of those conflicts. Instead, we’ve had this absolutely unhinged foreign policy where we do things like fund multiple sides in Syria that kill each other with our weapons, or beg China to sanction Russia while at the same time starting a trade war with them. And burning out after getting involved in every conflict everywhere was the most predictable outcome ever.
What is your plan? To keep burning ourselves out, to keep pouring more and more blood and treasure into maintaining and expanding the empire, while domestic conditions become worse and worse, and the fascists at home become more and more powerful? You just want to play Superman, acting like we’re invincible, acting like petty material concerns and limitations are beneath us. It’s pure hubris.
And now that the exact thing we’ve been trying to warn you of has come to pass, you complain that we “can’t articulate a goal or plan?” Every time that we’ve pushed for a more cautious and reserved approach that would preserve our resources and stamina, y’all have just accused us of being secret agents of whatever your current enemy-of-the-week is.
I would have hoped that seeing the exact thing we’ve been warning you about come to pass would make you stop and consider if maybe we actually have a point, but of course, I know better than to expect it. None of you know anything about what we believe because you’d rather make up beliefs and assign them to us than listen to anything we actually say.
Marxists have very clear plans depending on which country they organize in. For the US, as an example, the primary tasks are to build up a disciplined worker party that can effectively educate the rest of the working class, struggle alongside them whenever they come into conflict with the capitalist class (such as labor disputes, housing struggles, etc.), and organize them. This is the best way to prepare for the inevitable and regular crises of capitalism, to hopefully take the working class as a whole in a unified direction against the capitalist system itself.
After establishing a socialist state, we can begin addressing societal problems more effectively than ever before. Full right to self-determination for all indigenous peoples, mass expansion of public housing and an elimination of landlordism, full employment via a planned economy, and more. Healthcare and housing can be made free, same as education, which develops a far more productive labor base that will be necessary for the grand projects of infrastructure improvements and addressing historic inequalities for oppressed peoples.
All military bases will be closed down overseas, leaving only a small defense army in case of capitalist invasion. The dominance of the US dollar will be no more, nor will IP be respected, as it is leveraged against the global south. Rather than plundering the world, we can cooperate with countries like China to develop mass transit and a green energy transition, free countries like Cuba and Korea, and more.
The idea that Marxists have no plans is silly. Just talk to one of us.
yes perfect the Authoritarian left that, checks notes exists solely within your head?
Surely you can give some examples of leftists authoritarianism, if its so ubiquitous that is.
Also, while your at it, please explore the idea of something being ‘manifestly incapable’. This term seems like an oxymoron an I’d like to see you flesh it out a bit.
I mean. They can. They do. Over in .ml land, they talk about how NK, USSR, and China should expand their reach globally.
It’s just that even the tankies realize that nobody really wants to live in North Korea.
What we talk about is more how the US should reduce it’s reach globally. It is exactly that reach which has caused the overextension that we’re now seeing, which is going to mean a much less controlled drawing back than if it had been done intentionally.
It’s y’all who can’t get over the fact that a more cautious and reserved US foreign policy could allow its rivals to gain influence. That’s the whole reason that you label us as “tankies.” Because you literally cannot conceive of the idea that the US has been overextended and that there might be people wanting to correct that overextension before it blows up in our faces, entirely predictably. To try to address US overextension is something you see as inherently treasonous, and it is precisely because of that perspective that we’re in this mess.
That’s such a harebrained campist take 🙄
The reason people get called “tankies” has nothing to do with the US and all to do with the kind of horrible dictatorships they support. It is possible to be for example against US influence in Syria and against Assad the same time, you know?
Of course, but pretty much nobody who uses terms like “tankie” acknowledges that in practice.
When I say that I oppose US intervention in, say, North Korea, then I’m immediately hit with all kinds of horror stories about how everyone has to get the same haircut or whatever. If I refute that misinformation and insist that I don’t want the US to overthrow their government, then I will inevitably be accused of “defending North Korea,” labelled as a “tankie” and then subject to the whole rumor mill about “what tankies believe” that’s completely detached from reality or anything I actually say or believe. Next thing you know, I’m being accused of wanting every country in the world to become like North Korea. If I deny that, then it’s assumed that I’m just concealing my “real” views.
It’s the same way in every conflict in history since the dawn of time. When I was 10 years old asking why we didn’t respond to 9/11 by “turning the other cheek” like I’d been taught, people looked at me like I was some kind of “terrorist sympathizer” because “you’re either with us or against us.” Every single time I have opposed any conflict, I have been accused of “supporting” or “defending” the other side, regardless of what I actually say or what reasons I actually provide.
There’s no use trying to fight it. Instead of trying to, and looking like I’m trying to weasel out of the label like I have something to hide, I’d rather just accept it so that I have some ability to speak for what us “tankies” actually believe. Starting with, opposition to building more tanks. Opposition to building tanks is the defining characteristics of a “tankie” because if you don’t want to build and deploy tanks then you’re assumed to “support” whatever enemy-of-the-week they’re to be used against, who is no doubt “authoritarian.” Likewise, anti-militarism will cause me to be labelled as a “campist” for “supporting” the target of that militarism. When you’re being accused of such things, nobody gives a shit about the nuance between “supporting” or “opposing action against,” and even if you insist on it they’ll just say you’re lying and that you actually do support the “bad guy.”
I find it very hard to believe people would label you a tankie if your position were that of a principled pacifist. Sure, many people also dislike pacifist positions, but it is not possible to mistake the one for the other. Thus I have to assume you are not being genuine here and did in fact give reasons to people to call you a tankie 🤷
I actually agree with your definition of tankie, tankies are generally those who support socialist states and critically support nationalist states that are under imperialist siege. I disagree that all of these are “horrible dictatorships,” or at least for the socialist countries, and see the nationalist dictatorships of capital as generally more progressive in the international context than the imperialist dictatorships of capital, but the through line here is that tankies are defined by the countries we support/critically support above all else.
As for opposing US/Israeli influence in Syria while opposing Assad, who do you support there? I think it’s pretty easy to say “the people of Syria,” but are they any better off now under the Israeli-backed HTS regime than they were under Assad? What groups actually stand to challenge the existing status quo and implement a more progressive system?
No, we call you tankies because you have a history of supporting dictatorships crushing their opposition with tanks.
Those same dictatorships will, if they are allowed to, continue to crush their opposition with tanks. Sure, you would call NK invading SK “reunification”, and youd probably call the Russian invasion of Europe “denazification”, and you’d probably call the Chinese extermination of anyone that isn’t han Chinese “cultural defense”. But in reality what you’re supporting is eastern imperialism and genocide.
I don’t support any of that. I just don’t believe in the US using military force to stop it.
Guess that means I’m not a tankie?
Oop, there you go. By not supporting military action by the US, I am “allowing” them to do all that stuff. So I am a tankie on the basis that I’m opposed to using tanks. There you have it.
The US hasn’t had to use military force for any of that. The threat was adequate deterrent. Now that the deterrent is breaking down, well…it’s time to use military force.
Unfortunately, bullies only speak one language. If you could talk to Kim jong un and be like “hey, let’s work together to make the world a better place”, NK wouldn’t be NK. It would looks more like SK. But he’s rather rule ashes than let the country grow outside his control.
Removed by mod
Yeah… there was a graceful and positive way for this to occur at one point, but definitely not anymore, I think. The last couple years have been less “ripping the bandaid off” and more “stabbing oneself in the neck”.
I know there will be some real benefits in a handful of contexts and regions, but overall, I shudder to imagine the implications of this rapid and violent abrogation and dismantling of Pax Americana.
That’s not to say that I’m expressing “wooooo ‘MURICUH”, or pining for days of Cold War yore when we fucked around with fomenting coups in tons of countries - nothing of the sort, in fact. Simply pointing out that nobody fully comprehends what all the fallout from this tectonic geopolitical shift will ultimately encompass. The American global security/enforcement apparatus has underpinned the vast majority of the geopolitical and global economic context and (relative) stability since the end of WW2, and even moreso since the end of the Cold War, and now that we’re… uh… not doing that anymore… this is completely new territory. We are in the geopolitical Wild West now. It’s arguably too broad of a generalization to say “all bets are off”… but a lot of them actually are, in a meaningful sense.