If US hegemony ended today, it would mean immediate war between Saudi Arabia & Iran, China & Japan/South Korea, Russia & the former Soviet states, and probably China & India eventually. The US is far and away the most powerful military in the world, and without the threat of the US military intervening on behalf of its allies, those conflicts are nowhere near as one-sided as they are today.
For example, see what happened as the Ottoman Empire & European colonial empires collapsed at the beginning of the 20th century. Then scale that up from a 2.3 billion global population to 8 billion.
Whatever you want to say about the crimes against humanity committed in the maintenance of US hegemony, I will agree with you, but that doesn’t mean for a second that the alternative is better. Be careful what you wish for and all that.
If US hegemony ended today, it would mean immediate war […] The US is far and away the most powerful military in the world, and without the threat of the US military intervening on behalf of its allies, those conflicts are nowhere near as one-sided as they are today. […]
See, the problem here is that all the potential apocalyptic conflicts between american allies and other nations are contingent on the existence of american foreign meddling in the first place. The global conditions of multipolarity between now and WW1 are different. The reason for animosity between america’s allies and their neighbors is that the neocolonial western powers, headed by america, are using these allies as pawns, puppets to further their own interests within these regions against its enemies. It would instead be more accurate to say that if america’s enemies were weaker militarily and economically, america would be able to swoop in and destroy their people via a combination of hard and soft power using its allies as forward operating bases. I am not saying that the enemies of america are perfect nations, however, in the absence of american meddling, they have been shown to pursue more peaceful and mutually beneficial international relations with neutral nations, as opposed to outright warfare and economic genocide, as america does.
As such, if there is no america, then there would be no threat of slaughter for its enemies through its allies, and therefore there would be no more reason for the sort of animosity that could spiral into a nuclear war. The enemies of america, due to their position, are generally intelligent geopolitically, and do not possess the historical legacy of being colonial empires. If america truly fell, then they won’t start wars against a now nonexistent enemy for no good reason.
Whatever you want to say about the crimes against humanity committed in the maintenance of US hegemony, I will agree with you, but that doesn’t mean for a second that the alternative is better.
This is a common argument for a neoliberal status quo: “Well sure we know global regime X is shit and kills millions of people per year, but hey, all these strawman alternatives are bad so in the end, There Is No Alternative.” It’s been overused by conservative politicians to the point that its a slogan: TINA. However, we must realize that there are multiple alternatives, including the building of a better world.
Be careful what you wish for and all that.
Its going to collapse anyways over the next century or so, we do not need to wish for anything.
I can’t say I particularly disagree, however I think you’re overestimating the moral character of states in general. If US hegemony erodes over a “century or so” I think that is a manageable course of events rife with opportunities for building a better world, as you say. If, on the other hand, the US were to suddenly become incapable or unwilling to fill its role as global hegemon, the resulting power vacuum would undoubtedly effect chaos.
I hope for a graceful retreat from imperialism into some sort of international socialist utopia… but history isn’t exactly reassuring.
Not really imo, a sudden collapse of america would create chaotic power vacuums but they mostly be internally localized to america and countries completely dominated by america. Countries on the periphery would not immediately jump to fill the power vacuum molded to a white-supremacist settler-colonial hegemon as they do not have the material basis to fill such a role.
Furthermore, such a framing takes for granted that the current world is run by an orderly, functional system made up of countries subservient to a hegemon when in fact, the current situation is quite chaotic, as we live in “interesting times”. It is moreso a complex, multipolar situation made up of blocs with competing interests, and its just that one bloc mainly headed by one country is getting its way. Unfortunately, this country is america, with an agenda fundamentally inseparable with the extraction and genocide of other civilized nations. Other blocs do have their own interests, but it is unlikely they would be as bloodthirsty as america.
Moreover, even if things somehow do lead to war, historically, during the time of chaos highlighted earlier, one of the greatest socialist experiments, the USSR, was born. And for a time, there was hope for a better future in the world.
At the end of the day the preparedness and struggle of socialist movements worldwide will decide what will happen if such a situation occurs.
If US hegemony ended today, it would mean immediate war between Saudi Arabia & Iran, China & Japan/South Korea, Russia & the former Soviet states, and probably China & India eventually. The US is far and away the most powerful military in the world, and without the threat of the US military intervening on behalf of its allies, those conflicts are nowhere near as one-sided as they are today.
For example, see what happened as the Ottoman Empire & European colonial empires collapsed at the beginning of the 20th century. Then scale that up from a 2.3 billion global population to 8 billion.
Whatever you want to say about the crimes against humanity committed in the maintenance of US hegemony, I will agree with you, but that doesn’t mean for a second that the alternative is better. Be careful what you wish for and all that.
See, the problem here is that all the potential apocalyptic conflicts between american allies and other nations are contingent on the existence of american foreign meddling in the first place. The global conditions of multipolarity between now and WW1 are different. The reason for animosity between america’s allies and their neighbors is that the neocolonial western powers, headed by america, are using these allies as pawns, puppets to further their own interests within these regions against its enemies. It would instead be more accurate to say that if america’s enemies were weaker militarily and economically, america would be able to swoop in and destroy their people via a combination of hard and soft power using its allies as forward operating bases. I am not saying that the enemies of america are perfect nations, however, in the absence of american meddling, they have been shown to pursue more peaceful and mutually beneficial international relations with neutral nations, as opposed to outright warfare and economic genocide, as america does.
As such, if there is no america, then there would be no threat of slaughter for its enemies through its allies, and therefore there would be no more reason for the sort of animosity that could spiral into a nuclear war. The enemies of america, due to their position, are generally intelligent geopolitically, and do not possess the historical legacy of being colonial empires. If america truly fell, then they won’t start wars against a now nonexistent enemy for no good reason.
This is a common argument for a neoliberal status quo: “Well sure we know global regime X is shit and kills millions of people per year, but hey, all these strawman alternatives are bad so in the end, There Is No Alternative.” It’s been overused by conservative politicians to the point that its a slogan: TINA. However, we must realize that there are multiple alternatives, including the building of a better world.
Its going to collapse anyways over the next century or so, we do not need to wish for anything.
I can’t say I particularly disagree, however I think you’re overestimating the moral character of states in general. If US hegemony erodes over a “century or so” I think that is a manageable course of events rife with opportunities for building a better world, as you say. If, on the other hand, the US were to suddenly become incapable or unwilling to fill its role as global hegemon, the resulting power vacuum would undoubtedly effect chaos.
I hope for a graceful retreat from imperialism into some sort of international socialist utopia… but history isn’t exactly reassuring.
Not really imo, a sudden collapse of america would create chaotic power vacuums but they mostly be internally localized to america and countries completely dominated by america. Countries on the periphery would not immediately jump to fill the power vacuum molded to a white-supremacist settler-colonial hegemon as they do not have the material basis to fill such a role.
Furthermore, such a framing takes for granted that the current world is run by an orderly, functional system made up of countries subservient to a hegemon when in fact, the current situation is quite chaotic, as we live in “interesting times”. It is moreso a complex, multipolar situation made up of blocs with competing interests, and its just that one bloc mainly headed by one country is getting its way. Unfortunately, this country is america, with an agenda fundamentally inseparable with the extraction and genocide of other civilized nations. Other blocs do have their own interests, but it is unlikely they would be as bloodthirsty as america.
Moreover, even if things somehow do lead to war, historically, during the time of chaos highlighted earlier, one of the greatest socialist experiments, the USSR, was born. And for a time, there was hope for a better future in the world.
At the end of the day the preparedness and struggle of socialist movements worldwide will decide what will happen if such a situation occurs.