Problems with the American Empire

[nadinbrzezinski]

So here we are, at a point when we need to examine what are the inherent weaknesses of the American Empire.

I will ask first how many of you are familiar with how Rome, and the British built the Empire? Then ask yourself, as much as the
US has been compared to Rome, just how dissimilar we are from Rome. I will argue that the US is actually closer in the way it works
to the Spanish Empire.

Here are some of the points

Rome: You wanted to get anywhere, you served in the Imperial bureaucracy or the Army

The British: You wanted a comfy job later in life, you served in the Regiments or in the Imperial Bureaucracy, in some cases both.

The Spanish Empire: The poor people built the empire and went to the New World looking for riches. Heck, Cortez and Pizarro would
be at home with the good ol' folks at Halliburton and Blackwater. But service by the elites, unless you were the third son of the Duke,
in which case your other choice was the cloth, you mostly did NOT serve.

Rome set a system where goods were traded across the Empire, and many of our modern cities in Europe started as ROMAN cities, with all
that this implies. They built roads (for the first time) and goods and services were freely traded, with tax collectors always near by.

The British did something similar and many of the major cities in Africa were originally designed and gridded by British Engineers. This broke many
of the local traditions, but just like the Romans they were the dominant culture. The British also imported raw goods, and exported finished goods,
but by the end of the Empire they were in some ways approaching the Roman model... and some might argue the Commonwealth is just an expansion of the Empire.


Ok, Spain did build cities... but they imported major amounts of gold, which created a renter class, and in the end Spain did not manufacture goods either, but
had to get them from other places in Europe, and send them to the colonies. They kept this fiction of a mercantilistic economy.

Ok look at us, we are no longer producing any goods (shadows of Spain), and we have produced a Renter class, while the middle class disappears fast. In some ways
we are starting to resemble that Spain of the 18th and early 19th century. For the Record Spain also has an incredible foreign debt, and they have
just finished recovering

So as you look at events and then you turn to history... there are lessons of what the future may hold and it is not nice... for Spain did not remain a world
power... and one reason was... those who wanted the Empire were not willing to pay the pound of flesh they needed to pay. Oh and when this empire crashes it will
be spectacular... but no empire survives for ever.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. kick

[PerfectSage]

2. If your not an economic superpower...

eventually you won't be a military superpower. An economic superpower doesn't have government budget deficits and trade deficits.

Back at the turn of the century Britain was the military superpower du jour but had a hollowed out manufacturing base and America was the up and coming economic superpower. Now America is the military superpower du jour with the hollowed out economy and China is the up and coming economic superpower.

The invasion of Iraq and building bases to occupy it, is an attempt to control the most strategic resource: oil. If America can control the flow of oil to it's economic competitors: Europe, Japan and China, then economic collapse might be averted.

Given the rate at which Bush is racking up budget deficits faster than a drunken sailor in a whorehouse, I can see a time when America is no longer a superpower.

imo, the invasion of Iraq is the strategic blunder that brings a superpower to it's knee's, just like the old Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan ended the Soviet Union as a superpower.

Secondly, Bush & Cheney, provide the senile leadership a superpower in old age deserves. lol

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Correct

but even in the early 20th century service in the Regiment by those in the elite was honorable... here is where the comparison to the UK fails... for in the US service in the regiments of the empire in a far off land is not honorable.

This is where the comparison with Spain came to be...

By the way, yep China is the next superpower, and in what are days full of what nightmares can be, I do not believe the counry will survive, bur rather will suffer the fate of the USSR and balkanize, with all that this means.

[PerfectSage]

6. That's true

I was thinking Britain and the US were similar, because both underwent the industrialization process and had capitalistic economies. Both became economic powerhouses first and then military superpowers? I'm wondering if this true for Britain. I'd say it is.

Whereas I'd say Spain, became a military superpower from what they learned from kicking the moors outa iberia. Then they discovered and conquered the New World and became an economic superpower because of all the gold and silver mined and brought back to Spain every year. But Spain never had a productive economy and loaded itself up with debt fighting wars.

The possible bright side about China as a superpower is that hopefully we'll get a synthesis of east and west culture, since China was the birthplace of Taoism and embraced Buddhism.

[kineneb]

3. good thoughts

I had forgotten about the Spanish...shows how insignificant they have become. Hubby and I were discussing which historic empire the US most resembled this morning. We also decided that Rome was out, and did not discuss Britain. And Nazi Germany did not quite match either. But Spain, now that is a better comparison. And it did end in a completely hollowed-out country; when I was there in 1977, many areas in Spain looked decidedly "third world", and there was a lot of poverty.

[alvarezadams]

7. Update

"And it did end in a completely hollowed-out country; when I was there in 1977, many areas in Spain looked decidedly "third world", and there was a lot of poverty. "

FWIW, it's now the 10th richest nation on earth...

[kineneb]

20. ah, the joys of the EU

I would like to see Spain today. I am sure that lots has been modernized and updated. It looked pretty shabby back then. My personal comparison of Spain in the late 70s was to Iran when I live there in 1970. Lots of similarities. But time changes things. Especially when the country in question is no longer trying to be the center of an empire.

[flaminbats]

4. the possibilities are terrifying!

will it end in a government coup, a bloody civil war, or a decades long dark age? The sooner people understand the dangers of an unstable government that is trillions of dollars in the red, the more solvable those problems will be.

[alvarezadams]

9. While I agree...

...that the US empire is more similar to the Spanish, there are a few major differences that might make the outcome quite different.

Spain's "wealth" did indeed come from its empire and the creation of a rentier class (as the US is turning into, or at least would if GOP/DLC neo-lib economic policies continue), perhaps a greater source of wealth for the US is the dollar.

Owning and printing the dollar, the "moneta franca" of the world, creates an awful lot of wealth out of thin air. More aspects of our wealth are also illusory; the GDP would probably be at the EU level if it wasn't for energy consumption - which is far larger because of the long distances that transport entails in spread-out US. The same goes for health spending - we pay far more than anyone else for far less services, artificially increasing our apparent wealth.

This COULD be a recipe for disaster, as it was for Spain. The Spanish ducat was the "moneta franca" for awhile, but it was a currency based on its actual metal content. Our money is fiat, especially after Nixon took us out of Bretton Woods and the gold standard - and it is the basis of most countries' foreign currency holdings. The fact that so much of our debt is in the hands of foreigners means that the rest of the world has a vested interest in maintaining the illusion of American wealth and the apparent strength of the dollar --- to abandon the buch would mean abandoning a significant portion of their OWN wealth.

Yet, as you well note, our situation is particularly unstable - because it relies on "market forces" which do not necessarily follow the dictates of logic. The fall of the paper tiger economies nearly brought the whole globalization aparatus to the ground in ruins - and a run on the dollar could mean disaster.

Yet what is the government in a cleptocratic atmosphere as ours is today? It is merely a tool, a vehicle, for corporate interests. And these interests are multinational, with absolutely no sense of patriotism or of responsibility. We have seen how they are quick enough to transfer operations abroad, put money in fiscal paradises...

Unless the sh¡t hits the fan, I figure that the decline of the American empire will be a gradual affair. Money will escape as corporations move abroad, leaving the few rentiers well off and the rest of us screwed. The avalanche might occur when the gubmint can no longer pay into the military/industrial complex...

But HOPEFULLY the pendulum will swing beforehand.

Another frightening possibility is the idea of a REAL terror war, not by a few Muslim lunatics but by what is known as "the South" (Africa, L. America, etc.). This http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2701091&mesg_id=2701091 shows that our greed has no limits - I wonder if the patience of the 3rd world does.

[welshTerrier2]

8. Chalmers Johnson's 4 signs of an empire's collapse

"I fear that in our own case it has also gone too far. In the last chapter of my book I list four sorrows of empire: perpetual war; loss of the republic (in the sense of the loss of the structure of the republic, which is the main defense of the Bill of Rights); lying and disinformation by the executive branch; and bankruptcy. And I do not see any of these things being reversed just yet."

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. thanks in the list of books to read

[welshTerrier2]

14. here's an online interview he did

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/global/cj_int/cj_int1.html

i've read his "Sorrows of Empire" ... it was just unbelievable!!

he has another one i haven't read called "Blowback" and i vaguely remember he was working on a new one ...

[alvarezadams]

17. The interview...

...is interesting, but the fellow isn't an historian. Yet as an economist he almost has a marxian historical viewpoint.

Interesting interview. He could work on his history but his ideas seem pretty much on the ball.

[alvarezadams]

11. Chalmers vs. Polybius

Polybius pegged it 2000 years ago - his "anacyclosis":

"In classical civilizations Polybius introduced the theory of anacyclosis. This theory was a cycle of government that will degenerate into its negative counter part. The cycle started at Monarchy. (Ruled by a few)It then declined into a Tyranny.(Ruled by one) Then genesis occurs and the next generation develop the Aristocracy. (Ruled by the rich) From this we see a decline which turns Aristocracy into an Oligarchy (ruled by few - rich) From the oligarchy the degenerates rebel and reconstruct democracy. Rebellion occurs in the democracy do establish Oclocracy(Mob Rule). Finally the cycle completes itself with genesis into a Monarchy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacyclosis

I'm trying to get this corrected, it should read:

"In classical civilizations Polybius introduced the theory of anacyclosis. This theory was a cycle of government that will degenerate into its negative counter part. The cycle started at Monarchy. (Ruled by a king with legal succession)It then declined into a Tyranny.(Ruled by one, power gained by revolution/coups) Then genesis occurs and the next generation develop the Aristocracy. (Ruled by the nobles), which degenerates into Oligarchy (ruled by the rich). From the oligarchy the degenerates rebel and reconstruct democracy. Rebellion occurs in the democracy do establish Oclocracy(Mob Rule). Finally the cycle completes itself with genesis into a Monarchy."

Polybius noted that the Roman political system (under the Republic) might be immune to this (it wasn't) because it had aspects of monarchy (2 consuls as the executive), aristocracy (the senate) and democracy (elections). The Founding Fathers knew their Polybius, Plutarch, Ammianus, Dio, etc... and built a similar system.

The Roman republic fell as a result of rivalry between aristocratic factions, each of which turned to the plebs (through demagoguery/populism) for support. This can be seen today in the US if you exchange "aristocratic factions" for "special interests". The billions spent on indoctrination, thinktanks, lobbies, PR firms - are examples of this, just as the DLC is similar to a Roman aristocratic faction (such as the Caesars) exchanging their support of the "Boni" (the aristocracy) for the support of the populist Marian faction. Same interests, different means.

The Roman republic lasted far longer than it should have - because of the "mos maiorum", the respect for tradition. Our "mos maiorum" is a physical thing, the Constitution - which many will note is now losing much of its vigor with such idiocies as "flag-burning" and "sanctity of marriage" baloney.

Interesting concepts...

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. hmm reminds me of hegel's dialectic to a point

interesting...

[alvarezadams]

13. Right-Hegel....

...or Left-Hegel? :evilgrin:

[welshTerrier2]

15. interesting theory ...

i am no historian to say the least and couldn't really comment on the validity of such a circular pendulum of power ...

it does seem a bit odd, however ...

i view power as something held by the powerful (by definition) that is always pursued by other competing interests ... the evolution of power the theory described seems like it would be dependent on the specific forces struggling to obtain power ... that they would occur in such a predictable pattern, given the likely differences across time, geography and culture, seems like a bit of a stretch ...

for example, is it not feasible that one aristocracy, say the dominant automotive empire of the 1950's and 1960's, could not be toppled by an "information empire" (e.g. the dot coms of the 1990's) or subsequently by competing interests from foreign countries that siphon away American domestic wealth ... one might even ask whether power in a country like ours will ever truly be returned to the citizenry ... perhaps we have forfeited our democracy to competing commercial interests who care little for the ideals of our Founding Fathers and care only for their own wallets ...

what i find somewhat startling about Johnson's "four sorrows of empire" is how present all four factors appear to be today ...

[alvarezadams]

16. In essence...

... power IS. Polybius noted a causal evolution that has inarguably taken place time and time again. The two exceptions to the rule are very much Polybian - the Roman republic, which he admired, and the US, with a system built on Polybian ideas.

Yet in any system of government real power is in the hands of a few. The Pareto Law is a universal constant.... 80% of your business comes from 20% of your clients, 80% of a country's wealth is in the hands of 20% of the people (or less, nowadays!), 80% of power is in the hands of 20% of the people.

What Polybius noted was the FORM in which power is exercized. Perception is all, which is why "democracy" is considered as "power by and of and for the people".

Poppycock.

I've lived in a falangist dictatorship, in democracies (parliamentary or otherwise), my significant other is Russian and has lived under communism - in the end it's all the same. All that changes is who cuts the cheese and who shares it.

So the idea of competing special interests - should be taken with the above.

Now - before I am accused of being anti-democratic - let it be known that it DOES matter who cuts the cheese. On PAPER democracy, with its checks and balances, SHOULD flatten out the Pareto equation. But then again, on paper Communism was the cat's pyjama's too, and on paper Jesus was a Socialist.

I'd like to think that the Enlightenment opened up new vistas, based on humanism, education and civic responsibility. I fight for that- but by all counts it's a losing battle.

What was that British tabloid's headline regarding the re-election of Dubya?

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Yes it does matter who cuts the cheese

by the way you have recognized the symptoms of the end of Empire and how the republic is dead. I did as well, but then again where I lived before I came to the
states elections were essnetially dirty all the time, but people still voted, in far larger numbers than in the states

The American Empire will die with a whimper

[welshTerrier2]

19. a whimper and the largest arsenal of weapons ever assembled

the US might fade away into third world obscurity very quickly but there's no ignoring the magnitude of the fireworks we might set off during our descent ...

[alvarezadams]

21. No sh¡t

And it scares the fvck out of me, especially with the "by jingo" fundie crowd.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. The jingo fundie crowd will be the last to

notice that the Empire is over... though I suspect they will be the first to get on board the partition of the country, that way they can stay away from whoever wrecked their dreams of glory... aka all them traitorous liberals, many of whom actually did serve the empire while they staid back cheering their team.

[alvarezadams]

23. I dunno

The fundie crowd are in the same boat as the Agustinian Xtians in Rome. Ultimately the WANT and fervently DESIRE Armageddon.

Agustine moved intellectual mountains in order to justify a lack of true support of the empire. When said empire was pagan he had a logical point to begin with, but once the Roman Emprire was Xtian he had to go through veritable intellectual sommersaults to justify subservience to the status quo. At one point he had to defend the anti-establishment Xtians while supporting the empire against barbarism, and ended up creating the logical basis of the Holy Inquisition.

What a mess.

Today's fundies would do well to remember that when last they were the opposition and eventually became the governors, they had to reconcile discordant ideals and thoughts... and were singularly unsuccesful in their efforts. Any theocratic government will by needs be intrusive, tyrannical and abusive--- as history has shown us.


Jesus himself was on record by saying "give unto Caesar". Why is it that those who would take His words as gospel would prefer to abuse them?

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Becuase thery are selective readers

after all they want to bring Armagedon but both Isaiah and John the Divise wrote that you will never know the exact moment when either the first (Isaiah) or second Comming (John the Divine) are coming. For Christ the reference is to a theif in the night. And both advised to follow a just life and not worry about it. Yet these folks do, incenssantly...

So those who are selective readers cannot be expected to be good students. On the funny side, every so often I am able to thrown the bible at any of these whackos... always a fun exercise when you show them just how little they know of their own faith.