3 ms·

>The only real counterforce to global capitalism has historically been the people of a nation And yet every time there is some great nation-building exercise,

>The only real counterforce to global capitalism has historically been the people of a nation And yet every time there is some great nation-building exercise, the nation in question immediately attempts to build a global empire for itself, by subjugating other nations. France of Napoleon. Germany of Bismark. Japan of Meiji. Germany of Hitler. USSR. Current day USA. Human dignity, my ass. PS. Arabs of Muhammad and Mongols of Genghis also qualify.

Kaveren 8y ago
The US isn't trying to build a global empire of any kind, this kind of reckless hyperbole is not productive to discourse. Just because the US is involved in conflicts you may disapprove of in the Middle East does not make current day USA on par with Hitler's Germany. There's also a sizable internal backlash against recent wars and historically isolationism has been popular in the US.
- weregiraffe 8y ago
  >The US isn't trying to build a global empire of any kind You don't have to legally control or own territory to be, in effect, an Empire. When you use your military power to force economic interactions of your liking, you are an Empire. For examples, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
  - Kaveren 8y ago
    The US isn't forcing economic interactions of its liking anywhere.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      US has routinely interfered in politics of Central and South American countries - including military assistance for local anti-democratic forces, and in some cases (e.g. Dominican Republic), outright military occupation - to protect its economic interests there. Here's just one example - I picked this one because it is directly related to the term "banana republic", since the intervention was to protect the interests of the United Fruit Company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...
      - Kaveren 8y ago
        1954 is not current day USA.
pdimitar 8y ago
Kudos for your realism. It has always struck me as weird that the moment a nation enjoys some stability and prosperity, it immediately decides to throw them away for ever-growing expansionistic ambitions. I mean I get it, we as humans can never get enough -- I've witnessed that in many people, myself included. It's just so very sad to observe historically. It seems that if somebody sees they can get away with X, they immediately jump to doing something 10*X. Ironically, this is the exact scheme through which many criminals have been caught -- they admitted they felt a thrill because they have not been caught, and wanted to up the risk. (The police would have never caught them if they haven't did that as well.) I don't believe the same exact phenomena is involved with nations but if you squint your eyes really hard then it does look very similar.
arethuza 8y ago
I think in the case of the Napoleon's France and the USSR part of their behaviour was perhaps caused by a recent history of attacks and interventions by other nations - this certainly did nothing to help the paranoia of the Soviet leadership.

Kaveren 8y ago

The US isn't trying to build a global empire of any kind, this kind of reckless hyperbole is not productive to discourse. Just because the US is involved in conflicts you may disapprove of in the Middle East does not make current day USA on par with Hitler's Germany. There's also a sizable internal backlash against recent wars and historically isolationism has been popular in the US.

weregiraffe 8y ago
>The US isn't trying to build a global empire of any kind You don't have to legally control or own territory to be, in effect, an Empire. When you use your military power to force economic interactions of your liking, you are an Empire. For examples, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
- Kaveren 8y ago
  The US isn't forcing economic interactions of its liking anywhere.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    US has routinely interfered in politics of Central and South American countries - including military assistance for local anti-democratic forces, and in some cases (e.g. Dominican Republic), outright military occupation - to protect its economic interests there. Here's just one example - I picked this one because it is directly related to the term "banana republic", since the intervention was to protect the interests of the United Fruit Company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...
    - Kaveren 8y ago
      1954 is not current day USA.

pdimitar 8y ago

Kudos for your realism. It has always struck me as weird that the moment a nation enjoys some stability and prosperity, it immediately decides to throw them away for ever-growing expansionistic ambitions. I mean I get it, we as humans can never get enough -- I've witnessed that in many people, myself included. It's just so very sad to observe historically. It seems that if somebody sees they can get away with X, they immediately jump to doing something 10*X. Ironically, this is the exact scheme through which many criminals have been caught -- they admitted they felt a thrill because they have not been caught, and wanted to up the risk. (The police would have never caught them if they haven't did that as well.) I don't believe the same exact phenomena is involved with nations but if you squint your eyes really hard then it does look very similar.

arethuza 8y ago

I think in the case of the Napoleon's France and the USSR part of their behaviour was perhaps caused by a recent history of attacks and interventions by other nations - this certainly did nothing to help the paranoia of the Soviet leadership.