4 ms·

The Anglo-American establishment is a power consensus after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, two world wars and decolonisation. It refers to the hand off of

The Anglo-American establishment is a power consensus after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, two world wars and decolonisation. It refers to the hand off of power from Great Britain to the US. It has nothing to do with "Anglo-Americans" unless you're talking about a specific small group of anglophile elite families from the north-east of America with political and industrial wealth. A ruling consensus was established after the Yalta conference and Bretton Woods accord. In the immediate post war period the USSR has lost 30 million people and there is only one global nuclear power. Losing this dominance to the degree of the present world order is the second biggest blunder, should these people also then be completely minimized inside their own nation states by the force of global capital they allowed to emerge would be the biggest yes. It's the equivalent of receiving the entire wealth of the world then losing it in a few generations. What do you find controversial about this? A blunder is an unforced error which greatly diminishes your own position in a game, perhaps leading to a total loss. Or do you believe all human beings are playing equally for the interest of all others?

ghostbrainalpha 7y ago
I believe calling it a game and using those analogies trivializes the ethical implication of some of your views. And while I definitely don't think "all human beings are playing equally for the interest of all others", I do think if the "ruling consensus" elects to share power with a more diverse group of people that would be in the greater interest of humanity in the long term.
- cerealbad 7y ago
  Power diffusion leads to asymmetric instability (and inverse). It is dangerous to assume non relativistic ethics in a pluralist world. Conflict will happen in a persons head when holding oppositions simultaneously or inevitably between persons opposing heads simultaneously. Self interest is true, self negating and both.

ghostbrainalpha 7y ago

I believe calling it a game and using those analogies trivializes the ethical implication of some of your views. And while I definitely don't think "all human beings are playing equally for the interest of all others", I do think if the "ruling consensus" elects to share power with a more diverse group of people that would be in the greater interest of humanity in the long term.

cerealbad 7y ago
Power diffusion leads to asymmetric instability (and inverse). It is dangerous to assume non relativistic ethics in a pluralist world. Conflict will happen in a persons head when holding oppositions simultaneously or inevitably between persons opposing heads simultaneously. Self interest is true, self negating and both.