3 ms·

I feel as though nuclear weapons have purchased an everlasting hedgemony. If the US really started to crumble and I mean actually crumble, we'd just go back to

by asdff 3y ago

I feel as though nuclear weapons have purchased an everlasting hedgemony. If the US really started to crumble and I mean actually crumble, we'd just go back to the form of government we had developed during WWII: a centrally planned militarized state where non-useful sections of the economy are rationed or outlawed, useful sections of the economy are simply told to follow the directive of military command, labor is either conscripted or otherwise has no choice but to work in a job environment dominated by government openings, communications are monitored, press and media are tightly controlled, and any political opposition within government structures is systematically rooted out and silenced. I believe we'd sooner revert to this and bomb the world into submission "for the good of the nation" than relinquish this hegemony.

somenameforme 3y ago
Plato's Republic [1] really shifted my view on this. It was written 2400 years ago, and with but a handful of real exceptions - like his casually referencing slavery, it reads like it was written by an edgelord writing with hindsight of contemporary times and events. And in that regard you'd normally just dismiss it, but given that it was written 2400 years ago, in a world nothing like today, yet 'predicts' the events of today down a tee is a somewhat absurd degree of proof that the notion that 'history repeats itself' is not just in the abstract, as I always thought. In his book he sees a system of 5 political systems, what he calls regimes. And he argues that they tend to each transition between each other, not out of some revolutionary cause - but because of an abundance of the virtue of each system. In democracy that virtue is freedom, and its transition is into tyranny. He argues that excesses of freedom gradually leads to the decay of social values, norms, and ultimately the rule of law itself. And in the process of this leaders would emerge overtly appealing to the base desires and emotions of masses as arguments for election; ethos and values of times past not even feigned at. But these leaders themselves are of course also only driven by their own endless pursuit of self indulgence and power. And transitioning from democracy to authoritarianism is but a matter of one man, supported by the masses, turning against the normal system. With the catch, yet to be seen, that this man also eventually turns against the people that supported him - becoming tyrannical and obsessed by the pursuit of his own ideals and virtues, which need not inherently run contrary to the interests of society. Napoleon is the 'classical' example - which came thousands of years after The Republic was written. The point I make here is that it often feels like we're entering into some wild unknown, in many things. Yet when you look back at things like the classical philosophers and other writings, a lot of what they're saying suddenly seems more apt than ever. And so I think the issue is not that we're entering into some strange and unprecedented era in human civilization, but rather we're just leaving one. The relative era of peace, rationality, and stability that we all grew up in was the bubble, and it seems to have to burst. [1] - https://www.gutenberg.org/files/55201/55201-h/55201-h.htm#BookVIII https://www.gutenberg.org/files/55201/55201-h/55201-h.htm#Bo... (This link is already to the exact 'book' (chapter) which is about what I am referencing. To get to the exact meat of it, search for "And democracy has her own good, of which the insatiable desire brings her to dissolution?")
- asdff 3y ago
  I think the main issue with comparing past principles on governing and current ones, are the technological differences. Communications around the world take an instant. A missile in Wisconson can be sent anywhere in the world to destroy a city within probably a half hour. Past political philosophers have nothing to compare this to. In their time, a revolutionary force really was on an even keel at times with the military of the government, back when the ordinance carried by each was more or less the same, the communications technologies used by each more or less the same, and the resources such as food and firewood to draw upon for supplying a force being more or less the same surrounding villages near the battlefields. Today, the US military doesn't need to consider anything about the local resources available, they can just airdrop in food and water while you and your band of rebels slowly starves if you can't live off the land. They can out communicate you and coordinate fighting on the land, sea, air, and space, while you might have a short wave radio if you are lucky that they are also probably monitoring. They can of course out gun you, without even sending boots into harms way though probably dozens and dozens of different technologies and permutations of these technologies and strategies. I don't think Plato could have conceived of a predator drone, or a military satellite, or an aircraft carrier, or a nuclear submarine packed with ICBMs. The balance of power has never been so historically lopsided with who controls the technology of contemporary war.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    As odd as it may sound at first, I think safe to say that the overall asymmetry in professional vs civilian forces has dramatically decreased over time. Spain's conquest of the Inca Empire, a warlike nation, is analogous to the edge professional militaries of the times would have had against peasants. And they were able to destroy an entire empire of these 'peasants', with an 'army' of exactly 168 Spaniards. Disease played a relatively small role given these absurdly disproportionate odds. What mattered was horses, weaponry, and armor. It was enough to make the Spaniards seem literally invincible. In modern times, America has ostensibly the most powerful army on Earth. Yet in Afghanistan we lost to sandal wearing religious radicals primarily equipped with WW2 era weaponry and some improvised explosives. And our "victory" in Iraq was defined as being left constrained to micro-sized 'green zones' we're completely unable to leave without extensively armored and prepped convoys, or otherwise it's like to turn into a one way trip. Of course the catch is that it's dumb to mock things as 'WW2 era weaponry.' A Talibani armed with a Springfield 1903, or Mauser 1898, numbers indicating their manufacturing date, is not only able to kill literally any soldier, but also from extremely far distances. And until the opportunity emerges said Talibani can simply keep that rifle tucked under his robes, looking just like any other civilian. Unless the e.g. US wants to simply start engaging in mass genocide, it's essentially impossible to defeat these sort of insurrections. Especially when each person you kill suddenly turns their otherwise moderate neighbors, friends, and brothers into the next insurrectionists.

by asdff 3y ago

somenameforme 3y ago

Plato's Republic [1] really shifted my view on this. It was written 2400 years ago, and with but a handful of real exceptions - like his casually referencing slavery, it reads like it was written by an edgelord writing with hindsight of contemporary times and events. And in that regard you'd normally just dismiss it, but given that it was written 2400 years ago, in a world nothing like today, yet 'predicts' the events of today down a tee is a somewhat absurd degree of proof that the notion that 'history repeats itself' is not just in the abstract, as I always thought. In his book he sees a system of 5 political systems, what he calls regimes. And he argues that they tend to each transition between each other, not out of some revolutionary cause - but because of an abundance of the virtue of each system. In democracy that virtue is freedom, and its transition is into tyranny. He argues that excesses of freedom gradually leads to the decay of social values, norms, and ultimately the rule of law itself. And in the process of this leaders would emerge overtly appealing to the base desires and emotions of masses as arguments for election; ethos and values of times past not even feigned at. But these leaders themselves are of course also only driven by their own endless pursuit of self indulgence and power. And transitioning from democracy to authoritarianism is but a matter of one man, supported by the masses, turning against the normal system. With the catch, yet to be seen, that this man also eventually turns against the people that supported him - becoming tyrannical and obsessed by the pursuit of his own ideals and virtues, which need not inherently run contrary to the interests of society. Napoleon is the 'classical' example - which came thousands of years after The Republic was written. The point I make here is that it often feels like we're entering into some wild unknown, in many things. Yet when you look back at things like the classical philosophers and other writings, a lot of what they're saying suddenly seems more apt than ever. And so I think the issue is not that we're entering into some strange and unprecedented era in human civilization, but rather we're just leaving one. The relative era of peace, rationality, and stability that we all grew up in was the bubble, and it seems to have to burst. [1] - https://www.gutenberg.org/files/55201/55201-h/55201-h.htm#BookVIII https://www.gutenberg.org/files/55201/55201-h/55201-h.htm#Bo... (This link is already to the exact 'book' (chapter) which is about what I am referencing. To get to the exact meat of it, search for "And democracy has her own good, of which the insatiable desire brings her to dissolution?")

asdff 3y ago
I think the main issue with comparing past principles on governing and current ones, are the technological differences. Communications around the world take an instant. A missile in Wisconson can be sent anywhere in the world to destroy a city within probably a half hour. Past political philosophers have nothing to compare this to. In their time, a revolutionary force really was on an even keel at times with the military of the government, back when the ordinance carried by each was more or less the same, the communications technologies used by each more or less the same, and the resources such as food and firewood to draw upon for supplying a force being more or less the same surrounding villages near the battlefields. Today, the US military doesn't need to consider anything about the local resources available, they can just airdrop in food and water while you and your band of rebels slowly starves if you can't live off the land. They can out communicate you and coordinate fighting on the land, sea, air, and space, while you might have a short wave radio if you are lucky that they are also probably monitoring. They can of course out gun you, without even sending boots into harms way though probably dozens and dozens of different technologies and permutations of these technologies and strategies. I don't think Plato could have conceived of a predator drone, or a military satellite, or an aircraft carrier, or a nuclear submarine packed with ICBMs. The balance of power has never been so historically lopsided with who controls the technology of contemporary war.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  As odd as it may sound at first, I think safe to say that the overall asymmetry in professional vs civilian forces has dramatically decreased over time. Spain's conquest of the Inca Empire, a warlike nation, is analogous to the edge professional militaries of the times would have had against peasants. And they were able to destroy an entire empire of these 'peasants', with an 'army' of exactly 168 Spaniards. Disease played a relatively small role given these absurdly disproportionate odds. What mattered was horses, weaponry, and armor. It was enough to make the Spaniards seem literally invincible. In modern times, America has ostensibly the most powerful army on Earth. Yet in Afghanistan we lost to sandal wearing religious radicals primarily equipped with WW2 era weaponry and some improvised explosives. And our "victory" in Iraq was defined as being left constrained to micro-sized 'green zones' we're completely unable to leave without extensively armored and prepped convoys, or otherwise it's like to turn into a one way trip. Of course the catch is that it's dumb to mock things as 'WW2 era weaponry.' A Talibani armed with a Springfield 1903, or Mauser 1898, numbers indicating their manufacturing date, is not only able to kill literally any soldier, but also from extremely far distances. And until the opportunity emerges said Talibani can simply keep that rifle tucked under his robes, looking just like any other civilian. Unless the e.g. US wants to simply start engaging in mass genocide, it's essentially impossible to defeat these sort of insurrections. Especially when each person you kill suddenly turns their otherwise moderate neighbors, friends, and brothers into the next insurrectionists.