3 ms·

It’s two different dimensions. A country can be democratic or authoritarian, and also a country can be driven by conquest or not. For example, USA is a democra

by badpun 2y ago

It’s two different dimensions. A country can be democratic or authoritarian, and also a country can be driven by conquest or not. For example, USA is a democratic, conquest-driven empire. While Russia is an authoritarian, conquest-driven empire. Living in democratic empires is usually nice for citizens in the metropolis (the USA), while it can be absolutely miserable for the conquered parts (millions killed in SE Asia in countries attacked by USA and its cronies, in Iraq etc.). While, in Russia’s case, life in the metropolis is only somewhat less miserable than in the conquered non-Russian-majority regions.

Ancapistani 2y ago
> USA is a democratic, conquest-driven empire I disagree - in the details, at least :). "Conquest" requires overwhelming military force, which of course the US has. What it lacks is the desire to annex "conquered" territory or to directly subjugate competitor nations. I'd consider the US more of a modernized colonial power. The institutional goal of the US federal government seems to be to remake the world in its image, but to do so in a way that requires as little ongoing investment by them as possible. An example of this would be the concept of "regime change". The US sees nations with incompatible types of political organization as almost defective. It believes that those nations would obviously organize as a representative republic if only given the chance to do so - in fact, it believes that representative republicanism is the only natural form of governance, which by extension means that any nation with an incompatible political structure is a nation that has been subjugated by outside forces. That's why we do things like invade Afghanistan, hang around for a decade or two, set up elections that mirror ours, and then leave... only for the Taliban to come right back, take power, and ultimately benefit from our involvement. The older I get, the more I come to believe that some forms of governance - including representative republicanism - require a relatively well-educated populace that supports the concept. Lacking that, they revert to their previous state once US involvement withdraws. That's good news for me, as I ultimately want to see my descendants living in a world without governments with a monopoly of the legitimization of violence. If countries that lean toward authoritarianism can be "transformed" into other forms only temporarily, that means the driving force behind a sustainable governance is ultimately not force, but culture. "Political change" must be a consequence of social/cultural change to be long-lived.
- badpun 2y ago
  That’s the official story about itself that the US is telling to the world. Meanwhile, reality is very different. US does not care about „remaking countries in its image” and is very happy with supporting brutal dictatorships, as long as it is in its interest. In the end, it’s about geopolitical safety (securing critical resources, being able to place military bases right under the nose of potential rivals) and about allowing American capital to dominate the global economy. Curiously, one of the first laws that was forced upon Poland after joining the American world order in 1989 was intellectual property rights protection - i.e. making sure that people who back then were making 50 USD per month, will pay their tribute to Redmont and to Hollywood.

by badpun 2y ago

Ancapistani 2y ago

> USA is a democratic, conquest-driven empire I disagree - in the details, at least :). "Conquest" requires overwhelming military force, which of course the US has. What it lacks is the desire to annex "conquered" territory or to directly subjugate competitor nations. I'd consider the US more of a modernized colonial power. The institutional goal of the US federal government seems to be to remake the world in its image, but to do so in a way that requires as little ongoing investment by them as possible. An example of this would be the concept of "regime change". The US sees nations with incompatible types of political organization as almost defective. It believes that those nations would obviously organize as a representative republic if only given the chance to do so - in fact, it believes that representative republicanism is the only natural form of governance, which by extension means that any nation with an incompatible political structure is a nation that has been subjugated by outside forces. That's why we do things like invade Afghanistan, hang around for a decade or two, set up elections that mirror ours, and then leave... only for the Taliban to come right back, take power, and ultimately benefit from our involvement. The older I get, the more I come to believe that some forms of governance - including representative republicanism - require a relatively well-educated populace that supports the concept. Lacking that, they revert to their previous state once US involvement withdraws. That's good news for me, as I ultimately want to see my descendants living in a world without governments with a monopoly of the legitimization of violence. If countries that lean toward authoritarianism can be "transformed" into other forms only temporarily, that means the driving force behind a sustainable governance is ultimately not force, but culture. "Political change" must be a consequence of social/cultural change to be long-lived.

badpun 2y ago
That’s the official story about itself that the US is telling to the world. Meanwhile, reality is very different. US does not care about „remaking countries in its image” and is very happy with supporting brutal dictatorships, as long as it is in its interest. In the end, it’s about geopolitical safety (securing critical resources, being able to place military bases right under the nose of potential rivals) and about allowing American capital to dominate the global economy. Curiously, one of the first laws that was forced upon Poland after joining the American world order in 1989 was intellectual property rights protection - i.e. making sure that people who back then were making 50 USD per month, will pay their tribute to Redmont and to Hollywood.