4 ms·

It wasn’t just the GOTW. It was much of the 20th century from World War I onward. Each step led to further centralization of government, a larger and larger sec

by rayiner 4mo ago

It wasn’t just the GOTW. It was much of the 20th century from World War I onward. Each step led to further centralization of government, a larger and larger security apparatus, and more and more foreign entanglements. We are more or less retracing the path of Rome as the Republic expanded militarily until it was no longer practical to run it as a republic and it transitioned to empire.

danans 4mo ago
> We are more or less retracing the path of Rome as the Republic expanded militarily until it was no longer practical to run it as a republic and it transitioned to empire. The current military "excursion" seems to be transitioning the US out of being an empire.
- rayiner 4mo ago
  Rome took some unexpected Ls against the barbarians too. Didn’t change the trajectory of the empire.
  - shakna 4mo ago
    The failure to integrate the barbarian Goth refugees is generally marked as the beginning of the fall - and absolutely changed the trajectory of the empire.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
    - rayiner 4mo ago
      “Failure to integrate” is one way to describe the Goths sacking Rome. But I agree the barbarians did them in at the end. My point was that the Iran fiasco is more like the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, where Rome backed off after taking a beating. That didn’t mark a transition away from Empire, simply a retreat after a military loss.
      - shakna 4mo ago
        And my point, is the current administration is closer to Caligula and Nero, than they are to Varus. You see this as nothing more than another blip in a long history. I see unstable and dangerous individuals getting standing ovations for failure. "I don't care if they respect me so long as they fear me." - Caligula.
      - rvba 4mo ago
        The Iran fiasco is Suez Canal 2.0
        arethuza 4mo ago
        Did you mean the 1956 Suez Crisis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
      - modo_mario 4mo ago
        >is one way to describe the Goths sacking Rome To be fair they had been in the empire for a good amount of years at that time if i remember well. ...so when comparing to other previous influxes that did get integrated and/or assimilated it does seem apt.
      - constantius 4mo ago
        Teutoburg wasn't a battle but an ambush, and Rome killed almost everyone involved in the next years. This didn't represent a retreat: Germans weren't conquered because they had nothing to conquer. Rather, hopefully, Iran will be to the US what Turks were to Byzantium.
        rayiner 4mo ago
        > Rather, hopefully, Iran will be to the US what Turks were to Byzantium The Turks conquered Byzantium (and India, etc)?
        ricree 4mo ago
        > Rather, hopefully, Iran will be to the US what Turks were to Byzantium. An invading force that settles within it and ultimately destroys it before launching expansionist invasions to all of its neighbors?
  - marcus_holmes 4mo ago
    The "trajectory of the empire" is that it became the Roman Catholic Church. Rome still rules a sizable portion of the world's population. I wonder if the USA is going the same way. Democratic Church of America?
    - sally_glance 4mo ago
      Homelander approves.
    - graemep 4mo ago
      Rules? Membership of an organisation is nothing like being a subject of an empire. Its purely voluntary. It has less power over its members than employers do. It cannot tax, only ask for donations. Its not even Rome - its run by people from all over the world. It controls only a tiny bit of territory.
      - bryanrasmussen 4mo ago
        question - do the representatives and elected members of a democracy rule? Rule, under the definition of control or dominion, is "The exercise of authority over a region or people, or the duration of a monarch's reign (e.g., colonial rule)", the word rule is often applied to mean what the leaders of a democracy do, but in most cases rule seems too strict if taking the normative definition, thus there is an informal usage that applies to democratic leadership. The President is often referred to as a ruler, corporate elites are often referred to as rulers; in these informal groups of rulers I think it is reasonable to place the Catholic Church. I am agreeable to say they do not rule, but then we must admit they exert a great influence, in many places and ways greater than the governments that officially hold power.
      - marcus_holmes 4mo ago
        Every single human living in Europe for around a thousand years went to a priest once a week and told them their innermost darkest secrets. There has been no more totalitarian rule ever implemented, anywhere. The North Koreans aspire to what the Catholic Church had.
    - 4mo ago
  - mullingitover 4mo ago
    Who were the barbarians, really? Caesar’s conquest of Gaul was basically a massive human trafficking organization that functioned as a pyramid scheme, and Rome only went downhill (in terms of basic human decency) from there.
    - __del__ 4mo ago
      this is a dense comment (there's a lot here to unpack). it sounds like you're saying: once it became clear that conquest with an explicit intended return of large numbers of enslaved people would allow caesar to pay debts and fund further expansion, the pyramid was capped and required exponential expansion to perpetuate its economic aims. and this was the beginning of the end. a model which required autocratic steering to operate.
- Terr_ 4mo ago
  Either way, I'd just caution that the empire-ness of a country's military or diplomatic reach doesn't necessarily tell us what to expect in terms of its internal hellhole-ness of authoritarianism.
  - rayiner 4mo ago
    The two things are related because maintenance of the empire imposes demands on the domestic political and economic structure. Look at the domestic politics during Vietnam and the GWOT.
- rvba 4mo ago
  The poster above seems to promote the secession of Texas and other states - what is the next step of the russian propaganda playbook to ruin USA
  - amanaplanacanal 4mo ago
    Would secession ruin the USA? Hard to know. Secession from the EU has certainly been bad for the UK, but the rest of the EU seems to be doing ok.
    - rvba 4mo ago
      Of course seccession would be bad for USA. Worse for Texas than the states that remained. Note that we heard before Brexit that it would not cause problems, yet it in fact bring benefits as expected by anyone with any idea how economy works. UK has a 6% decline of the economy due to Brexit https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg75npqkq4o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg75npqkq4o
    - danans 4mo ago
      > Secession from the EU has certainly been bad for the UK, but the rest of the EU seems to be doing ok The UK might have paid the biggest price due to Brexit, but the EU also lost a significant trading partner for it's goods and services. Arguably it was a lose-lose outcome.
- klntsky 4mo ago
  The empire is not defined merely as "a big state with deep foreign influence". In this context it is about the style of governance rather than strength
- tharmas 4mo ago
  On the contrary, the goal is energy dominance and it seems to be working. To be clear, I do not support how this is being achieved. In its endeavor the US has made a lot of people furious against it.
gmadsen 4mo ago
A Pax Romana would be a considerable upgrade
- rayiner 4mo ago
  No it wouldn’t. The empire sapped Rome and destroyed its democracy.
pyrale 4mo ago
> It wasn’t just the GOTW. It was much of the 20th century from World War I onward. If you're looking for the seeds of imperialism, you'll find them all the way back to US independence. The point the article is making is that 2001 was a tipping point in that evolution.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
inigyou 4mo ago
Do you mean GWOT? Global war on terror?
pso 4mo ago
If GOTW, actually means GWOT and Global War on Terror, please have courtesy of reading your posts beforehand, and perhaps also not assuming a US audience.
lopsotronic 4mo ago
For all the editorial hay to be made from the "The Victory of Capital" or the purported "Inevitable Self-Destruction of Communism (with Russians In It)", the process of nations transforming into "security state zombies" is probably less a model of economics/ideology and more a normal lifecycle stage for nuclear powers. It's mistaking metabolic stage for victory. Once a major power has credible nuclear deterrent, the functions of the Westphalian state focuses on that singular threat of destruction - it's a cannon that ends the state. Having it be a single cannon is antithetical to an open society or democratic patterns in government. Hence, Security State Zombie, unable to perform anything other than its duties of destruction. Russia started the game in a depleted state and hit the lifecycle stage first - less open society to burn down. We teetered for a long time, but the 9/11 attacks, combined with a reactionary wing that no longer had to run a moral race with the Communists, sent the balance over the edge. I suspect, right now, we are seeing the "Yeltsin Era", where people finally lose their last patience with the established system, and during which the nomenklatura/technocrats/security state solidify their holdings in communications and media. Terminating this period in an orderly fashion will require some organizational energy and talent. Increased direct cooperation between national security "black" assets and local law enforcement like Texas Marshalls (hey like in Sicario, except not in Mexico), or between black assets and federal groups not operating under legislative or judicial oversight (which I leave to you to name). It will not be a modest effort - the local assets will need to be linked up with aggressively, as they are less numerous than the law enforcement under direct local jurisdiction. I do wonder who our Putin will be, or if we will even see his face without a thermonuclear bonfire.

by rayiner 4mo ago

danans 4mo ago

> We are more or less retracing the path of Rome as the Republic expanded militarily until it was no longer practical to run it as a republic and it transitioned to empire. The current military "excursion" seems to be transitioning the US out of being an empire.

rayiner 4mo ago
Rome took some unexpected Ls against the barbarians too. Didn’t change the trajectory of the empire.
- shakna 4mo ago
  The failure to integrate the barbarian Goth refugees is generally marked as the beginning of the fall - and absolutely changed the trajectory of the empire.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 4mo ago
    “Failure to integrate” is one way to describe the Goths sacking Rome. But I agree the barbarians did them in at the end. My point was that the Iran fiasco is more like the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, where Rome backed off after taking a beating. That didn’t mark a transition away from Empire, simply a retreat after a military loss.
    - shakna 4mo ago
      And my point, is the current administration is closer to Caligula and Nero, than they are to Varus. You see this as nothing more than another blip in a long history. I see unstable and dangerous individuals getting standing ovations for failure. "I don't care if they respect me so long as they fear me." - Caligula.
    - rvba 4mo ago
      The Iran fiasco is Suez Canal 2.0
      - arethuza 4mo ago
        Did you mean the 1956 Suez Crisis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis
    - modo_mario 4mo ago
      >is one way to describe the Goths sacking Rome To be fair they had been in the empire for a good amount of years at that time if i remember well. ...so when comparing to other previous influxes that did get integrated and/or assimilated it does seem apt.
    - constantius 4mo ago
      Teutoburg wasn't a battle but an ambush, and Rome killed almost everyone involved in the next years. This didn't represent a retreat: Germans weren't conquered because they had nothing to conquer. Rather, hopefully, Iran will be to the US what Turks were to Byzantium.
      - rayiner 4mo ago
        > Rather, hopefully, Iran will be to the US what Turks were to Byzantium The Turks conquered Byzantium (and India, etc)?
      - ricree 4mo ago
        > Rather, hopefully, Iran will be to the US what Turks were to Byzantium. An invading force that settles within it and ultimately destroys it before launching expansionist invasions to all of its neighbors?
- marcus_holmes 4mo ago
  The "trajectory of the empire" is that it became the Roman Catholic Church. Rome still rules a sizable portion of the world's population. I wonder if the USA is going the same way. Democratic Church of America?
  - sally_glance 4mo ago
    Homelander approves.
  - graemep 4mo ago
    Rules? Membership of an organisation is nothing like being a subject of an empire. Its purely voluntary. It has less power over its members than employers do. It cannot tax, only ask for donations. Its not even Rome - its run by people from all over the world. It controls only a tiny bit of territory.
    - bryanrasmussen 4mo ago
      question - do the representatives and elected members of a democracy rule? Rule, under the definition of control or dominion, is "The exercise of authority over a region or people, or the duration of a monarch's reign (e.g., colonial rule)", the word rule is often applied to mean what the leaders of a democracy do, but in most cases rule seems too strict if taking the normative definition, thus there is an informal usage that applies to democratic leadership. The President is often referred to as a ruler, corporate elites are often referred to as rulers; in these informal groups of rulers I think it is reasonable to place the Catholic Church. I am agreeable to say they do not rule, but then we must admit they exert a great influence, in many places and ways greater than the governments that officially hold power.
    - marcus_holmes 4mo ago
      Every single human living in Europe for around a thousand years went to a priest once a week and told them their innermost darkest secrets. There has been no more totalitarian rule ever implemented, anywhere. The North Koreans aspire to what the Catholic Church had.
  - 4mo ago
- mullingitover 4mo ago
  Who were the barbarians, really? Caesar’s conquest of Gaul was basically a massive human trafficking organization that functioned as a pyramid scheme, and Rome only went downhill (in terms of basic human decency) from there.
  - __del__ 4mo ago
    this is a dense comment (there's a lot here to unpack). it sounds like you're saying: once it became clear that conquest with an explicit intended return of large numbers of enslaved people would allow caesar to pay debts and fund further expansion, the pyramid was capped and required exponential expansion to perpetuate its economic aims. and this was the beginning of the end. a model which required autocratic steering to operate.
Terr_ 4mo ago
Either way, I'd just caution that the empire-ness of a country's military or diplomatic reach doesn't necessarily tell us what to expect in terms of its internal hellhole-ness of authoritarianism.
- rayiner 4mo ago
  The two things are related because maintenance of the empire imposes demands on the domestic political and economic structure. Look at the domestic politics during Vietnam and the GWOT.
rvba 4mo ago
The poster above seems to promote the secession of Texas and other states - what is the next step of the russian propaganda playbook to ruin USA
- amanaplanacanal 4mo ago
  Would secession ruin the USA? Hard to know. Secession from the EU has certainly been bad for the UK, but the rest of the EU seems to be doing ok.
  - rvba 4mo ago
    Of course seccession would be bad for USA. Worse for Texas than the states that remained. Note that we heard before Brexit that it would not cause problems, yet it in fact bring benefits as expected by anyone with any idea how economy works. UK has a 6% decline of the economy due to Brexit https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg75npqkq4o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg75npqkq4o
  - danans 4mo ago
    > Secession from the EU has certainly been bad for the UK, but the rest of the EU seems to be doing ok The UK might have paid the biggest price due to Brexit, but the EU also lost a significant trading partner for it's goods and services. Arguably it was a lose-lose outcome.
klntsky 4mo ago
The empire is not defined merely as "a big state with deep foreign influence". In this context it is about the style of governance rather than strength
tharmas 4mo ago
On the contrary, the goal is energy dominance and it seems to be working. To be clear, I do not support how this is being achieved. In its endeavor the US has made a lot of people furious against it.

gmadsen 4mo ago

A Pax Romana would be a considerable upgrade

rayiner 4mo ago
No it wouldn’t. The empire sapped Rome and destroyed its democracy.

pyrale 4mo ago

> It wasn’t just the GOTW. It was much of the 20th century from World War I onward. If you're looking for the seeds of imperialism, you'll find them all the way back to US independence. The point the article is making is that 2001 was a tipping point in that evolution.

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]

inigyou 4mo ago

Do you mean GWOT? Global war on terror?

pso 4mo ago

If GOTW, actually means GWOT and Global War on Terror, please have courtesy of reading your posts beforehand, and perhaps also not assuming a US audience.

lopsotronic 4mo ago

For all the editorial hay to be made from the "The Victory of Capital" or the purported "Inevitable Self-Destruction of Communism (with Russians In It)", the process of nations transforming into "security state zombies" is probably less a model of economics/ideology and more a normal lifecycle stage for nuclear powers. It's mistaking metabolic stage for victory. Once a major power has credible nuclear deterrent, the functions of the Westphalian state focuses on that singular threat of destruction - it's a cannon that ends the state. Having it be a single cannon is antithetical to an open society or democratic patterns in government. Hence, Security State Zombie, unable to perform anything other than its duties of destruction. Russia started the game in a depleted state and hit the lifecycle stage first - less open society to burn down. We teetered for a long time, but the 9/11 attacks, combined with a reactionary wing that no longer had to run a moral race with the Communists, sent the balance over the edge. I suspect, right now, we are seeing the "Yeltsin Era", where people finally lose their last patience with the established system, and during which the nomenklatura/technocrats/security state solidify their holdings in communications and media. Terminating this period in an orderly fashion will require some organizational energy and talent. Increased direct cooperation between national security "black" assets and local law enforcement like Texas Marshalls (hey like in Sicario, except not in Mexico), or between black assets and federal groups not operating under legislative or judicial oversight (which I leave to you to name). It will not be a modest effort - the local assets will need to be linked up with aggressively, as they are less numerous than the law enforcement under direct local jurisdiction. I do wonder who our Putin will be, or if we will even see his face without a thermonuclear bonfire.