Comradeship // Freechat

I'd argue there are two reasons- the first is, that this is a product of all the contradictions of capitalism, which, particularly after Reaganomics and then the triumphalist "end of history" as the Soviet Union fell, reached a point wherein the beast began truly devouring itself- and all the foundations which it had built itself upon- at a pace greater than it could plunder back or reproduce in turn, and with ideological justifications and systemic corruption (ie. neoliberalism and the environment that enforces it- finance capitalism, the rentier-monopolist classes, etc) that have made recovery difficult if not nigh impossible without revolutionary change.

The second reason is that, simply put, barring genocide of the majority of the masses of the non-western world, this was the natural path of things- the global south, the colonized, far outnumber the west, and with the decadence, and also arrogance of the imperial cores, this decline was nigh inevitable as the rest of the world caught up and outpaced the west, and as deterrence and through it the ray of hope for independent powers and blocs emerged. The contradictions of capitalism and the empire prevented the actions needed for its final victory (if it were even possible); frankly if you ask me, the only way this victory could have been assured would have been if a thoroughly inhumane (and utterly monstrous, in a way that not even the worst genocidaires in history such as Hitler were) western leader, taking the logic of empire, would have undertaken Churchill's proposed "Operation Unthinkable" before the Soviets had developed their own nukes- and they would have not only nuked the Soviets, but used nukes, biological and chemical weapons, etc, etc. upon the entire rest of humanity to destroy even the seeds of hope and resistance- and even then it would likely not be enough, as the contradictions of capital and the empire are such that the bulk of their labor and extracted resources are from the periphery, and even of those truly and purely from the imperial cores, such a horror would inspire resistance, whether out of moral principles, the awareness that those within the core would increasingly be next, or the pragmatism of not wanting to rule over ashes.

China alone is already more populous than the entire west combined. Without a constant (and by necessity- explicitly genocidal) suppression, this development- where China would retake the place it has held for the vast majority of human history- was inevitable; even just the Chinese people alone can produce more than the west, innovate more than the west, and frankly for that matter they have a superior (indigenous) civilization (well, frankly I'd argue that every non-western civilization is inherently far superior in this aspect, so it's not just China) which is not founded upon the imperialist divide-and-conquer contradictions that exist even within the imperial cores- the settler-states most obviously, but also even England proper, France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc... the empire, and capitalism, is founded on a kind of chaos and conflict- the eternal suppression and beating down of the lower classes, the eternal search for the "other" to vilify and scapegoat for the flaws in the system, and the eternal race to the bottom, with whatever underhanded or destructive means necessary to gain a quick buck. Without the global south to plunder, and to vent its frustrations and contradictions upon, the west would have collapsed long ago, in the same sense that Nazi Germany (as an embodiment of the true nature of the west), in a triumphal world where they had eradicated all the "untermensch" and established a "pure 'Aryan' society" across the globe- would have eaten itself alive. If you ask me, the western system is such that not even a "virgin earth" all to themselves, could be enough to satiate even a capitalist nation as small as the Netherlands (nevermind the fact that being cut off of the bulk of the world's labor which it depends upon would be disastrous for it).

Competent imperialist could- and did- try to sustain the empire, further still. They co-opted and cannibalized new contenders- like Japan and Germany- successfully carved apart and mangled all the true (non-western) civilizations of the world- the Russian/Soviet, Chinese, Islamic, South Asian, West African, etc. civilizations. But the nature of the contradictions inevitably led to their arrogance, and seeking to extract more, more, and more from the global south and the working class, to the point where they exported even the foundations their empires were built upon (industrial production) to the colonized with the expectations the colonized, the "lesser slaves" could never build up against them- and better than they ever had- in turn; and to the point those nations that could have been co-opted, post-Soviet Russia in specific, but also countless other nations- the gulf Arabs, the south Asian states, nations across Latin America, Africa, Asia- was spurned rather than added into the fold without any consideration as to the basic dignity and volition it, and all of humanity, had to not simply go quietly into the dark, to not accept being carved apart, piece by piece, and eternally plundered.

@[email protected] has lain the second reason pretty well, but if you want more there’s TriContinental / Vijay Prashad:

• Video: Hyperimperialism: US-NATO’s Dangerous and Decadent New Stage, w/ Vijay Prashad
• Hyper-Imperialism: A Dangerous Decadent New Stage
• The Churning of the Global Order

As much as we clown on the Democrats and their supporters, it’s true that if the Democrats fail we will not have a liberal democracy.

Sorry (not sorry) to tell ya, but you already don't have a liberal "democracy." Red fascist or blue fascist, take your pick, or reject the system of fascism altogether. It's not a "democracy," and while the past two senile old white POTUSes have been bad for American PR, Obama himself was just as bad when you actually look at his actions on the ground, in domestic and foreign policy alike. And frankly, I'd argue Biden and the neocon gang are far more fascistic than Trump ever was, if not in token minority "rights" (temporary privileges, considering how easily they are disposed of or voided by the regime despite being called rights- and I say this as someone who is a racial minority, trans, etc) then absolutely in foreign and economic policy, and in the erosion of "liberal" "rights and freedoms" (but they paint it in a notably different way from Trump, talking about "fighting fascism/racism/anti-semitism/far right or left extremism/misinformation/protecting 'democracy'/etc").

If you want to know the truth, we are essentially going to have to repeat the work of SDS, the Black Panthers, and all the other post-Civil Rights activisist left-wing movements. Now, instead of the Russian Empire going down as an imperialist force in favor of the Communists, we will have to organize to make that happen in the US or the UK.

And sure, those movements will have to be repeated. But my point is also that this time around, it is not just the Russian empire that is in rapid decline- it is the entire imperialist bloc, and they are more precariously positioned than ever before (their foundations sundered, held afloat by exporting their inflation worldwide and trying to extort the world with the chips they have remaining), and the world is reaching such a point, where it can be said that it is developing beyond the imperialist bloc as-is.

this exact policy is also going to force China and Russia to be more agggressive, more competitive, and even form alliances and tighten up on separating their sphere of influence from that of “the West” or the US. This is very bad. This will push China to align more with the right-wing of the CPC. We don’t want that. Thankfully we have Xi Jingping as prevention, but I don’t trust whoever is going to succeed. It’s too shakey, too unpredictable.

And as I see it- why shouldn't I want much of what you describe? Not just for China and Russia, but the entire global south. You describe it as "right-wing," but words have meanings- what is "right-wing" about anti-imperialist alliance and development? Is this just some inherent fear and condemnation of "militarism" (even when it is for the clear purpose of defending against a blatant aggressor)? Military buildups and alliances do not equate to "right wing politics"- and frankly, economic development and even competition between states is also not the sole purview of right-wing politics. These things are a fact of life- and I fully embrace and cheer on their rapid development on these fronts, because the more the non-imperialist nations develop in this regard, the more we approach multipolarity and the end of hegemony to the western imperialist system.

Or did you think that China- or even for that matter, Russia- is going to imitate the west's failed system? That's clearly not what is underway. It's a loser's system, a system in its latest stages as the west is in now frankly even destroys more than it ever creates- a system which has hollowed out the once impressive (if wholly ill-gotten) imperial cores' infrastructure, industries, their very spirit. Socialism can be competitive; leftism can be competitive; and it is through the dictatorship of the proletariat that China has developed in such leaps and bounds while safeguarding the revolution, and in particular the characteristics of the revolution which guided China away from the many pitfalls that befell other nations- the Soviets and India as key examples of what China's condition would otherwise be.

What is Russia doing now, for instance? Do you think it is liberal economics which is allowing Russia to outproduce the entire west in Ukraine, or that the Russians are the "goose-stepping orcs" that the west paints them out to be, and that is unifying their war effort and morale? Why do you think Chinese and BRICS financing and cooperation is increasingly being chosen across the global south- because it is more extractive, more exploitative?

And- in regards to the "too shakey, too unpredictable" bit- while this is not complacency (as the rest of the world isn't going to save us in the imperial cores, and we can't count on that nor are we owed that, frankly rather the opposite if you think about it), at least in the sense that you may or may not have been calling into question the anti-imperialist bloc's development and overall direction- I wholeheartedly disagree. The rest of the world is moving in the right direction (multipolarity, win-win cooperation, actual "rules-based" order, etc), and it's a question of whether the imperialist bloc will succeed in their attempts to destroy this progress.

I still follow in my belief that we need fresh revolution. If Americans or the British can’t do it, there’s going to be some serious issues. It will be the equivalent of the German Revolution failing.

We (as in those of us in the imperial cores) need fresh revolution, yes. The rest of the world will determine their own path as they see fit, and if you ask me, by and large, for all that it is littered with flaws along the way, they're headed in more than the right direction. The world doesn't need the west to "reform themselves and save the day" otherwise though, they just need the west to get lost, to get out of the way of the rest of humanity (granted, I may have interpreted your tone and/or meaning somewhat wrong here, 50/50 on that). But I do agree otherwise- if the Americans or Europeans can't do it (or the Brits, but truth is also the Brits are increasingly irrelevant- a wonderful statement, that) we're going to see a world war and attempts by the imperialist bloc, at repeating and perhaps even eclipsing the fascist atrocities of the past century.