Post #2327532

2026-03-14 13:49 UTC

>From when to when? And in what industries? Over the last few decades it has accelerated, impacting most production areas. Lots of it is shipped over to China, Vietnam, and other countries, in favor of an increasingly financialized service economy domestically. >What forces? The US is obligated to keep roughly 28,500 troops station in the ROK under a long-standing treaty. [THAAD units are being shifted over to the Middle East, which are critical for defense.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/11/redeployment-us-missiles-thaad-south-korea-middle-east-seoul-iran) >Austerity is not always an immediate indication that imperialism is declining. Neoliberalism always wants austerity, that doesn’t mean imperialism is in a constant state of decline. In this particular instance, it is most due to Trump giving outlandish budget increases to the Pentagon and the DHS whilst providing many of his billionaire buddies with massive tax cuts. Why did the US Empire shift to massive tax cuts and increased millitary spending? Because the global south is developing, increasing south-south trade, and the US Empire is trying to re-assert its dominance in the area. You're identifying a partial link, but you need to take this *further,* that's how dialectics works. >When has domestic support ever been necessary to continue war? Without domestic support, war efforts are undermined domestically. The Vietnam war, for example, became increasingly difficult as soldiers fragged their COs. It's easier to wage war when your public supports it. You're partially correct in that will alone doesn't do shit, but active resistance to the war effort *does* change the war. >I think you’re just overthinking this and what you’re noticing is a temporary (possibly permanent) slump in the US’s dominance because Trump is a colossal fuck up of a president. This is teetering into Great Man Theory, idealism rather than materialism. Trump is not the cause, but a symptom of the ongoing, gradual, quantitative decay in superprofits. As capitalism decays, fascism increases as the petite bourgeoisie faces proletarianization. >Were there to be any long term consequences to US hegemony, it would most likely be as a result of other Western powers becoming more wary of reliance on the US and seeking slightly more sovereignty from the US. However, i think we’re still a ways away from that outcome. Europe is toothless, and utterly dependent on the US millitarily. Even now, they are split between needing Russian LNG due to the war in Iran, and their loyalty to the US Empire. No, the biggest threat to the US Empire is the rise in the PRC, which has set up infrastructure accelerating south-south trade, which allows global south countries to escape exploitative north-south unequal exchange.

Replies (1)

@GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 2026-03-14 17:46

>Lots of it is shipped over to China, Vietnam, and other countries That's just regular capitalism? Labour is cheaper in Asia. Even then the US still maintains a tight hold on the aerospace, armaments and tech industries and still reversed some off-shoring; most notably the [semiconductor industry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act?wprov=sfla1). >[THAAD units are being shifted over to the Middle East, which are critical for defense The US also redeployed forces stationed in Europe deterring the USSR during the Gulf War, and yet it's still standing strong 35 years later. They also did this during the Iraq war and Vietnam war. The real question is, "Are the US going to be overextended if China, Russia or the DPRK start escalating tensions elsewhere?" Even at that point nukes enter the conversation and it stops being predictable. >You're identifying a partial link, but you need to take this *further,* that's how dialectics works. That's not how dialectics works. You're going too far and into economic determinism. Austerity policies aren't always pursued for economic ends; they can also be done in pursuit of ideological ends. >active resistance to the war effort *does* change the war. It changes it, but not damningly so. At best this shows contempt towards the current administration and not to the US Empire as a whole. >Trump is not the cause... As capitalism decays, fascism increases as the petite bourgeoisie faces proletarianization. If you haven't already, I suggest you look into Louis Althusser's idea of "Relative Autonomy" in texts like *For Marx* and *Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.* Trump is not the cause yes, but his actions still have real world effects that are not immediately tied to economic considerations. Similarly, fascism is a very specific thing. You can at best argue for general authoritarian outcomes due to the class conflict, but not fascism, as it is a specific ideology that can exist somewhat autonomously from the contradiction between capitalists and workers. >Europe is... dependent on the US militarily ...they are split between needing Russian LNG ...and their loyalty to the US Empire. Your own argument just proved why the US Empire is not in its dying stages. Europe is completely dependent on the US and their influence geopolitically has only seemed to increase since their increased alliance and integration with Israel in attempts to tie down the Middle East as well. Ask yourself this question: If the US was well and truly close to its end, why didn't EU members end up selling US bonds when Trump threatened Greenland? That's because they'd end up tanking their own economies in the process. US debt is the backbone of the entire global financial system. I can concede to you that the US isn't as dominant as it once was since the fall of the USSR and that things are more multipolar now, but the current argument is about whether the US is close to its fall, and i just don't see enough evidence supporting this claim. Don't get me wrong, the US empire *will* fall at some point, but you make it sound like it's imminent.

Open ##2327533