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.

You’ve almost got it, as capitalism progresses it turns into imperialism, which itself is self-defeating. The US Empire is also short on what it needs to keep producing arms, due to tight controls on rare Earths and other raw materials from China. This is why Lenin’s analysis of imperialism is useful, we see how imperialism causes de-industrialization and undermines itself.

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.

Yes, the US of 35 years ago had a stronger millitary. The US Empire has fancier tools, but cannot produce them at the same scale they once could. Quantitative buildup results in qualitative changes, this is why dialectics are necessary, not just metaphysical materialism. Materialism must be dialectical.

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.

It is how dialectics works. History is not a series of snapshots, but something that unfolds and changes over time as internal contradictions result in development and change. I’m not going into economic determinism, ideology itself has a material basis. You’re trying to hide idealist analysis behind materialist phrasing, but by treating the ongoing problems with the US Empire as a result of Trump alone you’re literally ascribing to Great Man Theory.

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.

Sure, my point here is that the US Empire’s ability to wage war is hindered. Iran will not fall no matter how much the US bombs it, they need boots on the ground to do so and the Statesian public has no appetite for this.

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.

Fascism is simply capitalism defending itself from decay. It has material conditions that drive it forward. I’m aware that actions have real effects, but you need to connect it to historical trends. Development happens in spirals, not just because of the actions. Actions create new conditions, but the material conditions impact what ideas are had and what actions people take. As people shape the material conditions around them, their ideas are re-shaped, in an endless process.

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.

Europe is imperialist too, and utterly subservient to the US. However, the imperislist system both depend on is weakening. Europe has practically no hard power, and the US Empire’s hard power is a shadow of its former self. Both are going down in a sinking ship.

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.

The US Empire isn’t falling tomorrow, but it isn’t going to take a century either. In the grand scheme of things, the fall of the world’s largest empire is quickly approaching and will likely happen within our lifetimes.

I think you should probably brush up on dialectics, I recently read through Materialism and the Dialectical Method by Maurice Cornforth, and if you ignore the Lysenkoist views of genetics (taken out once the gene was proven, but this is based on an earlier edition), it’s really a fantastic overview. The four basic principles of dialectical materialism are as follows:

1. Dialectics does not regard nature as a collection of static, isolated objects, but as connected, dependent, and determined by each other.

2. Dialectics considers everything as in a state of continuous movement and change, of renewal and development, where something is always rising and something is always dying away.

3. Dialectics is not a simple process of growth, but where quantitative buildup results in qualitative change, and qualitative change result in quantitative outcomes, as a leap in state from one to the other, the lower to the higher, the simple to the complex.

4. Dialectics holds that the process of development from lower to higher takes place as a struggle of opposite tendencies that forms the basis of their contradictions.

When you pin the current downfall of the US Empire on Trump’s actions, you miss the context of why those actions came to be, and why Trump’s strategy isn’t nearly as effective at securing imperialist gains as Reagan’s was. The US Empire of today is not the same as the US Empire of 30-50 years ago, and the biggest changes between then and now are that the US Empire has offshored most of its production, and the global south now has far more south-south trade and can escape the exploitative north-south trade by which unequal exchange functions. This results in development, and decreased superprofits.

What on Earth are you talking about? All real communist orgs use online agitation, newsletters, social media, and more. I’m not saying that shitposting is valuable, I’m saying it’s not what I mean by practice. You’re deeply confused.

Your entire argument is based on the idea that shitposting online is the primary means by which leftists organize. I organize with a communist party in real life, online memes and shitposting are by no means what people advocate as “practice,” it’s just a thing to do in free time. Take a step back and rethink what you believe is going on.

Public ownership is the principal aspect of the Chinese economy, and the working classes control the state. It’s definitionally socialist. How on Earth is a country where public ownership is principal “capitalist” in your eyes?

Leftists have regularly been advocating for organizing:

The problem with liberals is that they still think the democrats are a path to progress, rather than slow death.

You’re getting downvoted because your points have been thoroughly debunked, and we refuse to accept your fantasies as material reality.

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.

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.

Do you think, perhaps, that there could be a middle ground between “as awful as the US Empire” and “absolutely perfect and must not have any problems spoken about?” Do you think the position “US Empire is awful, China is good but not perfect” can exist, or is that too nuanced?

I think you should reread my comment and sources, as they already counter that article. Do you think I haven’t read that wikipedia entry already? It’s the first thing people jump to when trying to prove a genocide, despite being full of holes and referencing Adrian Zenz, or sources relying on Adrian Zenz. Have the basic decency to check out the sources I linked.

There is no genocide of Uyghurs. Uyghur genocide atrocity propaganda akin to claiming that there’s “white genocide” in South Africa, Christian genocide in Nigeria, or that Hamas sexually assaulted babies in Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.

In the case of Xinjiang, the area is crucial in the Belt and Road Initiative, so the west backed sepratist groups in order to destabilize the region. China responded with vocational programs and de-radicalization efforts, which the west then twisted into claims of “genocide.” Nevermind that the west responds to seperatism with mass violence, and thus re-education programs focused on rehabilitation are far more humane, the tool was used both for outright violence by the west into a useful narrative to feed its own citizens.

The best and most comprehensive resource I have seen so far is Qiao Collective’s Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation. Qiao Collective is explicitly pro-PRC, but this is an extremely comprehensive write-up of the entire background of the events, the timeline of reports, and real and fake claims.

I also recommend reading the UN report and China’s response to it. These are the most relevant accusations and responses without delving into straight up fantasy like Adrian Zenz, professional propagandist for the Victims of Communism Foundation, does.

Tourists do go to Xinjiang all the time as well. You can watch videos like this one on YouTube, though it obviously isn’t going to be a comprehensive view of a complex situation like this.

The PRC is leading the world in green energy production, electrification, and combatting desertification. They are the largest polluter because they are the largest producer, if you compare pollution based on consumption then the west is by far the larger polluter.

Lemmy.ml’s meme community allows political memes.

They’re probably far-right, which is why you find people in Nazi bars like MeanwhileOnGrad using it frequently: (credit to @[email protected] )

In that sense, I’d react similarly to whenever a fascist, Zionist, etc. starts attacking me. None of their points hold any water, so just point that out.

Yes, industrial capacity has decayed massively, and the US Empire is forced to pull its forces out of countries like the ROK in order to support its failing adventurist wars. Profits from imperialism are declining, which is why austerity is being brought home, and why the AI bubble is getting so big. Compare the current assault on Iran with how the Iraq War went, the US Empire just doesn’t have the industrial capacity nor the domestic support required to actually succeed.

China is democratic, though. In addition to QinShiHuangsSchlong’s comment, I recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we’ve learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.

Not by itself, agrarian slavery is different from industrial wage labor under private owners.

Just to be clear, by idealism we mean the conception that thought is prior to matter, ie supernatural explanations for material phenomena. We do not mean having ideals. An example of idealism is ascribing a morality to the state to begin with. There is no such thing as a supernatural “good or evil,” and that’s why Marxists reject such frames of argument.

Idealism?

The radioactive debatebro is my past reddit self… Trying to recover from that, haha.

What a dogmatic, overly reductive assessment.