Howard Zinn -- We Should Welcome the Collapse of the US Empire

[marmar]

Published on Jul 4, 2014

US GDP is a smaller percentage of global GDP than it was 20 years ago. Wars of choice (i.e. wars of US aggression) are becoming obsolete for the US. There is a lot of evidence the US empire is collapsing, and many people are worried the US is losing its ability to manipulate countries with policies it favors. Howard Zinn says this is a good thing, and accurately predicted the US will not be able to act unilaterally anymore, for example in Syria, where the US was blocked from any serious intervention by Russia and China. The US can no longer act alone, which is a good thing. The longest period of history without a global war was a multipolar world.

Howard Zinn says that we should welcome the collapse of the US empire and start massively spending on programs at home to stimulate the economy. Positions that ought to be basic economics (MMT) and common sense. He says we should work on problems such as poverty instead of military.

[BrotherIvan]

1. Unfortunately, we are collapsing within as well as without

The fall of Rome wasn't good for Romans. We have entered the Dark Ages, that perhaps because we weren't around for the one in Europe, we have to go through as well.

[tk2kewl]

2. and laying the groundwork for a global corporate state

if collapse is a good thing i don't see it. Not when we have the intelligence and means to do something positive.

[Bucky]

9. Well, to be fair, the global corporatists only want our democracy emasculated, not our power.

I doubt they're going to pony up for their own armies--not when it's more cost effective to control the huge American military through lobbying and corporate buy-off packages for policy makers when they leave government service. So large multinationals do put most of their meat behind US power remaining a constant. The big problem seems to be that while the US has closed to maximized its military power, the rest of the world seems to want to catch up now, so that they can assert their own national interests.

This is a great time to have a World War One anniversary. You can almost smell the nostalgia.

[el_bryanto]

3. It's possible - but another model might be the UK

Which certainly has had some dark days since the collapse of the British Empire, but hasn't had another Dark Ages or the end of their civilization. Maybe as things retrench we will wise up and make some of the necessary changes.

Bryant

[BrotherIvan]

22. Good point--I actually thought the same thing as I was writing

Britain had to basically downsize as it went along and lost valuable territory. They then had to turn to the home front and remake themselves. They had some terrible years, such as the Thatcher Era, but it seems as though they have found a sense of themselves as a secular nation. I just wish they would stop electing elite bastards like Cameron.

The US is a very young country, who got to rule the world without going through the same maturity lessons. We also, because of our geography, do not fear invasion. So we have decided to put fingers in everyone's pies. Perhaps the transition will be smoother than we think, but I doubt it. I think the robber barons will suck this country absolutely clean before they move on. It's too bad because we have so many natural resources and could do very well with an insular society that provides a moderate lifestyle. We have the ability to grow enough food to feed our population and we have enough diversity of climate to create energy for everyday needs. But for those who demand sickening wealth and resources, who create war for massive profits which suck massive resources, the balance has tipped in a frightening way. We think we have to destroy everything so the 99% can have jobs, but in fact, because we are filling so many troughs and we just get crumbs, we are depleting our resources far too quickly. That's why they made such an effort for the last 30 years to get people to worship the rich.

But I have no answers other than kicking them out or the French solution.

[Bucky]

4. Historically, power vacuums produce a lot of death and destruction

You would think a professor of history would know this, or at least expect a progressive intellectual to care about all the death and destruction that a "collapsing" US empire would lead to.

But go ahead, cheer away, Howard.

[Xithras]

5. Change can be painful, but it must happen.

Besides, the American Empire has produced an incredible amount of death and destructing during its existence. I fail to see how the contraction of U.S. global power will make things much worse than they already are.

[Bucky]

7. I'm sorry you can't see how power vacuums create wars. But this is why we study history.

Yes, the US hegemony has led to needless deaths. The lack of there being a global "cop on the block" would have produced a lot more. The horrors in the world today are disproportionally concentrated in areas where there is no global trade regime. I'll refer you to websites that deal with The Pentagon's New Map to understand the link between globalized trade, which is largely a result of American hegemony, and the lack of major wars today.

I will also ask you to compare death and destruction levels of today with how things stood in the first half of the 20th century when there was no global super power, only regional powers jockeying for control of their regions. Wars were plentiful then and just learning how to be truly total wars of utter destruction. Humans today overall lead far more peaceful lives than the average person did a century ago.

As US power shrinks, as it inevitably will, we can either rejoice in the ego-correction history provides, which will lead to more Ukraines and more ISISes, or we can support policies that replace global cooperation for the relative shrinking of US global power so that there are fewer Ukraines.

What I mean by "Ukraines", if it's not obvious, is this: the Ukraine crisis is a result of a regional power struggle between the EU and Russia. There are power tussles going on between China and Japan now. Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh are constantly at gunpoint with each other. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been at a low boil for almost 70 years. In all these cases, it is constant American mediating and intervention and pressurizing, which is only effective because of American imperial power, that keeps each of these from blowing up into full scale warfare. North Korea is constantly kicking up its heels and American power has been the primary restraint on its plans to invade democratic South Korea. Hell, South Korea only became democratic when it did, and as nonviolently as it did, because of American pressure on the old military regime to quit repressing human rights.

If you want to live in a world without American hegemony (which is coming anyway), then you're asking to live in a world where no one is exerting pressure to keep these conflicts from blowing up and killing millions. Could the US have been more ethical in its administration of its virtual empire? Yes, we followed too much the dictates of transnational corporations (who, like you, want there to be fewer wars in the world--albeit for very different reasons). Yes, we could have and should do more to support human rights. But all empires crush little people along the road to desired stability. I think, relatively speaking, we've done fewer horrible things than other global empires in history--the Czars, the Kaisers of Russia & Austria, the British Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Qing Dynasty, the Meiji Era Japanese and others were relatively monstrous compared even to the worst of global America's sins.

That's what history tells us. We can't be perfect, but we can do better.

[CanSocDem]

6. Fear of "death and destruction"...

...is the only thing that keeps the empire alive. So, either get over that fear or live with the empire for the rest of your life. HZ is way beyond your comfort level as are most "progressive intellectuals".



.

[Bucky]

8. Actually, no, it's the power of trade that sustains the American "virtual empire"

But I'll refer you to my post above to explain just how the world benefits from America's lingering (and very temporary) global power dominance. Howard Zinn is not "beyond my comfort level" so much as his willful ignorance of what the unintended consequences are of American power falling in the world.

I have no idea of how you estimated how comfortable I am with the ideas of "most 'progressive intellectuals'"--I don't even know if you're scorning me with that insult or scorning intellectuals with your quotation marks. I do wish you could communicate your thoughts more clearly, and maybe with a tinge less sanctimony, so that we could have an actual discussion without resorting to verbal barbs.

[CanSocDem]

23. Your study of "history" notwithstanding....

...the demise of the "American Empire" as Howard Zinn envisions is quite unlike your historical examples. The AE is based on the illusion of wealth, a psychological aberration that keeps citizens from exercising their ultimate authority and an apparatus being created to cement the power of "wealth". It is not based on centuries old ethnic borders or re-visiting old military defeats or victories.

Most progressive intellectuals(and I use your word) I know, understand that capitalism is no friend of democracy. Its' goals are different and when they tell you that "capitalism" makes you free, they know THAT isn't true. And they know that the institutions of capitalism that are found only in America like a free market health industry, a compliant church industry and corporate control of most PUBLIC services.

No matter how much faith you have in your military and economic stranglehold of the globe, the sudden disappearance of the ideology of capitalism will do everybody a favour including 'your own selves'. Worst thing might be an army of Canadian healthcare workers flooding the borders to get you all healthy. Forums like this will help to acclimatize you to liberalism.


.

[leftstreet]

11. Like the vacuum after WWII that produced US empire?

Guess you're right

[Bucky]

14. WW2 was the act of America & the USSR filling up that vacuum.

But yes, once the world was effectively divided into two stable power camps, the numbers of wars reduced radically. Weapons, thankfully including the nuclear weapons, went unused after WW2.

[leftstreet]

15. See: Korea, Vietnam, MidEast, Congo, all of Latin America...

Hello?

You honestly believe there's been no 'death and destruction?'

Good grief

[Bucky]

16. You can't just put words in my mouth. Where did I say "no death and destruction"?

No where. It's strange, I normally associate people willfully ignoring the facts they don't like with conservatives.

What I've said in all my posts is that there were comparatively fewer wars when there was a big hegemonic power at the top of world affairs. Over several posts I clearly stated wars were fewer or reduced, not "none." In case the nuance is still missing you, "fewer" means greater than zero, but less than more.

I hope you understand that once you start having to make up stuff to win your arguments, you're no longer arguing.

But let's do an experiment. Let's count the number of deaths by war before 1945 and the number of deaths after 1945. Go 50 years in either direction. Which is bigger? Why is one bigger than the other? What prevented other wars from happening in the time of less war?

[leftstreet]

17. You said vacuums create death and destruction

I suggested US Empire Imperial Vacuum Filler has created much death and destruction

[bemildred]

10. I do. It's been a disaster. nt

[Yavin4]

12. When you look at Detroit, you wonder why we are wasting our time trying to rebuild Iraq

or Syria.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Eventually, all empires become like adolescent boys strutting their stuff to the world.

The Egyptians, the Romans, the Brits, the French, all thought they were "exceptional". They all discovered they weren't even necessary.

[randome]

18. What, adolescent girls don't strut? For shame.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[BlindTiresias]

19. Well things improved for nearly everyone under roman hegemony after it fell

People like to idealize Rome but they forget that the lives of most of its inhabitants were terrible and made the serfdom that followed it look like paradise. I suppose it is telling when people of an age marvel at their architectural works and military campaigns and forget the 30-40% of the empire who were slaves and the untold numbers of people murdered and families destroyed by Roman greed.

[closeupready]

24. Likewise, human slavery exists today, STILL - and yet, few talk about it.

Why? Likely because it serves commercial interests, as long as we all sort of look the other way, and condemn it mostly with stern words if pushed, but little else.

More generally, I don't "welcome" any systemic collapse; but what I have been saying for years is that empire serves the 1%, NOT the 99%, and its institutions are paid for by the 99%, NOT the 1%. Thus, empire makes no sense for most people.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

20. Read "The Better Angels of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker.

It's also a TED talk. Link below.

He states that World War II was the high point of the 20th century for wars and murder of civilians. And it's been going down ever since. He has graphs and all.


http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence

[BlindTiresias]

21. Not as solid as you might assume

There has been some pretty good criticism of that book since it has come out, he tends to cherry pick data and has a disturbing propensity to omit civilians deaths and less active forms of violence (such as endemic starvation).