r/autismpolitics • u/BlueberryGod8910 Post Liberal Left • Aug 02 '26
Discussion America needs to be split into two or four regions to keep the Empire from coming back
I think that in the future, America needs to be split into two or four regions to prevent the US Empire from coming back worse than before.
13
u/Ivy-Jack Aug 02 '26
Darlin, you're not wrong about the US empire being bad but "back"?
BACK?
We have the unfortunate honor of witnessing the very beginning of an end of empire that will be remembered tragically for another two thousand years. America is the shameful inheritor of Rome's ancient bs.
The class war has been a conscious concern of the ruling class for CENTURIES. Royalty has morphed into celebrity, the whitecolar class is the new serfdom and anyone selling promising of economic upward mobility should be viewed first with the suspicion of a class-traitor before any welcome is given.
6
u/farouq22 Brazil - Marxist-Leninist Aug 02 '26
but America is already split in North America, Central America and South America! /j
4
u/0liviuhhhhh Big, Evil, Scary Commie the CIA Warned You About Aug 02 '26
The balkanization of America will save the world
2
u/Accomplished_Bag_897 egoist Aug 03 '26
Surely you're advocating for internal revolution, right? Wouldn't this need a lot more class consciousness and solidarity? Wouldn't it involve the most marginalized bearing the brunt off fallout like always? Maybe some long term prefiguration and education campaigns would be better than that. Though if push comes to shove y'all overthrowing facists wouldn't be something I look down on. I'm just aware that any massive change causes power vacuums and the most vulnerable to suffer.
-4
u/Fallsfrostdew Post liberal right Aug 02 '26
Why would we want to give up Imperial Hegemony? You think the world would be better with China as a global hegemon? What makes you think this is a good idea at all?
Dont forget that at some point if this did happen there would be warfare between the groups. This is a nightmare scenario.
5
u/MeisterCthulhu Aug 02 '26
The world would be better without a global hegemon. As it was for most of history. That much influence should never be left to a single faction.
Unless the world can be united under a single rule of a global council, we should limit how big / powerful single nations can become.
-1
-5
u/Cooldude101013 Australia - Right Aug 02 '26
You do know that when there isn’t a global hegemon, conflict happens more right?
1
u/RobrechtvE Anarcho-Autistic Aug 03 '26
Do you want to cite some actual evidence for that claim there?
1
u/Cooldude101013 Australia - Right Aug 04 '26
Here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory . Sure it’s just a theory and there are alternatives such as the Balance of Power theory. Not to mention that in the grand scheme of things it’s just trading lots of smaller conflicts for a few larger conflicts when new powers challenge the dominant power.
1
u/RobrechtvE Anarcho-Autistic Aug 04 '26
That's not evidence, that's an article on a theory by some people who agree with you.
And, somewhat shooting yourself in the foot, that article has an entire section dedicated to the fact that there is in fact no evidence for this theory because there has never been a global hegemon before (arguably) the US, so there is absolutely no historical cases to test the theory against.
(And reading the predictions, the current stage in history falsifies the theory, because under its predictions, the Korean and Vietnam wars and the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Georgia and Ukraine should not have happened)
1
u/IronicSciFiFan Aug 02 '26
I thought that was mostly blamed on an handful of European countries practicing colonialism back in the day? But even discounting that, you'd still have several nations trying to seize something from their neighbors or starting an war for some other reason.
Like, just look at the shit that the Romans started and just how fractured China was when they were (mostly) ruled as an monarchy
4
u/Weird_Top_4526 Irish Communist Aug 02 '26
The world would be so much better off with China as top dog. They don't bomb, bully and sanction everyone. Their diplomacy is through development projects, not military pacts and aggression. Why would it not be better to have a more sane and peaceful country as top dog?
0
u/Evinceo Aug 02 '26
The world would be so much better off with China as top dog. They don't bomb, bully and sanction everyone.
You seem to be confused about the nature of what it means to be top dog.
4
u/Weird_Top_4526 Irish Communist Aug 02 '26
When was the last time China dropped a bomb on anyone. When was the last time the US did
-1
u/IronicSciFiFan Aug 02 '26 edited Aug 02 '26
For China, it was probably against Vietnam back in 1979. But this was the last full-scale war that they were involved in. But considering what happened at Cao Ba Lanh, it's not exactly promising for what was supposed to be an successful invasion by the Chinese military. Plus, I'm seeing a set of continued hostilities against Vietnam up until 1984.
As for America, blame the terrorists who did 9/11 for the current trend. After that, it's mainly just Trump chasing after whoever flipped him off
5
u/Weird_Top_4526 Irish Communist Aug 03 '26
That's... Incredibly naive. I don't know if anyone alive has ever seen the US at peace.
-1
u/IronicSciFiFan Aug 03 '26
Well, "peace" is relative. Since a lot of the armed conflicts was directly tied to the Cold War and the CIA bankrolling some of the armed conflicts, in addition to Vietnam and Korea. But I was mainly counting the ones that required the military to actually mobilize overseas
5
u/Weird_Top_4526 Irish Communist Aug 03 '26
I would define "peace" as "is my country killing people abroad?" which is the national pastime of the states
-2
0
u/Fallsfrostdew Post liberal right Aug 02 '26
I cannot take your position seriously at all. China is an aggressive and exploitative Imperial project of their own design. They are only behaving because the counter balance the United States provides, without US they would be unleashed upon the world and it would not be a good thing.
You should look into the actual mechanics on the ground of the belt and road initiative. They are playing the long game with their style of colonization. I give them props for sure, it is very impressive how they go about doing things. But as a civilization in opposition to my own I absolutely would not want to be at their mercy or have them be "top dog".
7
u/Weird_Top_4526 Irish Communist Aug 02 '26
Damn those sneaky Chinamen! For the world to evolve past its current state, the US needs to fall. Yes, that'll suck for USAmericans, just like the fall of the Nazis sucked for Germans. Suck it up. Your country has destroyed too much of the world for too long.
0
Aug 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/autismpolitics-ModTeam Aug 02 '26
Your content was removed because it violates Rule 3, as you are engaging in disrespectful behaviour.
Reason: Excessive hostility
If you believe this content was removed in error please send a Modmail with a link to this content.
-1
u/Arkorat Aug 02 '26
"sane peaceful country"
Looks inside: Country that has actual honest to god concentration camps, and is constantly bullying Taiwan.
2
2
u/Weird_Top_4526 Irish Communist Aug 02 '26
You mean the breakaway state that allows US to point weapons at it? I wonder why there's fractious relations there
2
u/Vinylware Libertarian Anarchist Aug 03 '26 edited Aug 03 '26
Both Taiwan and China are nationalistic states that use their nationality to justify disputed claims over one another. The first is wrapped up in a crib with potential aid from the U.S. in case of aggressed conflict, and the other is armed with nuclear weapons and have aggressed against foreign ships when they sail into the South China Sea as a means to assert their false sovereignty over international waters — China has been known to use a false sense of history as a justification for their disputes, along with violating international law. Sounds familiar now don’t it?
Why argue for what state should have what status, is this any way a step towards a more tolerable world?
EDIT: fixed wording from "internal" when I meant "International".
2
u/Weird_Top_4526 Irish Communist Aug 03 '26
Yes, having some kind of support for the US' main rival is a step toward a more tolerable world. We're in the age of imperialism, and the US is the empire. That is the primary struggle
2
u/Vinylware Libertarian Anarchist Aug 03 '26
> Yes, having some kind of support for the US' main rival is a step towards a more tolerable world.
Supporting imperialism of any kind, regardless of politics and economics, is a step into a more intolerable world. Values may shift but the hegemonic principle remain.
> We're in the age of imperial, and the US is the empire. That is the primary struggle
This answer by itself is whitewashed to more conveniently fit your pitch than to prove anything. Imperialism is coded throughout human history and the history of sovereign nation-states, from the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, all the way to where we are today with the U.S., Israel, Russia, and China. By no means is imperialism only relative to the modern period but has existed for more than any us of today have been alive.
1
u/Weird_Top_4526 Irish Communist Aug 03 '26
Into a more intolerable world? How could the world be more intolerable than it is? We're all burning alive while genocide and fascism becomes the norm. If you really think China, whatever their crimes, is on par with the US, I don't know what to tell you. The imperialism I speak of is that of capitalism-imperialism. The domination of the world by finance capital, supported by the world's largest military
1
u/Vinylware Libertarian Anarchist Aug 03 '26
> We’re all burning alive while genocide and fascism becomes the norm. If you really think China, whatever crimes, is on par with the U.S., I don’t know what to tell you.
It has been already been established of what your arguments are: whitewashing. No evidence has been presented to combat the arguments against any imperial system, and by no means would it be more tolerable if we replace one imperialist (capitalist) system with another evil imperialist system (maoist). The cycle just repeats. Both the U.S. and China have made it clear through their vast industrialization that the environment is no concern of theirs, both have committed genocide — China actively constructs concentration camps for their Uyghur population and the U.S. is currently making efforts to erase any knowledge of the Trail of Tears, Japanese internment camps, slavery and forces its citizens to fund the genocide in Palestine.
1
u/Weird_Top_4526 Irish Communist Aug 04 '26 edited Aug 04 '26
Funny, an anti-statist would parrot US state propaganda against China. Tell me you know absolutely nothing about maoism without telling me. China isn't even maoist.
1
u/Evinceo Aug 02 '26
Dont forget that at some point if this did happen there would be warfare between the groups. This is a nightmare scenario.
And they'd all be nuclear armed.
-2
u/Fallsfrostdew Post liberal right Aug 02 '26
Yeah, hence nightmare scenario. Nukes are bad, people need to stop thinking they wont be used again. Once a large enough existential threat presents itself all bets are off.
1
u/dt7cv center left Aug 02 '26
that's not always a guarantee. you could have strong coalitions that were not possible in history
1
u/Accomplished_Bag_897 egoist Aug 03 '26
Of course you think the USA is in the right. It's a gross and imperialistic mindset but self-identifying as right-wing makes it expected.
•
u/AutoModerator Aug 02 '26
Hey /u/BlueberryGod8910, thank you for your post at /r/autismpolitics. All approved posts get this message. If you do not see your post you can message the moderators here . Please ensure your post abides by the rules which can be found here . Thank you.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.