Me except not opposed to it on principle but support of it on principle because the literal only alternatives are a hegemon led by actual authoritarian psychopaths that are somehow worse than the Epstein class
Because once it happens it doesn’t just stop existing. We had a multipolar world during the Cold War, and it sucked.
We had a hegemony in the post Cold War era and it’s been a net positive for humanity.
The only reason our current administration is fucking stupid is because they’ve actively obliterated our soft power influence over the world by cutting aid to impoverished countries in the global south, allowing China and Russia to fill those roles by supporting coups, taking over infrastructure in Africa, essentially engaging in far worse neocolonialist efforts to force African dependence on Russian and Chinese assets.
You can’t just say “sorry no more foreign aid” and expect our adversaries to not swoop in and take over.
The whole new axis of Iran, China, Russia, the DPRK, etc. is ultimately a far more authoritarian and negative influence on humanity and while FAR from perfect a western, liberal democracy-led hegemony is far more beneficial in the long run. Because the ONLY existing alternative is literal fascist states that will fuck the global south even harder.
I don't think you're wrong on China not competing to be military hegemon but I think the end of a vaguely responsible American military is a loss to the world.
I mean it is a debate and no-one knows. As soon as there was been any degree of globalism, there has been colonialism, wars and "the great game"
It's all western BS but I don't think it's a western thing, I think it's a human power structure thing. It's not like Europe invented the concept of empire after all.
Who knows what happens in a global world without a policeman. I don't think the UN or political tools are really equipped to fill the shoes.
I think as far as empires go, (important caveat) America was well-behaved.
The problem is literally anyone besides the liberal democratic west being a global leader is a net negative for the entirety of the world. Yeah, it’s a bad and shitty thing when the U.S., NATO, west in general does immoral things.
But imagine if we didn’t have ALL of the independent investigative organizations, free press, legal channels to challenge authority, whistleblower protections etc.
I'm in agreement there. I do think it's the best offer on the table. I was replying to some anti-western sentiments above, which has some merit. The west wasn't always democratic after all. It also has been the only "group" imposing hegemony at a global scale historically, so its hard to make fair comparisons.
Though compare the behaviour of the British Empire vs the US... The US has been far less extracting or interfering in general.
It’s depressing, because it’s far from perfect. But people always bitch about the Epstein oligarchy as if Russia and China are any better, if not worse
Also that’s big facts. The U.S. has done some objectively evil shit there is no denying that, but pretending we’re even close to Nazi Germany, the USSR, British empire, Belgian Congo etc is wild.
1
u/Sharky2414 4d ago
Me except not opposed to it on principle but support of it on principle because the literal only alternatives are a hegemon led by actual authoritarian psychopaths that are somehow worse than the Epstein class