Will there be Civil War in America? [Archive]

mykittyhasaboner

28th April 2009, 01:17

There is some truth to his ideas though, hes absolutely correct that the US is too decentralized, and that different states can be radically different as far as laws, economic development etc. The split up of the US while certainly possible (I mean it has happened before) is not likely to happen in my opinion because the central government is beginning to play a larger role in the political process.

Also, this talk about Alaska returning to Russia is just nonsense.

Punisa:

Unfortunately for us socialists, US capitalist system is to strong and to well organized to just crumble apart.It is weakening though, as far as the situation in the US itself goes. Really, as well all already know, the US wouldn't be able to sustain itself if it wasn't for exploiting workers in imperialist-oppressed nations for their cheaper and easier to control labor. While its not on the fringe of crumbling apart, its definitely beginning to tear at the seams as more and more economic woes come as a result of the financial crisis. But really, only time will tell.

Revy

28th April 2009, 01:23

Or the RT channel loves to hear stories about Alaska joining Russia :lol:

Well Russia sold Alaska to the U.S. in 1867.

Alaska has no movement to join Russia. There is an independence movement but it's right-wing.

Oktyabr

28th April 2009, 01:23

There is the possibility we could pull a Soviet Union on the world. Nobody saw that one coming. In the USSR you had hardcore communist radicals attempting a coup, and guess what? We have some idiotic right wingers who supposedly harken back to the declaration of independence with their "tea parties". Who knows what those nutjobs will do.

Just a thought

Oktyabr

28th April 2009, 01:28

Revulero

28th April 2009, 01:34

Well Russia sold Alaska to the U.S. in 1867.

Alaska has no movement to join Russia. There is an independence movement but it's right-wing.

Yeah, there's also an independence movement going on down here, but its sure as hell right wing. They all call the annexation of Texas illegal and praise Ron Paul for the so called "revolution". During the tea party b.s. republican governor Rick Perry called for texas to secede the union, but he later repented saying his words were misinterpretated. I also know some Chicanos nationalist who support an independent texas or the nation of Aztlan.

Revy

28th April 2009, 01:40

http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/DividedStates_opt.jpg

LOL!

Revulero

28th April 2009, 01:52

....and puerto rico will go to venezuela.:laugh:

Oktyabr

28th April 2009, 01:55

http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/DividedStates_opt.jpg

LOL!

good one XD

RedScare

28th April 2009, 01:56

I doubt it, things just aren't that bad yet.

STJ

28th April 2009, 02:03

http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/DividedStates_opt.jpg

LOL!
I have seen that before and what a joke.

IcarusAngel

28th April 2009, 02:05

I'd love to live in the California republic. I was actually born there, not in the "red state" i'm in now. Frankly, I don't think that would happen as said, and if it did, it wouldn't be divded like that probably.

Revy

28th April 2009, 02:09

If I were to make a map like this to speculate about the issue, I'd at least make it a bit more profound instead of drawing random lines.

I mean, just look at it. He called all those states Texas despite none of them identifying with that. He put really conservative Southern states in the same group as more liberal Northern states, and then said they'd join the European Union. Um, hello, how is it part of Europe in the first place?

And all regions HAVE to be controlled by some other country. Do you really think the US would split up and NO area would be independent? This does not look at all like what would happen after a civil war. It looks like what would happen after an international war.

Brother No. 1

28th April 2009, 03:09

punisa

28th April 2009, 03:23

http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/DividedStates_opt.jpg

LOL!

Atlantic America - May join the European Union :laugh:
Those nowadays Russian professors.. they sure enjoy their vodka shoots on a daily basis :laugh:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38077000/jpg/_38077446_drunk_150.jpg
"mmm, Alaska..."

Robespierre2.0

28th April 2009, 03:26

I think civil war is possible, but if it did happen, I'm pretty certain it wouldn't play out according to that Russian professor's predictions.

The last Civil War was the result of a contradiction in American society between two dialectical opposites- industrial capitalism in the North, agrarianism in the South, that eventually reached a boiling point and turned into a full-scale conflict.

If we look at contemporary American society, I see many contradictions that cannot be resolved in a way that pleases both sides- for instance, I think the Israel situation is the perfect example of a contradiction between the old, neoconservative bourgeoisie who are intolerant of a multi-polar world, and therefore label everyone that takes up arms against them as terrorists, and the more social-democratic progressive bourgeoisie, who realize the United States won't be on top for much longer, and who show signs of a willingness to compromise with forces hostile to the U.S.

The thing about the right-wing or neoconservative bourgeoisie and the population under their sway is that, as far as I can understand, every moderate social-democratic reform or concession made to an enemy of the U.S. appears to them as signs that the government is increasingly falling under the hands of leftist radicals. With the economy collapsing, and anti-U.S. resistance movements experiencing a resurgence it looks like Obama and his administration will be forced to make many more reforms and concessions. The right wing is pretty batshit already, but I shudder to think at how bad they could get, with the way things are headed now.

Jack

28th April 2009, 03:27

http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/DividedStates_opt.jpg

LOL!

No offense, but it would be 10 times better if the NE didn't include anything south of Maryland.

ComradeR

28th April 2009, 07:38

http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/DividedStates_opt.jpg

LOL!
Now that to me looks more like a map of spheres of occupation.

ComradeR

28th April 2009, 07:45

I don't think civil war is probable at this point but it does have the potential as Cmde. Mantis put it. It may very well come to a point where the rabidly anti-communist monsters the imperial US bourgeoisie has created will turn on them as they try to make reforms and concessions in an attempt to preserve the empire. Now how ironic would that be.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

28th April 2009, 08:04

The chances of civil war are slim to none. A civil war requires people to fight. If the rumor of civil war broke out here most of the population would just sit in front of their TVs watching Fox News.

"Dammit, show somethin' blowin up already! What the feck is dis anyhow, the Lifetime channel?!"

Of course, those are just the people who care, which wouldn't even be half of all Americans.

"Like, what the fuck? They're like not showing American Idol for this, like, stupid shit?

Like bor-ring"

S.O.I

28th April 2009, 13:21

there is a civil war in the USA

kvVbWHmznhg

Oktyabr

28th April 2009, 13:43

Dimentio

28th April 2009, 13:55

Very strange theory. I don't see it happening.
It's not even a strong discussion, my guess is that the guy is trying to sell his book or something.
Or the RT channel loves to hear stories about Alaska joining Russia :lol:

Unfortunately for us socialists, US capitalist system is to strong and to well organized to just crumble apart.
These theories stay theories, the only thing that can bring the change in US are its people.

An economic collapse could rip the US apart. After that, the risk for a civil war increases. But I actually think some of the western European countries are closer to the risk.

Elway

28th April 2009, 14:02

Probably some of the stupidest and funkiest wishful thinking around:

1. Re: the other U.S. will collapse" stuff, comparing the U.S. to the U.S.S.R. collapse: Remember, the USSR has its origin in forced membership. Generally, states themselves "joined" the United States, and since 1865, the United States has had a sense of nationalism. There have been some slight upsetness about membership, such as native Hawaiians, but this is hardly the case nationwide. Americans see themselves as Americans. Period.

2. Alazka would not "go to Russia". What would be its advantage to do so?

3. Hawaii would not "go to China". What would be its advantage to do so?

4. Either #2 or #3 would lead to a unifed United States, and war against the oppressor invader.

5. Both the "professor" and "blogger" Y-Tube presentations are horseshit, and the usual Russia Today "hoard gold", "live together and share everything to the point of discomfort"; in other words: become Russian Soviets. WOW! These people at RT just don't know America and Americans.

6. Americans are beginning to live in new, multi-generational situations, but it is not leading to a Russian version of living, 1940s - 1980s.

7. Generally speaking, Russia has a history of thinking along these lines: conspiracy, lies, trickery, and backstabbing is the normal method of their media and coverage on everything.

All of this thinking of the U.S. either having a civil war or splitting up is just plain silly. Their would be no advantage to it happening, and as the current U.S. president's favorite president is Lincoln, well, you can all figure it out.

NecroCommie

28th April 2009, 14:24

7. Generally speaking, Russia has a history of thinking along these lines: conspiracy, lies, trickery, and backstabbing is the normal method of their media and coverage on everything.

That one is a plain lie! That is what it might seem like from the western world, but having regularly been in Russia, they mostly think the same of us. Both westerners and Russians have equally backstabbing political culture, with no major differences.

Elway

28th April 2009, 15:22

Both westerners and Russians have equally backstabbing political culture, with no major differences.

Ha ha ha!!!

Yes...just as many people in Western nations have immigrated to Russia, as Russians have immigrated to Western nations.

Sure they have.

Generally speaking, there are plenty of nations, such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and even the U.S. and Canada, whose people give their leaders a far greater approval ratings than Russians ever have.

Throughout their history, Russians have ALWAYS believed NEARLY EVERYTHING about their governments have been HORRIBLE toward the people. The same has not been so in the West. Russian leaders have generally been RUTHLESS towards their citizens. The same cannot be said of the Western nations.

I'm not talking Marxism v. Capitalism, as much as I'm talking about a history of violence by Russians, against Russians, as part of naitonal policy, announced, and hidden.

But generally speaking, the fact that there's no "Rush to Nationalize" as Russian citizens, versus the reverse towards the West, speaks volumes.

NecroCommie

28th April 2009, 15:25

You really have never seen a real russian now have you?

It is true that the actual politics are different for the two factions, but the methods are identical. The reason we hear all the bad stuff here in west is because... well, because we live in the west. All the western nations attack their own populace with similar ferocity, but the difference is that no-one ever hears about it publicly. One has to read some underground extremist newspapers to find that shit out, yet when Russia even suggests something similar its all over the media with capital letters.

Immigration rarely has anything to do with politics or their methods. More often the reason lies within material conditions. Who would like to live in a barely rich country, when one can live in a rich country?

As to the "Russians against russians", even if they were more ruthless against themselves, why would it matter? It would only mean that russian leaders dont judge based on nationality, and western leaders do.

Os Cangaceiros

28th April 2009, 15:41

Probably some of the stupidest and funkiest wishful thinking around

Nothing more really needs to be said.

Needless to say, the United States isn't even close to any kind of significant, serious discontent.

Elway

28th April 2009, 15:51

Explosive:

Yeah, I stand by what I wrote. The discontent is not formulating itself into a disintegration of the national society, known as the United States of America.

You still have the usual separationist enclaves of thought: Reconquista de Aztlan, Alaska, Hawaii, California, Oregon and Washington State, Texas, but:

1. These are NOT civil wars, they are movements to "leave" the United States;

2. These are not given any serious acceptance by ANYONE in the real world.

What do you know differently?

Os Cangaceiros

28th April 2009, 15:59

I don't know anything differently. I was agreeing with you.

Elway

28th April 2009, 16:23

I don't know anything differently. I was agreeing with you.

I'm sorry. I understand now. I took this to be a sarcastic retort.

My appologies,

Elway

teenagebricks

28th April 2009, 18:08

I really don't see any kind of civil war happening in the United States in the near future. Maybe in the European Union or Latin America though. I could be wrong, it's impossible to know what will happen, especially with the economy and all.

STJ

28th April 2009, 20:42

I dont see it happening.

Oktyabr

28th April 2009, 22:55

The only countries I could see heading towards Civil War would be:

Venezuela
El Salvador
Greece
Spain
France (es posible)?
Russia?

I'm questioning the last 2, but Greece seems to be like 1930's Spain, and if the people are asking for socialism, and I mean from the bourgeois to the proletarians, those people are going to go out and get it.

Plus Spain is in a crap hole right now: 25% of the population out of work. Something like that. I just typed what I remembered from InDefenseOfMarxism.org

Brother No. 1

28th April 2009, 23:03

Russia?

I dont know if Russia would be heading for Civil War..I mean yes its a dying Capitalism goverment born from the carcus of the dead Socialist Union but still the goverment still have at least some control. Red Mob of course thrives off of this goverment and the goverment doesnt do anything. The only possiblity of Civil War is if the Communist parties in Russia rallied together against the goverment creating maybe a 2nd Bolshevik party. But still not likely yet.'

Venezuela

Hmm how could Venezula be heading for Civil war and if the did happen since Venezuela is a massive oil prodcer and gives it to the US I'm pretty sure the US will stop at all means to stop the Civil war before it happens for the US is addicted to oil as the rest of the world. Plus more oil will be lost because of the damage the civil war could cause to Venezuela.

France (es posible)?

I dont see the 4th republic of France having a civil war anytime soon.

Greece

It really depends on how worse it will get if it gets worse for the goverment.

saintlysocalist

28th April 2009, 23:05

Several things hav to happen for my theory. 1. Texas must succed from the Union. 2. Texas must prosper in money etc.... 3. Other states want to be like Texas 4. Illegally succed from the Union 4. A small spark.

Oktyabr

28th April 2009, 23:10

That was my take, and as I've said before, that was just from what I thought. The ones about Venezuela, Russia, and France were just stupid :blushing:

Brother No. 1

28th April 2009, 23:13

1. Texas must succed from the Union.

They already did that once and they wont do it again.

2. Texas must prosper in money etc....

when it was the Texas Republic it really didnt prosper and when it was in the Confederate states of America it only prospered for it had slavery so I dont think I'll prosper without the other 49 states.

Other states want to be like Texas

That'll be a first since no state wants to be like the other.

Illegally succed from the Union

When that happens the Imperialist state of the US will invade and anaxe it back.

Elway

29th April 2009, 03:27

The problem with a state's attempt to separate from the Union is that Lincoln set the example that no U.S. president would want to steer away from. If even Hawaii (the least "justifiable" state in U.S. admission history) were to successfully leave the Union, the sitting executive would look like a fool, and not be accepted as a genuine leader, able to provide toilet paper in the federal buildings. For that reason alone, I cannot see a new "Civil War" under the terms of separation of any U.S. state.

Jimmie Higgins

29th April 2009, 04:26

Well there has already been one civil War and the Capitalists wont allow that again. The chances of a civil war happening are very very slim. The 1st Civil war was a war on which Capitalism would remain dominant in the United States. The "theories" of this "Break up" or "2nd civil war" are nothing more then theories. Yes the US goverment and system is crumbling but not at a rate where it would be a complete civil war again.

Yes, the American Civil War happened because two different economies and sets of interest came to the tipping point where one could not grow unless the other got out of the way. What are the social and economic forces that would cause the break-up in the first place?

Barring some huge change in the power structure and economic make-up of the world, the next US Civil War will be one between labor and capital.

RaÃºl Duke

29th April 2009, 04:49

http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/DividedStates_opt.jpg

LOL!

While it's true that the states could(but not likely at least not now) be divided based mostly on regional differences...the part of "Hawaii goes to Japan or China, Alaska goes to Russia, the South will fall under Mexican influence, etc etc" is a load of crap.

Plus the way it's divided I think is incorrect. The "Californian Republic" should/would probably be made up of the Pacific Northwest states and California. The "Atlantic America" would not included some of the states below PA but would include some places like/in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, maybe Minnesota due to some of their industrialized cities (isn't that region also called the "rust belt" because it was were a lot of industrial jobs were located? They would probably align more with the North-East then with the other Mid-West states.) The rest would probably form one big block or 2 (the South and Mid-West) which one could say contains the more reactionary or backward elements in America.

EDIT: Although to be honest I'm only "counter-speculating" against the details of this professor's speculation.

ckaihatsu

29th April 2009, 06:27

Yes, the American Civil War happened because two different economies and sets of interest came to the tipping point where one could not grow unless the other got out of the way.

Right -- this is the best post so far.

The U.S. Civil War was a clash between two mutually exclusive modes of production (use of slave labor - vs. - use of commodity labor), and so was also a factional fight within the U.S. ruling class.

Also note that *that* civil war took place in an era of economic *growth*, where there was *something* *to fight over* -- a rapidly growing international trade due to rising productivity.

What are the social and economic forces that would cause the break-up in the first place?

Right -- our current period is one of a *weakening* economic climate -- in this kind of environment the prevailing dynamic is of *mergers*, both corporate and even among countries -- *not* fragmentation.

When the U.S.S.R. collapsed, it was an entire *economic bloc* that went down -- and even a whole mode of production. Today the U.S. is STILL *looked to* as an *engine* of world capitalism, and continues to attract foreign investment, as ludicrous as that sounds....

We also need to do the math here -- RT (Russia Today) is a *bourgeois* media outlet, like any other, and they're going to always be about representing *bourgeois* interests by spinning *bourgeois bullshit* -- just remember to keep in mind that image of the capitalist boardroom spinmeisters laughing their asses off at the poor suckers who would actually believe the news {analysis} that shows up on their TV sets....

As long as people buy into the bullshit the executives continue to be mouths to feed for us (and planes to gas up).

Barring some huge change in the power structure and economic make-up of the world, the next US Civil War will be one between labor and capital.

This is more to the point -- capitalism is facing a *major* *political crisis* as a result of its economic crisis -- its legitimacy in the eyes of regular people will be slipping fast because there's not enough reality (economic health) to leverage sufficient amounts of bullshit to justify their rule.

The *latest* political crisis -- in addition to the torture memos -- is this Air Force One plane photo-op debacle -- looks like Obama's being hung out to dry *already* by the rest of the establishment.... So is he the figurehead or isn't he? Are we going to be seeing the emergence of another soft coup (like in 2000)?

Chris

--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

ComradeR

29th April 2009, 08:04

ckaihatsu

29th April 2009, 09:04

Why is it that every case of civil war put forward so far seems to be on the basis of states and state governments seceding from the union?

The political aspect of material developments is always more spectacular and easier to grasp since the dynamics are more person-like -- but focusing too much on political developments, to the exclusion of looking at economic ones, means missing at least half of the picture.

Successful Southern state secession would be the *result* of exceptionally strong *economic* growth based on slave labor and without having to deal with competition from the Northern states' economic mode of production. Historically that didn't happen, of course, but the education / conditioning we receive tends to only focus on the *political superstructure* and not enough on the underlying *economic base*.

Whilst chances of secession is all but impossible a low scale uprising by the anti-communist right against the government that is preceved to to be "going red" does remain a possibility. A highly unlikely one sure but a possibility non the less.

I'll agree that government is now highly consolidated in the middle -- overt imperialist expansion, like from 2001-2005, is decidedly off the table, and so is reformist liberalism in the direction of EFCA or war crime prosecutions. The accompanying economic environment is one of implosion, leaving government in a massive black hole of sinking forces. Matter is being expelled outward, up into the financial sector, leaving the real economy in a desperate situation of deflation. Politically there's a power vacuum, but there's still the massive gravity towards the center unless mass forces on the ground can decisively overthrow it -- preferably the forces of working class revolution.

RaÃºl Duke

29th April 2009, 14:27

....and puerto rico will go to venezuela.:laugh:

:lol:

In the case that the federal government dissolves Puerto Rico would probably become independent of the U.S. since the benefits of affiliation will become zero.

Although I wouldn't be surprised if it did fall under Venezuela/Cuba's influence...If I remember correctly they support independence of the island and perhaps Venezuela would do what they do to Cuba (offer cheap or free oil/gas, etc) which would be quite beneficial. Yet even if it falls under their influence, I doubt there's going to be a "left" shift in politics there (but who knows? In a way, the "political elites" are more to the "left" then the American ones because they are somewhat more like their European counterparts. They pay a lot of "lip-service" to the concept of "social programs", specifically those programs available to the whole population like social health care. However, I bet a large section of the population is socially conservative to a degree; yet, for some reason, there's no organized "religious right" or anything like that in PR...probably because of the current nature of politics in the island.)

Psy

2nd May 2009, 22:06

Why is it that every case of civil war put forward so far seems to be on the basis of states and state governments seceding from the union? Whilst chances of secession is all but impossible a low scale uprising by the anti-communist right against the government that is preceved to to be "going red" does remain a possibility. A highly unlikely one sure but a possibility non the less.
Actually the most likely civil-war scenario for the USA would be the US ruling class becoming highly fractured, each capitalist fraction then tries military coups on the state (as the US ruling class resorts to violence to decide what faction of the ruling class controls the state). The resulting military coups escalating into civil-war as factions of the US military fight control of the US state. Making a modern US civil-war simply US troops fighting each other over control of the capital and trying to defend the capital from hostile armies of hostile fractions of the US ruling class.

ckaihatsu

2nd May 2009, 22:38

Actually the most likely civil-war scenario for the USA would be the US ruling class becoming highly fractured, each capitalist fraction then tries military coups on the state (as the US ruling class resorts to violence to decide what faction of the ruling class controls the state). The resulting military coups escalating into civil-war as factions of the US military fight control of the US state. Making a modern US civil-war simply US troops fighting each other over control of the capital and trying to defend the capital from hostile armies of hostile fractions of the US ruling class.

Hey, I * wish * this was the case, but if it were we'd see no end of political grandstanding and "leadership"-making in the mainstream press as each faction would seek to draw their minions from the public.

I maintain that we're in a period of *decline* and that means *capitalist consolidation* and pass-the-buck politics as the lack of forward progress exposes more scandals for the prominent to duck away from. I think this kind of period is *better* for working class interests, for this reason, if only so that we don't have to put up with wartime hysteria and jingoism (as of the recent, 2001-2005 period). The lack of jobs isn't good, of course, but that could spur more class conscious militancy, as we've been increasingly seeing since about 2005.

Psy

2nd May 2009, 23:03

Hey, I * wish * this was the case, but if it were we'd see no end of political grandstanding and "leadership"-making in the mainstream press as each faction would seek to draw their minions from the public.

I maintain that we're in a period of *decline* and that means *capitalist consolidation* and pass-the-buck politics as the lack of forward progress exposes more scandals for the prominent to duck away from. I think this kind of period is *better* for working class interests, for this reason, if only so that we don't have to put up with wartime hysteria and jingoism (as of the recent, 2001-2005 period). The lack of jobs isn't good, of course, but that could spur more class conscious militancy, as we've been increasingly seeing since about 2005.
We are starting to see the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party viciously attack the moderate wing of the Republican Party, this crisis could give eventually the extreme right-wing the opportunity to attempt a fascist military coup, the extreme right-wing already says the current crisis is God punishing Americans for their lack of faith in God.

ckaihatsu

2nd May 2009, 23:13

We are starting to see the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party viciously attack the moderate wing of the Republican Party, this crisis could give eventually the extreme right-wing the opportunity to attempt a fascist military coup, the extreme right-wing already says the current crisis is God punishing Americans for their lack of faith in God.

I would tend to say that this is more indicative of the death-rattle of the Republican Party than anything else. No part of their party has any base of mass support anymore, and they gambled and lost on their neoconservative / Rumsfeld strategy of conquering foreign lands with a small strike force.

We *could* say that there's still a political vacuum of sorts, even with Obama at the helm, but that's mostly due to negative growth (GDP) and the system's subservience to the financial sector. I think it's a holding pattern, at best and worst.

Psy

2nd May 2009, 23:32

I would tend to say that this is more indicative of the death-rattle of the Republican Party than anything else. No part of their party has any base of mass support anymore, and they gambled and lost on their neoconservative / Rumsfeld strategy of conquering foreign lands with a small strike force.

The republican party still has its staunch religious base that has noticed the power vacume in the republican party and trying to fill that vacuum.

We *could* say that there's still a political vacuum of sorts, even with Obama at the helm, but that's mostly due to negative growth (GDP) and the system's subservience to the financial sector. I think it's a holding pattern, at best and worst.
But it is not really a stable situation. Let me put it this way, the US currently is only as stable as the USSR was back in 1985, the negative growth in the USA now could like in the USSR lead to biter power struggles within the state that could climax in military coups that could escalate into a civil-war (that almost broke out in the Russia back in 1993, for example if forces loyal to parliament arrested Yeltsin odds are Russia would have been thrown into a full scale civil-war)

ckaihatsu

3rd May 2009, 00:10

You're mixing up about four distinctly different political contexts here, Psy --

1.

The republican party still has is staunch religious base that has noticed the power vacume in the republican party and trying to fill that vacuum.

This is about the *internal politics* of the *U.S. ruling class* alone.

2.

But it is not really a stable situation. Let me put it this way, the US currently is only as stable as the USSR was back in 1985,

This is about the *class situation* of the *U.S. ruling class as a whole*.

3.

the negative growth in the USA now could like in the USSR lead to biter power struggles within the state that could climax in military coups that could escalate into a civil-war

This is back to the *internal politics* of the U.S. ruling class alone.

4.

(that almost broke out in the Russia back in 1993, for example if forces loyal to parliament arrested Yeltsin odds are Russia would have been thrown into a full scale civil-war)

And this is about the *internal politics* of *Russia's* ruling class.

---

1. The Republican Party cannot do anything for the U.S. on the basis of its religious-right membership *alone* -- it *has* to have a plan that will get play in the mainstream media or else it is an irrelevant political group.

2. The U.S.S.R. in the '80s was in economic decline, similar to the U.S. now -- I agree on that part. But you seem to think that an environment of economic decline breeds *competition* within the ruling class, when in fact it doesn't -- there's *nothing* to fight over, so the climate breeds a politics of cowering together, veiling factional disputes, and playing duck-and-cover on the real issues.

3. The politics of the world has been increasingly *solidified* and *staid* as growth has been slipping since the '60s and '70s -- the U.S. economy (and politics) is the go-to arena that attempts to make up for the lack of drama (and real growth) everywhere else. Those countries that *have* had real growth until recently, like China and Pakistan and so on, are kept out of the media spotlight, with the reality of their sweatshop conditions for labor kept under wraps.

Psy, you, and everyone reading this, should take a look at this excellent encapsulation of 20th century world economics, from the World Socialist Web Site:

The capitalist crisis and the return of history

By David North
26 March 2009

http://wsws.org/articles/2009/mar2009/dnor-m26.shtml

4. I don't agree that Russia went through such a tumultuous political handover of power in the '90s as you're making it out to be. I also don't see the relevance of that country's period here. There's been no bourgeois-revolution-like politics of confrontation between Parliament and the head of state, either in Russia or in the U.S. (or anywhere else).

Psy

3rd May 2009, 02:01

1. The Republican Party cannot do anything for the U.S. on the basis of its religious-right membership *alone* -- it *has* to have a plan that will get play in the mainstream media or else it is an irrelevant political group.

2. The U.S.S.R. in the '80s was in economic decline, similar to the U.S. now -- I agree on that part. But you seem to think that an environment of economic decline breeds *competition* within the ruling class, when in fact it doesn't -- there's *nothing* to fight over, so the climate breeds a politics of cowering together, veiling factional disputes, and playing duck-and-cover on the real issues.

If there is a contracting of capital the ruling class might fight each other to make the other fraction of the ruling class to pay for the crisis and not them (if they can't get the proletariat to pay for the entire crisis). Just like how the finical capitalists are forcing productive capitalists to keep the finical capitalists afloat.

3. The politics of the world has been increasingly *solidified* and *staid* as growth has been slipping since the '60s and '70s -- the U.S. economy (and politics) is the go-to arena that attempts to make up for the lack of drama (and real growth) everywhere else. Those countries that *have* had real growth until recently, like China and Pakistan and so on, are kept out of the media spotlight, with the reality of their sweatshop conditions for labor kept under wraps.

Psy, you, and everyone reading this, should take a look at this excellent encapsulation of 20th century world economics, from the World Socialist Web Site:

The capitalist crisis and the return of history

By David North
26 March 2009

http://wsws.org/articles/2009/mar2009/dnor-m26.shtml

We already seeing capitalists trying to stay afloat by getting weaker capitalists to take the bulk of crisis using the power of the state, that has no long term viability as the largest capitalists only deal in fictional capital and not the production of commodities, meaning the situation can deteriorated, for example if the economic situation continues to deteriorate over the next five years I don't see the remaining lower tier bourgeoisie just waiting to be proletarianized and I could see them backing a fascist movement to defend the interests of the lower tier capitalists.

4. I don't agree that Russia went through such a tumultuous political handover of power in the '90s as you're making it out to be.

In 1993 the parliament asked the Russian army to seize the Kremlin and take Yeltsin into custody for his crimes against the state, if a significant chunk of the Russian army followed these orders of parliament it would have turned the 1993 constitutional crisis into a civil-war as you'd have had two armies fighting for control of Moscow, the Russian military forces following the orders of Yeltsin and the Russian military forces following the orders of parliament.

I also don't see the relevance of that country's period here. There's been no bourgeois-revolution-like politics of confrontation between Parliament and the head of state, either in Russia or in the U.S. (or anywhere else).
Yet the bourgeoisie is becoming more divided not more unified.

ckaihatsu

3rd May 2009, 02:26

SocialismOrBarbarism

3rd May 2009, 02:27

This is slightly off topic, but Psy's post made me think of the business plot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_plot

ckaihatsu

3rd May 2009, 02:36

Or we might be forced to do things the *hard* way, in which case the history of the future will play out *exactly* according to the plotline of The Matrix...!

x D

(Sorry.)

Psy

3rd May 2009, 02:36

Okay to all of that -- my question, then, is how would the world's bourgeoisie ever marshall public support behind any of their factional battles? I think everyone's pretty war-weary after the past decade and that shock-and-awe shit isn't going to work anymore. Could we be looking forward to a revolution from the recliners, HDTVs, and computer LCD screens of the world?
If the economic situation continues to deteriorate over the next five years the proletariat won't have TVs, computers,ect as they would have been repossessed leading to more destabilization of the state due to growing militancy of the proletariat.

SocialismOrBarbarism

3rd May 2009, 03:27

If the economic situation continues to deteriorate over the next five years the...

The Marxian economist Andrew Kliman believes this is what will happen:

My next point of in the above theoretical sketch was that this tendency of the rate of profit to fall toward its long-run level persists unless there’s sufficient “destruction of capital.” This is a key concept of Marx’s theory of capitalist crisis. By “destruction of capital,” he meant not only the destruction of physical capital assets, but also, and especially, of the value of capital assets.

In an economic slump, machines and buildings lay idle, rust and deteriorate, so physical capital is destroyed. More importantly, debts go unpaid, asset prices fall, and other prices may also fall, so the value of physical as well as financial capital assets is destroyed. Yet as I noted earlier, the destruction of capital is also the key mechanism that leads to the next boom. For instance, if a business can generate $3 million in profit annually, but the value of the capital invested in the business is $100 million, its rate of profit is a mere 3%. But if the destruction of capital values enables new owners to acquire the business for only $10 million instead of $100 million, their rate of profit is a healthy 30%. That is a tremendous spur to a new boom.

Thus the post-war boom came about, I believe, as a result of a massive destruction of capital that occurred during the Great Depression and World War II. One measure of that boom is the rise in the rate of profit that we saw earlier, from –2% in 1932 to 30% in 1943.
At the start of the Great Depression, the destruction of capital was actually advocated by conservative economists. This was called “liquidationism.” According to Herbert Hoover, his Treasury Secretary, the financier Andrew Mellon, advocated it as well.

But in the 1970s and thereafter, policymakers in the U.S. and abroad have understandably been afraid of a repeat of the Great Depression. They have therefore repeatedly attempted to retard and prevent the destruction of capital. This has “contained” the problem, while also prolonging it. As a result, the economy has never fully recovered from the slump of the 1970s, certainly not in the way in which it recovered from the Great Depression. The failure of the rate of profit to recover is one indicator of the lack of a new boom.

The result is a relative sluggishness of the economy. But the sluggishness has continually been papered over by an ever-growing mountain of debt. For instance, reduced corporate taxes have boosted the after-tax rate of profit relative to the pre-tax rate, but this boost has been paid for by $2.5 trillion of additional public debt. Almost all of the remaining increase in the government’s indebtedness is used to cover lost revenue resulting from reduced individual income taxes. These tax reductions have propped up consumer spending and asset prices artificially. Similarly, easy-credit conditions have led to inflated home prices and stock prices, and this has allowed consumers and homeowners to borrow more and save less. Americans saved about 10% of their after-tax income through the mid-1980s, but the saving rate then fell consistently, bottoming out at 0.6% in the 2005–2007 period.

Thus, in the period since the crisis of the mid–1970s, there have been recurrent upturns that have rested upon debt expansion. For that reason, they have been relatively short-lived and unsustainable. And the excessive run-up of debt has resulted in recurrent crises, such as the savings and loan crisis of the early 1990s, the East Asian crisis that spread to Russia and Latin America toward the end of the decade, the collapse of the dot-com stock market boom shortly thereafter, and now the biggest crisis of all, brought on by the busting of housing market bubble.

Policymakers are responding to this crisis with more of the same––much, much more. The U.S. government is borrowing a phenomenal amount of money, for TARP, Obama’s stimulus package, the new PPIP (Son of TARP) bailout of the banks, and so forth. If these measures succeed––and that is still far from a sure thing––full-scale destruction of capital will continue to be averted. But if my analysis is correct, the consequences of success will be continuing relative stagnation and more debt crises down the road, not a sustainable boom. To repeat, unless sufficient capital is destroyed, profitability cannot return to a level great enough to usher in a boom. And given the huge increase in debt that the U.S. government is now taking on, the next debt crisis could be much worse than the current one. It is therefore not unlikely that the next wave of panic that strikes the financial markets will be even more severe than the current one, and have more serious consequences.
http://marxisthumanistinitiative.org/2009/04/17/on-the-roots-of-the-current-economic-crisis-and-some-proposed-solutions/

ckaihatsu

3rd May 2009, 13:59

[labor_action] FLIP-FLOP! Obama 7/07 vs Obama 4/09, on abortion rights

Yosef M <[email protected]> Sat, May 2, 2009 at 10:33 PM
To: [email protected]

[From firstread.msnbc.msn.com]

... Looking at the full context of Obama's "empathy" line, we also found
this answer to a question on abortion in Obama's July 2007 remarks to
Planned Parenthood:

Well, the first thing I'd do as president is is sign the Freedom of Choice
Act.

Of course, that contrasts with what he said at his news conference on
Wednesday night [April 29, 2009]:

Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not highest legislative priority. I believe
that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most
important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding
this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's --
that's where I'm going to focus.

[Obama flip-flops on a woman's right to choose.

Q: If a Democratic President, with control of both houses of Congress,
cannot even uphold the right to an abortion, what the hell is the
Democratic Party good for?

A: Absolutely nothing! -- YM]

ckaihatsu

3rd May 2009, 14:01

In an article published April 16, Jane Perlez and Pir Zubair Shah of the New York Times provided an account of the intense class tensions that have fueled the insurgency. The forces described as the Taliban, they wrote, had succeeded in gaining control of the Swat Valley as the result of a “class revolt” stemming from “profound fissures between a small group of wealthy landlords and their landless tenants.”

According to this report, the Islamist militants organized and armed the landless peasants in a campaign to drive out the region’s wealthy landlords, who also were the government officials and leaders of the established political parties. In addition to imposing Islamic law over Swat, a region of 1.3 million people, the Islamists carried out a measure of “economic redistribution.”

The Times quoted an unnamed senior Pakistani official as saying, “This was a bloody revolution in Swat. I wouldn’t be surprised if it sweeps the established order of Pakistan.”

The Obama administration is now intervening to prop up that “established order” of feudal land relations, vast social inequality and military domination over the government. This will involve the suppression of not merely a handful of “terrorists,” but an insurgency with broad-based popular support, which is fueled in large measure by US military attacks on civilians on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border.

Having intervened in Afghanistan in 2001 and in Iraq in 2003 with the aim of asserting American hegemony over the strategically vital and oil-rich regions of Central Asia and the Persian Gulf, American imperialism has succeeded only in spreading instability and creating the conditions for new and even more bloody wars.

http://wsws.org/articles/2009/may2009/paki-m02.shtml

STJ

3rd May 2009, 22:06

There is no chance of this happening anytime soon.

Rusty Shackleford

4th May 2009, 00:58

Psy

4th May 2009, 15:10

my only guess is that sparks will fly around the time of the next presidential election if things continue the way they are, and also during congressional elections in states. thats when politics tend to get nasty, and people start radicalizing around their party. i.e. Obamamania and Maverick McCain crap.
It would really start flying if the proletariat starts seriously stirring as it would cause the already divided ruling class to fight over the strategy of the survival of capitalism like during the Great Depression. You'd have parts of the capitalist class wanting to pacify the proletariat at the cost of the capitalist class (the idea that it would be better then the workers seizing the means of production) through state-capitalism (Using the power of the state to save capitalism at the end of production) while other capitalists would want to respond with marshal law (using the power of the state to save capitalism by suppressing worker militancy) both which was tried during the Great Depression in the USA.

Comrade Anarchist

4th May 2009, 18:41

No there will not be a civil war. The thought of there being another civil war in the U.S. is just proposturous

Psy

5th May 2009, 16:22

No there will not be a civil war. The thought of there being another civil war in the U.S. is just proposturous
Any destabilized bourgeois state can have a civil-war. For example if there is a successful workers revolution in the USA odds are it would be followed by civil-war between the workers state and the armed forces loyal to the bourgeoisie supported by foreign bourgeoisie powers like Britain.

Another example would be if the US state can't fund the US military as it goes bankrupt and becomes a client state to another imperialist power, there is a high chance fascist elements in the US military would go to war with the US state to resit the US going from a imperialist power to a client state to a imperialist power.

вор в законе

5th May 2009, 18:59

The South Will Rise again. Buahahaha

STJ

5th May 2009, 20:12

Oktyabr

5th May 2009, 21:32

I dont think there will be a Civil War in America anytime soon. While there are political diffirences in America the idea that some how these slight diffirences will be the start of another Civil War in America. Is funny wont be happening anytime soon here.

True that, however, there were some pretty bad arguments between the people at my school who were republicans and those who were democrats. That was only a bunch of 13/14 year olds. It could be worse later down the road, and especially between adults.

I'm not suggesting anything, just pointing out some (weak) evidence towards the counter of your argument. I really doubt that there will be one though.

Tseka

5th May 2009, 21:53

America won't collapse, which is good.

Oktyabr

5th May 2009, 21:55

America won't collapse, which is good.

Thats rather too bad, I still have to waste my time in a bourgeois neighborhood when I could be working fields to grow food for starving people.

I'd much rather do the latter.

Tseka

5th May 2009, 22:09

Thats rather too bad, I still have to waste my time in a bourgeois neighborhood when I could be working fields to grow food for starving people.

I'd much rather do the latter.

Think of all the people that will suffer if a whole economy collapses.

Wouldn't you much rather see a slow transition from capitalism to socialism?

Brother No. 1

5th May 2009, 22:29

Wouldn't you much rather see a slow transition from capitalism to socialism?

Hmm Americas slow process to Socialism....that may take a few or alot of decades. Answer: Violent Revolution for places like America for we know that it cant change with a slow process.

Psy

6th May 2009, 17:42

America won't collapse, which is good.
The American Empire is collapsing now, the American empire is rusting from the inside out so when it finally collapses people would be in shock as prior to the collapse it would seem so strong on the surface but the US empire would eventually become so hollowed out that it would collapse under its own weight or be too weak at its base to quickly crush revolutions within its borders.

Think of all the people that will suffer if a whole economy collapses.

Wouldn't you much rather see a slow transition from capitalism to socialism?
Think of all the suffering when global capitalism is healthy.

ckaihatsu

6th May 2009, 19:05

AvanteRedGarde

6th May 2009, 20:14

America won't collapse, which is good.

[puking onto my keyboard]

Oktyabr

6th May 2009, 21:07

Around here (north side of Chicago) smaller places of business are accepting *cash only*, and are not honoring credit cards, debit cards, or government food assistance cards. I don't know how widespread the practice is, but capitalism is being drastically downsized with real-economy practices like these...!

Yup.... (!)

Cool, you live near me. I live to the South West of Chicago, outside of Naperville city

pauljpoposky

6th May 2009, 21:17

http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/DividedStates_opt.jpg

LOL!

this is pretty frakin' funny. wonder how they decided to devide the states, on what basis...

Psy

7th May 2009, 17:36

this is pretty frakin' funny. wonder how they decided to devide the states, on what basis...
One can't predict how a civil-war in the USA would end. It might end with no break a ways and just a change of ruling class.

ckaihatsu

9th May 2009, 08:50

The American Empire is collapsing now, the American empire is rusting from the inside out so when it finally collapses people would be in shock as prior to the collapse it would seem so strong on the surface but the US empire would eventually become so hollowed out that it would collapse under its own weight or be too weak at its base to quickly crush revolutions within its borders.

Obama's quagmire -- or -- The Democrats' political stress position -- how long can they withstand the weight of the torture memo?

In a rare case of poetic, karmic justice in mainstream politics the war crimes practices that the U.S. political establishment has inflicted on others have come back around to punish them in the exact same way, this time in the political arena. The torture memo issue is going nowhere fast and now is proving to be the Obama Administration's largest inheritance from the Bush White House.

An eery calm defines our current state, a product of the economy being at a dead stop, crippling political creativity while putting both parties into a Twilight Zone kind of time-freeze.

With nothing but a sheer cliff falloff to their right, the Republicans are having to rubber-band around the Democrats to blackmail them on an issue of shared culpability as both parties slowly sink into the quicksand.

[...]

Blair’s release of the document compiled by the CIA came in response to a request from Representative Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House intelligence committee. In a letter to Hoekstra, Blair stated that the memo “provides a straightforward account of the extent of interaction with the Congress on this issue.”

[...]

The patent aim of the congressional Republicans in requesting the public release of the record of these briefings is to intimidate Democrats into dropping the issue of torture, by threatening to focus public attention on Democratic complicity in the implementation of the criminal methods introduced under the Bush administration.

The issue has divided Washington since President Barack Obama last month released Justice Department memos authorizing the use of these illegal methods, while simultaneously announcing a blanket amnesty for those in the CIA who carried them out.

http://wsws.org/articles/2009/may2009/memo-m09.shtml

ckaihatsu

9th May 2009, 08:57

Cool, you live near me. I live to the South West of Chicago, outside of Naperville city

Yeah -- I've been out that way -- feel free to message me, if you like.

Stranger Than Paradise

9th May 2009, 09:22

One can't predict how a civil-war in the USA would end. It might end with no break a ways and just a change of ruling class.

In all likelihood this: ^^

Psy

9th May 2009, 16:37

Obama's quagmire -- or -- The Democrats' political stress position -- how long can they withstand the weight of the torture memo?

In a rare case of poetic, karmic justice in mainstream politics the war crimes practices that the U.S. political establishment has inflicted on others have come back around to punish them in the exact same way, this time in the political arena. The torture memo issue is going nowhere fast and now is proving to be the Obama Administration's largest inheritance from the Bush White House.

An eery calm defines our current state, a product of the economy being at a dead stop, crippling political creativity while putting both parties into a Twilight Zone kind of time-freeze.

With nothing but a sheer cliff falloff to their right, the Republicans are having to rubber-band around the Democrats to blackmail them on an issue of shared culpability as both parties slowly sink into the quicksand.
That largest destabilizing factor is Afghanistan and Iraq during the economic crisis. All Obama is doing is focusing its forces on Afghanistan where feudal war lords (that are fighting to remain feudal lords over their vassals, as getting their peasants to grow drugs for them is very profitable) have far more military strength then the insurgence in Iraq due to drug money and the Russian mafia selling them arms for drugs along with the terrain of Afghanistan favouring defenders as supply lines go through many choke point.

Simply put the US is already losing military equipment faster then they can be replaced with current level military spending and the current economic crisis would make it harder for the US to replace military equipment. The US is currently burning through the stockpile of equipment it build up in the 1990's and 1980's but that won't last forever sooner or later the US would need a large industrial base to maintain its army (that till now its just relied on the buildup of arms from before de-industrialization really weakened the US industrial base)

Il Medico

9th May 2009, 22:07

Psy

10th May 2009, 00:19

Personally I don't see it happening. The only way America could possibly break up is if there was a major world war and in the after math they could not afford to maintain their Empire. That is the only way I see it happening, unless those rednecks in the south start practicing what they preach! :lol:

What if criminal capitalists (like those running illegal drugs) decide to get together and gang up on the US in Afghanistan to take pressure off their operations world wide (the major drug families in Mexico are already making moves to take over the Mexican state). What if the US losses the war of attrition against the Afghanistan feudal lords like every other imperialist army? What if the US comes out of Afghanistan with a broken army? What if the proletariat of America start to rebel and the US capitalist class becomes highly reactionary?

khad

10th May 2009, 06:55

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVkjCQCTOEI

discuss
This news first broke in Pravda, which is a tabloid rag devoted to stories of alien visitation, pyramids, and prostitution.

The freakshow's got his 15 minutes of fame.

Il Medico

10th May 2009, 07:52

What if criminal capitalists (like those running illegal drugs) decide to get together and gang up on the US in Afghanistan to take pressure off their operations world wide (the major drug families in Mexico are already making moves to take over the Mexican state). What if the US losses the war of attrition against the Afghanistan feudal lords like every other imperialist army? What if the US comes out of Afghanistan with a broken army? What if the proletariat of America start to rebel and the US capitalist class becomes highly reactionary?
:confused::confused::confused:
Are you saying that you think that a few drug dealers and a Vietnam like defeat would bring down the American Empire??:confused:
If it were only that easy!:lol:

Plus I don't see the American working and middle class waking up to reality because the government is cracking down on drug dealers. Even capitalist hate those guys!:lol:

Nice fantasy, but completely delusional, sorry!:D

Psy

10th May 2009, 16:06

:confused::confused::confused:
Are you saying that you think that a few drug dealers and a Vietnam like defeat would bring down the American Empire??:confused:
If it were only that easy!:lol:

No I'm saying if the US army got broken like the Russian and German army after WWI it could lead the collapse of the US empire, just instead of the army getting broken in a major war it slowly bleeds to death. The US is already losing the means to wage war faster then it can replace them due to a shrinking industrial base, what do you think US troops would do if their officers expect to keep fighting as the US army starts to ration supplies as the US's stockpiles start to dwindle and it comes out the US no longer has the industrial base to properly maintain a large army. If the US military becomes grounded due to shortages of spare parts for aircrafts how do you think that would effect US troops loyalty?

Plus I don't see the American working and middle class waking up to reality because the government is cracking down on drug dealers. Even capitalist hate those guys!:lol:

I meant what if the American proletariat rebelled as a separate event.

ckaihatsu

11th May 2009, 03:11

The US is already losing the means to wage war faster then it can replace them due to a shrinking industrial base, what do you think US troops would do if their officers expect to keep fighting as the US army starts to ration supplies as the US's stockpiles start to dwindle and it comes out the US no longer has the industrial base to properly maintain a large army. If the US military becomes grounded due to shortages of spare parts for aircrafts how do you think that would effect US troops loyalty?

More to the point, I think, is the extent of international bourgeois solidarity. The U.S. has been a net debtor country for awhile now, buoyed by the sheer size of its economy and the global acceptance of U.S. dollars as the standard reserve currency for exchange.

Similarly the U.S. empire has enjoyed widespread international support from its allies like England, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Israel, Colombia, South Korea, Ukraine, and others. As long as these parasitic, first-tier economies do their part by extracting surplus value from the lesser countries in their respective spheres of influence and investing in U.S.-based financial goods they continue to subsidize U.S. debt.

The issue isn't the U.S.'s *own* industrial base -- financialization has broadened the stage far beyond the U.S.'s own borders. We can't get sucked into a purely *domestic* perspective on U.S. hegemony.

In the present the question is whether the U.S.'s creditors / buddies like Japan and China will continue to support the role that the U.S. plays on the international stage, particularly with the use of its military. We saw a significant drop-off of support with Bush at the helm -- Europe hedged and then mostly fell away -- the UK has mostly (entirely?) pulled out of Iraq.... At the time the U.S. was showcasing anyone it could find, like Mongolia and Slovakia...(!)

Although I'd rather see a *formal* war crimes tribunal, I think we *are* seeing the U.S. openly in the court of international and world public opinion. There's a serious lack of storyline progress going on, mostly due to the global economic crisis. The capitalists are pulling out every little distraction they can find in their pockets right now, and are about to reach into their ass to try to find something else -- we'll see how receptive and patient the public is for time-wasting stall tactics.... (The business class went on vacation a good while ago already.)

Psy

12th May 2009, 15:59

More to the point, I think, is the extent of international bourgeois solidarity. The U.S. has been a net debtor country for awhile now, buoyed by the sheer size of its economy and the global acceptance of U.S. dollars as the standard reserve currency for exchange.

Similarly the U.S. empire has enjoyed widespread international support from its allies like England, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Israel, Colombia, South Korea, Ukraine, and others. As long as these parasitic, first-tier economies do their part by extracting surplus value from the lesser countries in their respective spheres of influence and investing in U.S.-based financial goods they continue to subsidize U.S. debt.

The issue isn't the U.S.'s *own* industrial base -- financialization has broadened the stage far beyond the U.S.'s own borders. We can't get sucked into a purely *domestic* perspective on U.S. hegemony.

In the present the question is whether the U.S.'s creditors / buddies like Japan and China will continue to support the role that the U.S. plays on the international stage, particularly with the use of its military. We saw a significant drop-off of support with Bush at the helm -- Europe hedged and then mostly fell away -- the UK has mostly (entirely?) pulled out of Iraq.... At the time the U.S. was showcasing anyone it could find, like Mongolia and Slovakia...(!)

Although I'd rather see a *formal* war crimes tribunal, I think we *are* seeing the U.S. openly in the court of international and world public opinion. There's a serious lack of storyline progress going on, mostly due to the global economic crisis. The capitalists are pulling out every little distraction they can find in their pockets right now, and are about to reach into their ass to try to find something else -- we'll see how receptive and patient the public is for time-wasting stall tactics.... (The business class went on vacation a good while ago already.)
The problem is the US allies have their own problems, Capitalists in Latin America are losing big time to both the proletariat and drug cartels, none of the Latin American countries friendly to the US can help the US on the contrary they need the US to prop them up. In Europe the proletariat has already started to stir limiting the ability Europe can help the USA and Japan is not far behind. Lastly China is becoming a powder keg and the Chinese ruling class knows it, China won't prop up the US economy at the expense of its own security, since the beginning of the crisis China has dramatically increased funding for its police and military in preparation for a perceived threat of a workers revolution in China by the Chinese ruling class.