Professor Asserts America Will Fall Soon

[Rakhmetov]

Dr. Chalmers Johnson says in his most recent article that:

"The failure to begin to deal with our bloated military establishment and the profligate use of it in missions for which it is hopelessly inappropriate will, sooner rather than later, condemn the United States to a devastating trio of consequences: imperial overstretch, perpetual war, and insolvency, leading to a likely collapse similar to that of the former Soviet Union."

taken from commondreams article entitled---Three Good Reasons To Liquidate Our Empire July 30th 2009

[Misanthrope]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/30-11

[Das war einmal]

How can the United States fall? The Soviet Union (if I'm correct) stated in its constitution that if one Republic wanted independence it was free to go (hence why it was so easily dissolved) and there's the fact that every Soviet Republic had its own cultural heritage, their own language, etc. unlike the US where the states can't really exist on their own.

[Lolshevik]

Yeah, this is way off. When the United States collapses it won't be into a collection of nation states. When the United States is dissolved, it will be to give way to the American Workers' Republic. :)

[Rakhmetov]

How can the United States fall? The Soviet Union (if I'm correct) stated in its constitution that if one Republic wanted independence it was free to go (hence why it was so easily dissolved) and there's the fact that every Soviet Republic had its own cultural heritage, their own language, etc. unlike the US where the states can't really exist on their own.


Well in the USA there are regional differences which will lead to the break-up of America. The Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states are leftist, whereas the south and western states (with the exception of California) are notoriously right-wing. Then there are swing states like Ohio and Florida which could go either way. Polarization in income and ideology will lead to a break up sooner or later. And did I mention the immigrants who want to incorporate the whole Southwest back into Mexico?

[Misanthrope]

The union almost dissolved once, how did it work out? Those with the most power will try to control those who have different opinions, they will want to preserve the Union because if states leave that means labor is leaving and in turn profit is leaving. The only way America will fall is if capitalism falls.

[Das war einmal]

I would really like to see the end of the American hegemony and I think the author of the article has a valid point: there are similarities between the USSR at the late eighties and the USA today. I actually don't have to name them because they are obvious.
Anyway, good article

[FreeFocus]

Good article and good points, but don't count on it.


Well in the USA there are regional differences which will lead to the break-up of America. The Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states are leftist, whereas the south and western states (with the exception of California) are notoriously right-wing. Then there are swing states like Ohio and Florida which could go either way. Polarization in income and ideology will lead to a break up sooner or later. And did I mention the immigrants who want to incorporate the whole Southwest back into Mexico?

The regional differences aren't tremendously significant. Any armed secessionist-style violence would come from the far right anyway, and they barely have enough influence to mount anything of substance. Furthermore, they'd be going up against the rest of the right, which loves America. The Northeast and Mid-Atlantic are not "leftist" either, a person posting on RevLeft should know not to say that, to be frank. Ohio and Florida are "swing states" in the narrow sense of American electoral politics, but on a real political spectrum? Don't be ridiculous. Every state in the country is on the far fucking right.

Immigrants in the southwest? Don't make me laugh. Every Aztlan-type of organization and movement is marginal at best, and irrelevant at worst. If you look at the immigrant protests, from 2006 for example, all you saw is an ocean of red, white, and fucking blue. They use the same rhetoric as traditional American exceptionalists (such as, "immigrants made this country"). Their critique doesn't come from a no borders, no states attitude, approach or theory. Nonetheless, this isn't to say I support shit like deportation and border laws (I don't). Still, don't have any illusions about this largely Democrat-oriented "movement" for "immigrant rights." Yeah, you have some who support the Aztlan-type of organizations, but the vast, vast majority support mainstream integration into American society.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Interesting. I agree with most of what Chalmers (hehe) is saying but I am less optimistic for a voluntary dismantling of the empire. As he noted in the article, Obama, like Bush, is strongly in favor of maintaining the global U.S. military presence. Anti-military attitudes are just hardly accepted at all in U.S. society. Think of all the "Support the Troops" propaganda. The elites are die-hard supporters of the military-industrial complex. There's just no way they are going to voluntarily pull out of all 800 military bases.

I think it's likely that more working class people, especially those who had hope in Obama, will be increasingly disillusioned with the lack of change; the class struggle will definitely get more intense. But given the relatively small size of the organized left and general lack of class consciousness in the USA, I have doubts about the state collapsing "soon."

(also, I don't really see the regions breaking apart into independent countries)

When the United States is dissolved, it will be to give way to the American Workers' Republic. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif
Agreed.

[Kukulofori]

Not any time in the immediate future, considering Mr "Lincoln Is My Favourite President" is in power right now. I can however see a neofascist coup fairly soon.

[Rakhmetov]

Good article and good points, but don't count on it.



The regional differences aren't tremendously significant. Any armed secessionist-style violence would come from the far right anyway, and they barely have enough influence to mount anything of substance. Furthermore, they'd be going up against the rest of the right, which loves America. The Northeast and Mid-Atlantic are not "leftist" either, a person posting on RevLeft should know not to say that, to be frank. Ohio and Florida are "swing states" in the narrow sense of American electoral politics, but on a real political spectrum? Don't be ridiculous. Every state in the country is on the far fucking right.

Immigrants in the southwest? Don't make me laugh. Every Aztlan-type of organization and movement is marginal at best, and irrelevant at worst. If you look at the immigrant protests, from 2006 for example, all you saw is an ocean of red, white, and fucking blue. They use the same rhetoric as traditional American exceptionalists (such as, "immigrants made this country"). Their critique doesn't come from a no borders, no states attitude, approach or theory. Nonetheless, this isn't to say I support shit like deportation and border laws (I don't). Still, don't have any illusions about this largely Democrat-oriented "movement" for "immigrant rights." Yeah, you have some who support the Aztlan-type of organizations, but the vast, vast majority support mainstream integration into American society.

I can see why you would maintain such opinions but just look at history. Remember the Russian revolutionary period of 1905? ---- The people came in a crowd to ask the czar to help them; they were led by a priest Father Gapon; they came with religious icons in front of the imperial palace. They were not radical revolutionaries, the people despised the Bolsheviks; they merely wanted Father Czar, their helper, to help them. He helped them all right with bullets and bayonets. These same people who had rejected the Bolsheviks now ran to them for guns and advice. We americans are much further along than you think. Sure they are places of right-wing lunacy, but they are the marginal ones.

[BabylonHoruv]

Well in the USA there are regional differences which will lead to the break-up of America. The Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states are leftist, whereas the south and western states (with the exception of California) are notoriously right-wing. Then there are swing states like Ohio and Florida which could go either way. Polarization in income and ideology will lead to a break up sooner or later. And did I mention the immigrants who want to incorporate the whole Southwest back into Mexico?


Washington is also a very leftist state. Oregon more left than right.

[SubcomandanteJames]

Washington is also a very leftist state. Oregon more left than right.

I know of "democrat states" but I have never known there to be a LEFTIST state! :lol: I mean, even Obama, America's favorite "socialist", scores in the right (neo-liberal), up (authoritarian) quadrant of the political compass.

[x359594]

Not any time in the immediate future, considering Mr "Lincoln Is My Favourite President" is in power right now. I can however see a neofascist coup fairly soon.

It's important to note that Johnson is not a professor. He's currently president of the Japan Policy Research Institute and a former consultant for the CIA.

Johnson doesn't foresee a voluntary liquidation of the US empire, and in a private communication (circulated as "A National Intelligence Estimate of the United States") he considered the possibility of a coup from the right.

Johnson is a contributor to the "imperial over reach" hypothesis that was formulated in the second year of the Iraq War by former middle layer imperial managers (CIA analysts like Johnson himself, State Dept. managers, Pentagon functionaries like Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, etc.) Others with no connection to the US government have found it credible too, Mike Davis and Tom Engelhardt for example. The article referenced for this thread is a fairly good summary of the theory's principle contentions.

The bottom line is that the US empire is not sustainable forever and may break up in the foreseeable future, i.e, in the next 5 to 20 years.

[scarletghoul]

A collapse of the US Empire is completely differant to the actual USA dissolving USSR style. I think the US's power will decline rapidly and it will lose most of its empire, but can't see the USA itself breaking up in the next 10 years

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

This reminds me off that Russian proffessor a year or so ago who said that the US is going to break up with Europe claiming the East and China getting the west and a whole hodge podge of states, or whatever it was exactly.

[Durruti's Ghost]

I know of "democrat states" but I have never known there to be a LEFTIST state! :lol: I mean, even Obama, America's favorite "socialist", scores in the right (neo-liberal), up (authoritarian) quadrant of the political compass.

A sizable portion of the American population scores bottom-left, though. I would say that plenty of Americans are socialists...they just don't know it because they think "socialism" means "omnipotent government".

[Rakhmetov]

It's important to note that Johnson is not a professor. He's currently president of the Japan Policy Research Institute and a former consultant for the CIA.

Johnson doesn't foresee a voluntary liquidation of the US empire, and in a private communication (circulated as "A National Intelligence Estimate of the United States") he considered the possibility of a coup from the right.

Johnson is a contributor to the "imperial over reach" hypothesis that was formulated in the second year of the Iraq War by former middle layer imperial managers (CIA analysts like Johnson himself, State Dept. managers, Pentagon functionaries like Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, etc.) Others with no connection to the US government have found it credible too, Mike Davis and Tom Engelhardt for example. The article referenced for this thread is a fairly good summary of the theory's principle contentions.

The bottom line is that the US empire is not sustainable forever and may break up in the foreseeable future, i.e, in the next 5 to 20 years.

He is a professor emeritus at University of California, San Diego. Another professor at Columbia University Immanuel Wallerstein says the U.S. doesn't have long either. He has youtube links just like Prof Chalm. Johnson.

[Revy]

Any "collapse" would be along factional, rather than "national" lines (so to compare it to the Soviet Union is not only incorrect, it's absurd).

While there are some secessionist movements, none of them are popular or legitimate enough to be taken seriously, perhaps the one in Hawaii, but in the end we're only talking about a few states.

Rather, we will have two or more "USA successors" competing with each other, each in control of different areas. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_States_of_America#Allied_States_of_America) 's a fictional example.

[x359594]

He is a professor emeritus at University of California, San Diego. Another professor at Columbia University Immanuel Wallerstein says the U.S. doesn't have long either. He has youtube links just like Prof Chalm. Johnson.

Thanks for the correction re: Johnson.

I think both Johnson and Wallerstein present credible arguements for US imperial collapse in the near future.

[Mather]

I don't think that the USA will break up as a country in the near future, though in the long term it is possible.

But within the next ten to twenty years I do think that the USA will suffer a steep decline, in terms of it's economic, political, diplomatic and military power.

Although the US occupation of Iraq is gradually being concluded, the USA is now becoming more involved in the war in Afghanistan and in a more covert way, the war against the Taliban in the tribal regions of Pakistan, all thanks to that 'anti-war' candidate, Barack Obama. With both the British and American governments saying that the Afghan war will be a "long war" and that the imperialist occupation of Afghanistan will last for at least forty years, Afghanistan looks set to destroy the power of yet another superpower/empire, in the same way as the former USSR in the 1980s.

The rise of rival nations that now challenge the power of the US empire, such as China, Russia, India, Brazil and Iran now pose as very real issues for the US ruling class, especially as the USA is now heavily in debt, with China now owning/holding most of it.

Within the USA, over the next ten years, the eclipse of US power will be made evident by economic stagnation and decline, less productivity, increasing social inequality and all it's related symptoms such as unemployment, poverty, lack of social mobility. Social unrest could well become the norm within the USA, along the lines of the 1992 Los Angeles uprising, especially if the social, economic and political inequalities remain for the non-white population of the USA under the 'post-racial America' of Obama's government.

[x359594]

...Within the USA, over the next ten years, the eclipse of US power will be made evident by economic stagnation and decline, less productivity, increasing social inequality and all it's related symptoms such as unemployment, poverty, lack of social mobility. Social unrest could well become the norm within the USA, along the lines of the 1992 Los Angeles uprising, especially if the social, economic and political inequalities remain for the non-white population of the USA under the 'post-racial America' of Obama's government.

I agree with your forecast, but I would add that since the 1992 uprising Los Angeles has developed a number of autonomous grass roots orgainzations that could point the way to self-government on at least a civic scale: Cop Watch, the Bus Riders Union, the Labor Strategy Center, the Black Riders, the South Central Farmers Association (a group of urban farmers who take over vacant lots and cultivate food for the neighborhood.)

[Mather]

I agree with your forecast, but I would add that since the 1992 uprising Los Angeles has developed a number of autonomous grass roots orgainzations that could point the way to self-government on at least a civic scale: Cop Watch, the Bus Riders Union, the Labor Strategy Center, the Black Riders, the South Central Farmers Association (a group of urban farmers who take over vacant lots and cultivate food for the neighborhood.)


Well then, the urban riots of the future could be a lot more politicized than the 1992 Los Angeles one, in a way making them more dangerous, from the point of view of the ruling class.