Is the US going to collapse soon?

[Hexen]

Well according to this article I found from Alternet....

http://www.alternet.org/world/147261/are_we_going_down_like_the_soviets/

Does anyone think the US is going to collapse soon? If so, then would the outcome be good or bad?

Well personally the good part it would be a oppturnity for a post-revolutionary society but the bad part though is that that there's a strong possibility of fascists would take over (The Tea Parties, Ron Paul Libertarians, etc).

[Red Saxon]

An economic collapse would not be the end of the US government. On the contrary, it would strengthen the government even more and create a dictatorship.

My source? history. Look at Germany after World War I and it's economic situation.

Poverty on the national scale is a breeding ground for fascism.

[Blackscare]

I tend to see a lot of similarities with the fall of the Weimar Republic and the climate here today. The only difference is I don't see anyone ready to fill Hitler's role.

This country is certainly headed towards even more economic and social calamity, scapegoating of immigrants much like the Jews and Gypsies, etc etc.

Honestly I think that at least the end of US domination is near, say within 5-10 years. Collapse is another story. I hope the government and economy DOES, because that would lead perhaps to a chance for leftist revolution. Unfortunately I think it's more likely that this country's influence will wane, and it will wallow in mediocrity. Given the American psyche regarding their perceived importance etc etc, this slow decline could result in an even greater drift towards xenophobia and racism, and attract large numbers to a strongman type government that knows how to properly pull at heartstrings and misdirect public anger.

That or the libertarians will be given license to carry out their own political projects if the two major parties continue to lose public favor. That is a whole other can of worms. I think that will most likely quickly fail, leading to genuine economic collapse, or lead to some form of deregulated blatant capitalist oligarchy.



I think that this oil spill is going to definitely be a catalyst for this destabilization. Put it this way, I hope that I and other leftists can start to effectively challenge what's going on, and I'll stay long as I think there is a chance before some form of fascism emerges, but I'm going to be buying a one way ticket to Venezuela or Thailand as an insurance policy. Not without going through proper channels with their authorities, at least in Venezuela, of course.

[Edit]


Poverty on the national scale is a breeding ground for fascism.

Extreme poverty and collapse polarizes the masses either towards the radical Left or radical right. It is up to us to make sure that more come to our side, but we are failing.

[Red Saxon]

I tend to see a lot of similarities with the fall of the Weimar Republic and the climate here today. The only difference is I don't see anyone ready to fill Hitler's role.All it takes is someone with a smooth tongue and a cheeky smile.

Just look at Obama, you don't think he wouldn't switch to an anti-immigration policy in a heartbeat if his political career depended on it.


Extreme poverty and collapse polarizes the masses either towards the radical Left or radical right. It is up to us to make sure that more come to our side, but we are failing.The course of history shows that people constantly move from one end of the political spectrum to the other like how people vote during elections (seemingly switching between Democrat and Republican). If there is ever an outright fascist state, it will breed leftists who are discontent with it and eventually a leftist state will be born. People will get discontent with it and then move towards the center and the process will repeat itself again until people remember what fascism does to the soul of man.

[AK]

Does anyone think the US is going to collapse soon?
The current American state is not going to collapse any time soon. Look at the great depression. It survived through that crisis of epic proportions.

If so, then would the outcome be good or bad?
Judging by both the state of the left and increasingly powerful conservative and fascist ideas, I'd say the collapse of America - at this time - would be one of the shittiest things ever to happen to this Earth.

As Red Saxon and Blackscare both said:

Poverty on the national scale is a breeding ground for fascism.

Extreme poverty and collapse polarizes the masses either towards the radical Left or radical right. It is up to us to make sure that more come to our side, but we are failing.
When in times of crisis, the working class will always look to a saviour who will guide them through it. Whether or not this saviour will end up doing good for the working class is a different question.

The collapse of the United States, at this moment in time, would just pave the way for a far-right takeover. So no, the outcome would be terrible.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

All it takes is someone with a smooth tongue and a cheeky smile.

Just look at Obama, you don't think he wouldn't switch to an anti-immigration policy in a heartbeat if his political career depended on it.

Increased deportations and raids on immigrant communities, the pledge to put thousands of National Guards along the northern border of Mexico; Obama's career has always depended on an anti-immigrant position. That's of course because his career is dependent on corporations and political bureaucrats.

[Glenn Beck]

Collapse? I doubt it, at least in the foreseeable future. But the article is definitely on target in identifying the increasing reliance on military power as a sign of decline. I think its a safe bet that U.S. dominance is pretty much over or at least very close, but the U.S. will still be a big player.

[Red Saxon]

Increased deportations and raids on immigrant communities, the pledge to put thousands of National Guards along the northern border of Mexico; Obama's career has always depended on an anti-immigrant position. That's of course because his career is dependent on corporations and political bureaucrats.But publically he doesn't act this way at all.

He acts completely horrified at the Arizona legislation, when in reality it mirrors the Federal government's official policy.

[redSHARP]

the right wing would power grab, and walk over the rather disorganized left. the power grab would lead to the right wing disintegrating over power, and sectionalism would be a major theme. the northeast (new England and the eastern sea board/DC/maybe Ohio river valley area) would fall back on its massive market potential and continue NAFTA with Canada (thus insuring its basic survival). the south (former CSA most likely) would have its fair share of radical right governments but infighting would see the rise of a religious party that would be relatively moderate and whiling to work with the other states. the middle states are up for grabs, and the west coast would limp on, probably working with the northeastern states. Alaska and Hawaii are on their own. In 50 years, a loose ceasefire between sectional groups would have the US form into a confederate state with very weak central power.

After all the coups, street fighting, and general chaos, the left would be stronger in general but not in power; certain areas would be under a leftist autonomy government but nothing too threatening to the states. Estimated causalities: 100,000-500,000 (factoring in violence, starvation, disease, ect.)

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

I don't see much of a collapse, but I could see a power exchange depending on whether or not a group rises up from the calamity. If a group doesn't rise up, or if a group rises up and fails, then there will just be a lull for a decade or so, and the same old crap that we've been dealing with for awhile will just repeat... besides, I don't believe that revolution is a good way for anything to arise simply because people get full of themselves and pervert their stances and their ideas... In other words, if there is to be a swift change, I'd rather see it come through the people and the then current legal process. Therefore, I prefer change from the inside working outwards rather than change from the outside working in.

[guybob1000]

Well personally the good part it would be a oppturnity for a post-revolutionary society but the bad part though is that that there's a strong possibility of fascists would take over (The Tea Parties, Ron Paul Libertarians, etc).

Really? Libertarianism is way different than Fascism. Fascists believe in the state above all else, Libertarians believe in the individual above all else. It would be a valid argument to say that a libertarian government would lead to tyranny of private interests, but Ron Paul is clearly for the reduction of size in government.


It strikes me as entirely nonsensical to tie Ron Paul and his movement to any Fascist agenda.

[Hexen]

Really? Libertarianism is way different than Fascism. Fascists believe in the state above all else, Libertarians believe in the individual above all else. It would be a valid argument to say that a libertarian government would lead to tyranny of private interests, but Ron Paul is clearly for the reduction of size in government.


It strikes me as entirely nonsensical to tie Ron Paul and his movement to any Fascist agenda.

Well the reason I equated Libertarianism to fascism is because I thought that will inevitably lead into to eventually since one of the traits of fascism is destroying the working classes (Libertarian Capitalists demanding workers to "work! work!" and would use the military to protect themselves against the working classes and enforce their rule hence Ron Paul saying "Bring our troops home to protect our borders").

[Red Saxon]

Really? Libertarianism is way different than Fascism. Fascists believe in the state above all else, Libertarians believe in the individual above all else.That's actually Objectivism. Libertarian Capitalists are basically like Ayn Rand's economic ideas involving laissez-faire economics. Libertarian Socialists want smaller, more communal control over the means of production instead of huge multi-national republics like the Soviet Union.

Please make this distinction in the future, I can't stress that enough.

[S.Artesian]

Really? Libertarianism is way different than Fascism. Fascists believe in the state above all else, Libertarians believe in the individual above all else. It would be a valid argument to say that a libertarian government would lead to tyranny of private interests, but Ron Paul is clearly for the reduction of size in government.


It strikes me as entirely nonsensical to tie Ron Paul and his movement to any Fascist agenda.

Nope, it's not non-sensical. That tie that binds in this case is the allegiance to private property, private ownership of the means of production. Property is thicker than ideology, and when push comes to shove, all the outraged little libertarians will be calling out for a man on horseback to save them.

Milton Friedman's formal embrace of the "invisible hand," "free markets," and anti-government intervention in the economy didn't stop him and his acolytes from serving Pinochet, did it? Word.

Behind every free market there stands a death squad. Word again.

[Spanishleft]

Nope, it's not non-sensical. That tie that binds in this case is the allegiance to private property, private ownership of the means of production. Property is thicker than ideology, and when push comes to shove, all the outraged little libertarians will be calling out for a man on horseback to save them.

Milton Friedman's formal embrace of the "invisible hand," "free markets," and anti-government intervention in the economy didn't stop him and his acolytes from serving Pinochet, did it? Word.

Behind every free market there stands a death squad. Word again.

I beg to differ. If you look at the history of fascism, you will find private property, private ownership and basically everything else 'private' do not matter at all in a fascist society. It's all about the military, the state and the leader controlling everything.

Ron Paul is a diversion, and a capitalist, but from a different corner.

Also, people need to understand the differences between Pinochet, and lets say, Mussolini. Both oppressive assholes turning their countries into slaughterhouses, but besides that with little in common.

[Raúl Duke]

I don't see a "collapse" of the U.S. per se but I can see a weakening of the U.S.'s geo-political standing and power in the future as it's force to come to terms towards an increasingly multi-polar world.

Also, the U.S. economy may continue functioning but it won't be strong and the state won't be strong here either since its treasury (in way of loans) and economy is increasingly tied to China's. Perhaps, we may see politicians/political analyzts in the future advocate economic protectionism and the revitalization of local jobs (in fact I heard that some analyst already advocated protectionist policies against China as a counter-measure to the Chinese policy of "pegging"/devaluing the yuan to the dollar) struggling against free-market idealists.

[Rusty Shackleford]

A weakening of US global power has a strong change of giving birth to a revolution. either it will be revolutionary defeatism like in the russian empire, or it will be fascist reaction. both germany and russia were at their lows, and both came out polar opposites.


what it depends on in the US is a strong left wing party ready to organize. and preferably in every major city.

[t.shonku]

A weakening of US global power has a strong change of giving birth to a revolution. either it will be revolutionary defeatism like in the russian empire, or it will be fascist reaction. both germany and russia were at their lows, and both came out polar opposites.


what it depends on in the US is a strong left wing party ready to organize. and preferably in every major city.

I don't think there is any chance of communism coming to US bcoz the communists in USA are desktop or book worm revolutionaries.I have chated with some of them it seems that they don't have what it takes to be............

But off course weakening of USA will have huge global implication.It will lead to liberation of Arab,Asia,Africa and Ireland.It will be a domino effect

[Rusty Shackleford]

I don't think there is any chance of communism coming to US bcoz the communists in USA are desktop or book worm revolutionaries.I have chated with some of them it seems that they don't have what it takes to be............


there are very active parties. trust me.

also, hardly any communists know about this website. so this is a poor representation of communism in the US

[t.shonku]

there are very active parties. trust me.

also, hardly any communists know about this website. so this is a poor representation of communism in the USIf so why don't I hear about them in TV?But on the other hand you can hear about Maoist revolutionaries of India,Nepal and Philippines everyday on news

Trust me US communist were active in 40s and 50s now they are fossils.Todays Americans watch Hanna Montana and chase blondes in beach

One thing I don't understand is that USA has most number of privately owned guns and all most all sorts of technology and yet the American Communists fail to develop an armed struggle?While the white power groups do whatever they want in US

[Rusty Shackleford]

ironically, glenn beck is the one doing the talking. yeah he lots the CP-USA with actual revolutionary parties but they are being talked about.

also, bourgeois media hardly likes to recognize the revolutionary left until its actually strong enough to cause problems for them. its not there yet.

[AK]

If so why don't I hear about them in TV?But on the other hand you can hear about Maoist revolutionaries of India,Nepal and Philippines everyday on news

Trust me US communist were active in 40s and 50s now they are fossils.Todays Americans watch Hanna Montana and chase blondes in beach

One thing I don't understand is that USA has most number of privately owned guns and all most all sorts of technology and yet the American Communists fail to develop an armed struggle?While the white power groups do whatever they want in US
If communist groups starting arming themselves, the ruling class would see this as a threat to their wealth and property and the "counter-terrorist" police would be on us like dog shit on a shoe sole.

It says a lot about the ruling class that they let the NSM and the KKK to run free, do their own thing, arm themselves and even stage rallies whilst labour conflicts are censored and taken care of heavy-handedly. Why do they let these bastards do what they want? Because white nationalists support capitalism and do not pose a serious threat to the establishment like we far-leftists do.

[RadioRaheem84]

I always underestimate the power of the state and ruling class to undermine social unrest and steer public sentiment toward looking at things in a positive light. No matter how bad things do get, the state has ways of balancing things to where the worse looks less bad and thus pacifies the public outrage. We've been bailing out financial and corporate institutions for years, heck the Savings and Loans scandal only cost us 200 billion less than the mess we were in two years ago!

So I do not think the situation will ever get Depression era bad or Weimar Republic bad like I used to think but the situation will get worse for workers but not enough to stir public revolt. I mean the situation is already pretty bad yet it has done little to instigate major change.

I see the US descending to nothin more than a mirror of Chile or China. The system will become more repressive in juxtoposition to great wealth and freedom to many in the upper classes.

[Nolan]

you can hear about Maoist revolutionaries of India,Nepal and Philippines everyday on news

I have not heard about Nepal once on CNN or Fox and I watch them every day.

[RadioRaheem84]

you can hear about Maoist revolutionaries of India,Nepal and Philippines everyday on news


WTF? What news are you watching. I have heard nothing about these revolutions. Even in the left wing Press. I have to write to the Monthly Review to get them to feature them!

[Nolan]

If communist groups starting arming themselves, the ruling class would see this as a threat to their wealth and property and the "counter-terrorist" police would be on us like dog shit on a shoe sole.

It says a lot about the ruling class that they let the NSM and the KKK to run free, do their own thing, arm themselves and even stage rallies whilst labour conflicts are censored and taken care of heavy-handedly. Why do they let these bastards do what they want? Because white nationalists support capitalism and do not pose a serious threat to the establishment like we far-leftists do.

Exactly. Ultra-nationalist ideology certainly receives no (official) hugs from the capitalist media or the state. But their rallies are not dealt with like the G20 protests, and astroturfed movements like the tea party get loads of attention while the march of thousands of activists in detroit gets media silence.

[t.shonku]

WTF? What news are you watching. I have heard nothing about these revolutions. Even in the left wing Press. I have to write to the Monthly Review to get them to feature them!Clear your ear wax and stop being ignorant,go through this forum (they have a separate section on Nepal)
Click the link below and read
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/10453627.stm

This type of "American Superiority complex" or rather ignorance amongst the leftists in USA is the reason why you people have not made any impact and never will

Learn a few things from the Greeks too.Read the Greek section and stop being such a potato headed ignorant retard.

[Nolan]

This type of "American Superiority" or rather ignorance complex amongst the leftists in USA is the reason why you people have not made any impact and never will

Look guys, another idiot with their head up their ass.

[t.shonku]

Anyways a good news,seems that the US chickened out,they will retreat from Afghanistan on 2011.It seems that the Taliban did what US communist couldn't lol!:laugh::laugh:.Yankees got screwed up big time.



June 30, 2010 | 1:20 PM ET
July 2011 Exit Afghanistan? Oh - And Petraeus is Confirmed, Too (http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/30/july-2011-exit-afghanistan-oh-and-petraeus-is-confirmed-too/)

Are U.S. troops to begin a withdrawal from Afghanistan in July 2011 or not?
That was the root of a strong, ideological disagreement that erupted around the nomination of Gen. David Petraeus to be the next commander of the war in Afghanistan, replacing Gen. Stanley McChrystal after the Rolling Stone controversy.
Praise for the general was virtually an afterthought. No disagreement there, as the Senate unanimously confirmed the general, 99-0 on Wednesday.
Democrats, led by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-MI, took the moment to argue that a withdrawal of combat troops must begin on the date set by the president, July 2011, or the Afghans will not have the sufficient motivation to train and equip an Army and police force to defend their own country.
Levin quoted Petraeus as agreeing with him. The chairman, echoing comments he often made during the Iraq war, said, " If (Afghans) know the Afghan Army is large and they know it's on their side, they will take the risks to tell the Army where the bad guys are."
But the GOP, led by the committee's top Republican, John McCain of Arizona, disagreed, and took out their Iraq talking points, too.
Saying that the enemy cannot know there is a date certain when troops will head for the exits, else they will root in and wait, McCain pleaded, "We must give General Petraeus every opportunity to succeed, and I believe that that means stating clearly that the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan must be dictated solely by conditions on ground."
To the very last minute before the vote, Levin and McCain squabbled, to the point where Levin had run out of time allotted to speak and was denied extra time by McCain to rebut. The chairman said he would put his follow-up in the congressional record.
For his part, President Obama has said the withdrawal will begin in July 2011, but he also stipulated that the size and tempo of that withdrawal will depend on conditions in Afghanistan. Gen. Petraeus, in front of the Armed Services Committee on Tuesday for his confirmation hearing, agreed.
The date, Petraeus said, is one "when a process begins, in which reductions of U.S. forces must be based on the conditions at the time, and not a date when the U.S. heads for the exits."

[Hexen]

I was going to create a new thread but I might as well post it here which I also found another article from alternet about how the collapse of the U.S. can be a good thing.

http://www.alternet.org/world/148250/why_the_decline_of_america_can_be_a_good_thing_for _america/

any comments on this? also the comments in the article seems to be a bunch of conspiracy FUD...

[Amphictyonis]

The revolution, in the west, will most likely take place during a time of capitalist crisis.

[Jazzhands]

Anyways a good news,seems that the US chickened out,they will retreat from Afghanistan on 2011.It seems that the Taliban did what US communist couldn't lol!:laugh::laugh:.Yankees got screwed up big time.

Obama just said the combat mission has ended in Iraq. But there are still thousands of troops on the ground committing atrocities against the Iraqi people every day. So I'm a little suspicious of this.

[Across The Street]

Even if the US collapses, we got John Legend and the Roots live right now.
Dig it!
http://www.youtube.com/johnlegendvevo?feature=ticker

[RadioRaheem84]

Clear your ear wax and stop being ignorant,go through this forum (they have a separate section on Nepal)
Click the link below and read
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/10453627.stm

This type of "American Superiority complex" or rather ignorance amongst the leftists in USA is the reason why you people have not made any impact and never will

Learn a few things from the Greeks too.Read the Greek section and stop being such a potato headed ignorant retard.

American superiority?

OK, who has to resort to ad hominem attack to prove their point?

[Obzervi]

I welcome the collapse of this shitty system. Its doomed to fail, its only a matter of time. The main challenge of course will be to purge the fascist elements but once that is done we will rebuild a new society with true equality and justice for all.

[ckaihatsu]

I think many here are getting sucked into an overemphasis on the *geopolitical* side of things and many are ignoring the *economic* developments that are now speeding up.

Note that the international bourgeoisie is a *group* like any other and they have to figure out how to maintain some kind of organizational cohesion (against the international working class). In good or middling times this is not such a tough thing to pull off, but as the lead, imperialist economy -- the U.S. -- weakens, as it has been doing since the '60s-'70s, the major powers have to rethink what the "glue" is that holds the international financial system together, especially against crass nationalistic competition from the others.

The U.S. empire has been looked to as the world's "king of the hill", no matter what, in the postwar era -- first its nationhood was golden, then its dollar was golden, then its dollar was the leading index, and now its debt is the leading index.

But with the banking implosions and sovereign debt crises of late bringing the issue of central bank and sovereign *solvency* to the fore, the unifying financial yardstick is dissolving in front of our eyes.

The U.S.'s hyper-militarized super-supercop role on the world stage only looks increasingly overextended and begs the question of what it's all for if the financials being "protected" don't look so hot.





http://wsws.org/articles/2010/sep2010/pers-s22.shtml


Currency wars and the contradictions of capitalism


22 September 2010

The currency conflicts that erupted last week between the US, China and Japan point to deep-going contradictions at the very heart of the world capitalist economy.

Disputes between the US and China over the dollar-renminbi rate have been fuelling international monetary tensions for some time. But last Wednesday the conflict acquired another dimension when the Japanese government intervened in currency markets. Spending more than $23 billion, Japanese monetary authorities pushed down the value of yen by around 3 percent against the US dollar.

The significance of the intervention lay not just in its size but in the fact that the Japanese government acted unilaterally. This brought criticism from European authorities that “unilateral actions are not the way to deal with global imbalances” and condemnation from the US Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd that the intervention “broke international accords.” Significantly, however, the Obama administration, which views Japan as an ally in its conflict with China, did not comment.

[...]





A Bonapartist regime for Marx appears to have great power, but only because there is no class with enough confidence or power to firmly establish its authority in its own name, so a leader who appears to stand above the struggle can take the mantle of power. It is an inherently unstable situation where the apparently all-powerful leader is swept aside once the struggle is resolved one way or the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonapartism