in my view revolutions, by which I mean violent insurrections, often create a recurring cycle of poverty in that these movements destroy the infrastructure, institutions and capital that supports the established hierarchy, true, but also supports the wellbeing of the nation as a whole. This causes further unhappiness as the new regime is expected to produce a higher standard with a lower base of productivity to support that. Likely this will result in another revolution, further lowering the standard of living that country can support. This is without examining the effect of development and governance, sovereignty, etc

this is why countries which have engaged in longer periods of reform have performed more strongly then countries which have engaged in revolutionary behaviors.

while im feeling autistic and chat is dead, look at the difference between russia and 'murica. Russia's institutions, industry and infrastructure has been fucked by war, revolution and isolation from trade. Russian gdp is around $us10,000 per capita, the govt is among the most corrupt in the world and putin has very little accountability. Russia does not just have a govt problem, but a lack of infrastructure and industry that is required to support not only the lifestyle of a more wealthy nation but also the systems of accountability, independent research and communication, viable political opposition capable of a smooth transition, the list goes on

america, by contrast, has suffered almost no major periods of domestic destruction on a comparable scale since the civil war and has not only been able to establish all these institutions so that in the event of ineffective leadership they have strong means of not only mitigating the impact, but progressing in spite of poor governance. This continuing prosperity has also afforded it the wealth, reach and stability to ensure that it is insulated from these events occurring, establishing clear means of the peaceful transition of power between political rivals through elections, establishing forward military positions to allow for defense in depth to be applied without threat to the american heartland, private and public thinktanks and media outlets of pretty much every description, all things which a wealth of nearly 60,000 of gdp per capita can not only sustain but advance as threre is a consistent, realistic expectation that wealth will only go up

does america have problems? of course, but its position means it is better placed to solve them and faces issues which are less enduring or catastrophic then those of nations which have experienced periods of substantial domestic duress and destruction, be that by revolution or war or any other cause

People can feel free to address issues as they see fit or not at all, I’m not obligating anyone towards writing a wall of text if there’s something they’d like to contribute though

@CronoSaturn I didn't say it was a problem. I simply said that this is the reason "accelerationist election" doesn't work.

Although I do hope America collapses in the near future.

In what way could that possibly be positive?

>In what way could that possibly be positive?
America collapses.

I don't think I need to state how much of a malicious, money and land-grabbing unimpeded superpower Muttland really is.

Balkanization of the States will be for the country's own good.

I fail to see that the balkanisation of the states is anything near plausible, let alone a good for the us or indeed any other nation

It's fantastic for almost any nation besides Amerika. As for the mutts themselves, the downfall of such a superpower will balance the playing field much better than any of Amerika's "democracy" wars ever did.

As a free-marketer will certainly understand, competition is killed by monopolies.

And if America doesn't have a monopoly on trade, economy, media and culture, I don't know who does.

No-one.

America is highly central, many global transactions involve America to some degree but it is not a monopoly and American companies compete not only with foreign rivals but among themselves

A free marketeer also realised that economics is not a zero sum game and that comparative advantage allows for both parties to benefit from an exchange of trade, culture and ideas

Are there other concerns? Of course. Something I’m grappling with at the moment is the implications of what has recently been introduced to me as geoeconomics (https://youtu.be/lswiu1K1Vnk is an exceptionally good exploration of the concepts being introduced) that seeks to justify mercantile thought while accepting the validity of liberal economic arguments. It sees the strategic influence of supply chains as a risk not captured in conventional economic discourse and that it allows influence in decision making to advance the achievement of a set of goals. In the past we’ve also discussed my apprehension towards the increased capacity for war that a higher level of economic activity would provide to poor global actors

On the other hand I realise however that restricting this activity only serves to cement the established regimes influence on these poor actors as the domestic population is less equipped to maintain the proper function of apparatus I outlined earlier as they simply don’t have the means of doing so. There is then a tension in US decision making in the normal economic arguments and the desire to combat abhorrent regimes at their core by providing a means of mutual wealth by which such constructs can be developed to reduce the influence of these regimes and the requirement to keep such nations with these regimes at the helm in check

I’m unsure as to what the best course is to achieve these seemingly contrasting aims but I am becoming increasingly convinced that relying on these regimes to starve themselves out is ineffective both in success and failure.

To play the otherside, I think it’s massively important to realise the role America plays in global stability, development and prosperity. We’re having this discussion on discord, a primarily American platform using primarily American designed hardware bankrolled by American institutions. It is unrealistic to expect that in America’s absence that the same capability would spring up and then some because the demand far exceeds the supply already but other nations simply lack the same capacity to supply a global centre of excellence on par with Silicon Valley as of now. In order to even consider standing that kind of thing up it’s difficult to see where the amount of materials, expertise, planning etc might come from except from the land of excess and exception that is the United States

It’s counterproductive then to seek a level playing field by tearing down the leader where that wealth could be leveraged to mutually beneficial ends to ensure your own prosperity

Most people can live without Discord. Hundreds of thousands of people stop living because of America's influence and meddling.
Tearing down the leader is beneficial (unlike in the Middle East, which Amerika doesn't realize) because (unlike the Middle East) the power vacuum would be filled equally by several other countries.
It is productive specifically because a sole superpower causes stagnation.

I don’t think that’s what we’ve seen nor as you seem to acknowledge for middle eastern countries but ignore in the case of America would the vacuum be likely filled without conflict

Global prosperity is rising, technological growth has increased year on year, people are lifted out of crippling poverty at historically unprecedented rates not because of America’s charity, but by its excess

Nor is America alone in meddling, China, Russia and European powers certainly feel no remorse interfering even violently in the affairs of other nations when it suits them and American leadership has done much to keep large scale conflict at bay and keep things at a very limited scale

The russian military has not shown for example the same restraint as American forces in Georgia, Chechnya or the Ukraine

China similarly has shown itself unable to distinguish or even create a distinction between civil groups and threats in Tibet or during current counter insurgency ops to support its belt and road initiative

Both the administration of xi jinping and putin have demonstrated an aggressive posture and in the case of putin we have a demonstrated history of expansionist actions. What makes you think @Kazimir Malevich that the absence of American power would turn these tigers into cats?

Do you not think this would rather entice their ambitions?

It's less of "I think Putin and Xi Jinping will be pacifists when America is gone" and more of "A world oligopoly is still better than a monopoly".

Given America is not the only country it is not a monopoly now and ww1, ww2 had a number of powerful actors

I’m curious as to how you think that translates to better outcomes

It's a false equivalency, as of now, due to both the increased trade and nuclear weapons the "world wars" are proxy wars. It's not going to get better or worse, but will fare better for 2nd and 3rd world countries in the long run.

I would prefer if Ruffia was finally defeated and then fractured into several smaller countries Thx but no thx!

This but for America. You see, us Russians have based and redpilled views on balkanization!