It’s sad but my father always told me that the good times we’ve had are unprecedented and they can end faster than we think.
I never believed him growing up, institutions and America seemed infallible. It’s sad to say but I think with global warming, covid, and the general decline of American soft power we’ll see more and more global turmoil
Recent times were largely the result of an unusually unipolar (read: US) world after the USSR collapsed.
In more normal bi- or multi- polar periods (50s - 90s), international order often submitted to great power politics. What was right or legal was less important than who wanted what.
I'd argue the good times were a result of the massive transfer of wealth from the wealthy to the middle classes that was caused by the two world wars. Since the neoliberal shift of politics in Western powers in the 70s, we have been on a slow return back to the crazy levels of inequality that rival any of those ever seen prior to 20th century. We are now reaping what was sown by the Thatcher/Reagan privatisation and financialisation of everything in the economy. Takes a while for the effects to really kick in but I think much of the geopolitical dynamics we are seeing can be traced back to this.
It’s used as a common far-right/neo-fascist dog whistle, and to justify their ideology and actions. It’s vaguely based on the idea of cyclical history (which is of course not true), as presented by Oswald Spengler and others during the 20th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West
I seriously think declaring something "far-right dog whistle" is a leftist dog whistle, signaling good progressives should oppose that something. After saying this, usually no serious arguments are given. Because they are not needed after declaring an idea the enemy.
Cycles in history is of course not "of course not true". in any complex system, there are oscillations. Most famous is economical boom and boost cycle.
Meme is not without merit. The reason we are able to discuss things like gender/race equity in marine corps promotions is precisely because these are good times. And this lack of focus may lead to bad times eventually.
Cyclical history as theorized by Spengler and other is a fringe type of historical analysis rejected by historians. And it is actively used as a neo-fascist dog-whistle. That’s not a way to show my moral superiority, it’s what they do.
Cyclical history isn't false. Population boom/bust cycles exist in humans just like they do in every other animal. Humans reach the carrying capacity of their environment and then reach out via war for more resources.
Ascribing any fixed time scale to the cycle is going to be fallacious as it depends on environmental factors.
"Cyclical history" as theorized by Spengler and others during the 20th century is a whole set of bullshit. That's what my comments are explicitly about, I don't understand how people can miss this.
I agree that it's sort of a fashy dog whistle, but the concept of cyclic history did not originate with Spengler. This was probably the dominant view of the nature of time and history up until at least the last thousand years, maybe later.
I don't think you should be downvoted for saying what you said, but I feel that you missed the point my comment was trying to make.
My point is: the dog whistle/modern meme is basically a reference to Spengler and others, because their ideologies align relatively well with the patchwork of neo-fascist ideas. That's what they hint to and promote. That's why I explicitly mentioned Spengler and the 20th century. Lot of other people developed some form of a cyclical history but that's not really relevant here.
I actually read most of this, but i think it only debunks a strawman.
From my reading of history, the typical pattern is:
- Some set of tribes exist on the fringe of civilization (if one already existed). They have access to the bare minimum resources for survival. These are not strong men, yet, but relatively weak savages, probably not even worth conquering by the civilization closeby. What they do have, is an every-day reminder to stay efficient in what they do, so they don't starve to death.
- After a while, one or a few of these tribes grow in competency and competitively useful cultural values. (Often, but not necessarily military.) They start trading with the nearby civilization, and learn from them, but maintain their focus on what is essential for survivial. Also, during this phase, this population is still facing survival pressures, often military ones. Gradually, these people become "strong", meaning they have competencies and a culture that makes it increasingly effortless to survive and prosper. Much of this comes from becoming cultured in ways that increase productivity or martial prowess.
- Only at this stage, when survival is no longer a concern (and especially if all competetion has been eliminated), does the weakening stage start. Gradually cultural values seep in that reduce productivity/efficiency of the population. Meanwhile, essential survival skills fade to the background and are forgotten. Still, during most of this phase, this more civilized population has economic advantages and perhaps access to specialists that allow them to fend off nearby populations, often for centuries.
- Eventually, though, some event (or series of events) occur that bring a shock to the sturcture of this civilization. Maybe a few bad harvests, maybe some barbarian invation, maybe a plague. At this point, the civilization has become brittle, and shatters easily.
I'm pretty sure I see this pattern repeat itself for the Greek, Roman, Muslim Caliphate, Ottoman and many Chinese civilizations. Then there are some cases that doesn't really go through all the stages. For instance, Mongols, Huns, Goths and some others spread themselves too thin to really build their own civilization, so they inherited whatever civilizations (including their corruption) they conquerd. Similarly, Europe form about 1000AD to the end of WW2 was always in a state of countries competing against each other, so they were constantly facing survival pressures that kept most of them from becoming _too_ corrupt.
“Naturally, because this is me, the case study will be (trumpets blaring) Rome, which fought a lot of poorer, less settled peoples and is frequently used as the example of wealthy, ‘civilized’ and ‘decadent’ military failure. I’ve opted to pick these two sets of examples to start out because these periods – classical antiquity and pre-history – ought to be the periods where our Fremen perform the best, as the technological and industrial gap between them and their richer ‘civilized’ opponents is the smallest – in some cases, practically non-existent.”
Comparing Rome to its enemies in this way as if “the toughness of the people” is THE variable that determined success, compared to say, coordinated mobility-based warfare tactics, is a stretch at best.
And, the quote is onjectively bs. Hard times create hardened people who create hard time for others. And suffering.Good times are created by people who care and have right values.
The hard times in Ukraine now won't make anyone better. Men in west won't be inferior for not going through it.
We were in a comfy peaceful era and yet we saw rise of extremism, neo nazis in germany, in the US even. Good times allow for forgetting the extent of what reality can be and then people start to have weird ideas when small problems come, only to react in shallow reflexes like nationalism, and war.
I may be dumb but I assumed people who saw wars just didn't want any of that anymore and would actually know what 'right value' means, not just school books or worse .. network propaganda.
Now sure, it can all be twisted, people can be brainwashed during and after war, there can be bad wounds for long too.
> I may be dumb but I assumed people who saw wars just didn't want any of that anymore and would actually know what 'right value' means, not just school books or worse .. network propaganda.
Yes. I too recall the many decades of peace after WWI. And the great leaders that arose in Europe after that conflict.
> And, the quote is onjectively bs. Hard times create hardened people who create hard time for others. And suffering.Good times are created by people who care and have right values.
And then you go on to express a not-so-objective viewpoint? OP is stating an idiom, a saying, a phrase. Let it be. There is nothing objective about it.
OP is stating ideology and an worldview. The one that is seems more and more wrong, the more you read about history. Generations that grew in hard times have more issues and those go away only slowly.
People regularly use this one as argument or to imply inferiority of those they look down at. Therefore, it is 100% alright to not that idiom stand.
It is originally a thesis from works of Ibn Khaldun, 14th century Muslim scholar from Tunisia who is considered a father of sociology and athropology..
Ibn Khalodoun had described a cycle of four generations of rulers and his theory echoes in Fourth Turning theory nowadays.
Well we certainly have a surplus of weak men. We’ve been hard at work creating them here in the West. I don’t suppose anyone who requires a safe space or trigger warnings is going to volunteer to defend the moral high ground they love so much.
We (the west) are not what we once were. I’m so sorry Ukraine.
What an ignorant and unempathetic take. The West is evolving in the right direction and we should be doing everything we can to recognize more of the human condition (intersectionality, gender identity, institutional racism, etc).
Dismissing those efforts because of a vocal few or because it's people you don't like is a disservice to those actually struggling.
> the general decline of American soft power we’ll see more and more global turmoil
I have argued, tons, that America is making the world more peaceful. It was hard to sell especially to Arab/Muslim countries but without a unipolar power, it's lots of small powers fighting each other for territory.
> institutions and America seemed infallible
Couple that with recklessness. Fatca, CRS, Trade deals, etc... lots of countries got screwed bad and treatment from the masters was as bad and discriminatory as it can get. If people sympathies with Putin, you are doing something wrong.
I wonder how you can believe that knowing all the coups organized by CIA, wars waged by US military everywhere in the world, countries US split in two or more ...etc. it was only safe for USA and its allies. Only difference is war is getting close to western Europe so it's felt more
Sure. There was chaos perpetrated by the Americans. On the other hand, most countries remained peaceful as a result of the American hegemony. The country I live in and its neighbors will go to war immediately if there was no UN/USA. Now think about the rest of the world. Every country will want a piece of its neighbor and there you have it: Total world chaos.
When you compare it to the world before an engaged America (so early 20th century), it was worse. Quite a bit worse. Instead of the US causing regime change, you had European countries conquering and annexing most of the world.
Peace for who? that's the question. No one denies it brought peace to the west.
The reason developing nations want a multipolar world is to have room to manoeuvre and develop themselves, to be able to bargain with multiple powers, there is not much bargain in a unipolar world, when the USA does not want you to get too big, or your interest conflicts with theirs you're fucked.
USA (and the west) has learned that colonialism with a foreign army does not work efficiently, so they colonize countries by choosing who gets elected or performing coups and putting people that serve that interests even on the detriment of their nation.
African nations make a good example for countries that are officially independent but have no sovereignty whatsoever.
It's a monopoly of power, what's worse is it thinks it's interests are what defines good and bad.
There's only been one president in recent times to complain openly about NATO and America's participation in it. Why start a conflict when that one president might give you exactly what you want without a single shot fired.
I'm not a Trump fan at all, but one of his major complaints was that Europe isn't allocating enough money to defence. Which is quite a reasonable thing to demand.
Primary responsibility to defend Europe should lie with Europe. The ability to defend oneself is just as important as climate. One has wide public support, the other is taken for granted (thanks to Nato).
I believe that was a goal for a future date that has not yet arrived. Trump complained about it, but it wasn't due yet and was going to happen anyway. So it can look like he made it happen. He's full of cons.
The 2% commitment was originally agreed to in 2006. After member nations continued to fail to spend enough, in 2014 it was a set as a goal to increase towards that goal year over year until 2024:
The reason why the EU can afford social programs is because the USA and NATO provide them with military defense so it doesn't come out of their military budgets. After Ukraine gets invaded they might want to build up their military again.
Welcome to World War 3. watch the FOSSIL fuel prices, ouch!
Trump forced the hand of unwilling NATO countries to spend their 2% for their defense budget. How is this against the alliance? I would say it's the opposite.
The war is over Ukrainian NATO membership. If NATO membership was off the table, or if Biden was strong and had the conviction to defend Ukraine there would be no war.
Instead he entertained Ukrainian NATO membership and tried to fend Putin off with finger wagging.
I don't think its at all reasonable to suppose that the US simply saying they would oppose Ukraine joining NATO would have in any universe enough to avert war when merely preventing the expansion of NATO can seemingly be obtained far easier with their influence on NATO members who must be unanimous to induct a new member.
That is to say they have every reason to believe that they could without invasion keep Ukraine out of NATO for the foreseeable future so the invasion isn't about that issue.
> I don't think its at all reasonable to suppose that the US simply saying they would oppose Ukraine joining NATO would have in any universe enough to avert war
No, of course not. What NATO should have done was to accept Ukraine as a member. Anybody think Putin would invade a country that can refer to §5?
Right, just "separatists" who happened to start fighting to expand Putin's empire and give him the region that supplies Russia's military with raw materials. From 2014,
> Nevertheless, following its actions in Crimea, there is justified concern that Russia could now aim to annex eastern Ukraine. Unlike on the Crimean peninsula, there is not a large majority here who feel like they belong to Russia - and only about a quarter of the population of the east overall are ethnic Russians.
Trump just sang Putin's praises for all the world to hear, and trashed Biden in the same breath. The Republican party has shown time and time again that loyalty to Trump outweighs yesterday's strongly held convictions. Loyalty to Trump has replaced loyalty to the nation in many Republican hearts -- pols and voters alike. Whatever poll you got that 5% number from, it's outdated in light of Trump's latest opinions.
He didn't sing Putin's praises, he pointed out that Putin's methods are, to quote, "savvy". War is confusing and Trump may turn out to be wrong but so far Russia seems to have come up with a plan then executed the plan. While facing no organised opposition. It does look like a well organised operation.
In short, it is entirely possible that Trump is correct. The political discourse can't keep shutting down in emergencies, there are too many emergencies these days for that to be an option. People have to talk calmly about what they think is happening.
Have you not been paying attention to how Trump talks about tyrants? His love letters with Kim Jong Un? Endorsements of Viktor Orban and Bolsonaro? He's a "big fan" of Erdogan? For years now, he's been positively gushing about how much he admires Putin. He tried his damnedest to pull a coup last year, because he wants to join the league of tyrannical dictators. And sure, he badmouthed Biden and insisted that things would be different if he was at the helm, but has he ever shown real opposition to any actions of Putin? Or did he deliberately soften eastern Europe's defensive stance against Russia when he pulled American troops out of Germany?
He pulled troops from Germany (which is not the front anymore) and put troops in Poland and other eastern countries. How is this a move to help Putin? He moved troops on the front and started more bases.
Exercises and bases in all Eastern Europe intensified under Trump.
He likes to talk nicely about people that he's going to strike. Like he always says he likes Xi, but then start a trade war anyway.
He blocked NS2, Biden opened it in his first week in office.
If Trump was so weak toward Putin, Putin would have invaded with Trump in the White House...but Putin invaded with Biden there(and previously woth Obama). Makes you think, doesn't it?
I'm sure some people are mistaken and think Trump himself is anti-vaccine, but most people (that I am aware of) that put some measure of responsibility on him do so not because of his specific stance on it, but for his part in the flywheel that created the current political climate.
He has been closely in bed with the sections of media that have pushed the narrative, generally celebrated paranoia towards experts, and consistently pushed the idea that you can't trust the government. If you lose control of the bolder you helped push onto the slope, it doesn't mean that you don't have responsibility in pushing it to begin with.
He has given credence to the vaccine-autism link early in the 2016 debates and in tweets.
He was also instrumental in pushing early treatments that didn't pan out as hoped. These often became the subject of conspiracy theories about a whole slew of medical professionals avoiding real treatment, and the pandemic being some authoritarian plot. Trump was there sowing doubt in medical professionals. He may have encouraged vaccination itself, but his actions on the whole produced distrust so that there is a pronounced deficit of vaccination in his electorate.
I'm more of an optimist. I think Putin just proved the need for Nato and how dangerous he is. Trumps support of him might be the thing that brings down Trumpism.
putin is not entirely to be blamed for the decline, but the signs of covert manipulations is all there. The very election of trump, and his poor foreign policies, are all smoking guns.
American institutions have only themselves to blame for the decline. People like Putin are taking advantage of the weakness but American politicians could behave more reasonably anytime but instead they are consciously choosing to make it worse. It’s all home made by the “greatest country in the world”. No need to blame anybody else.
When I came to the US in 2000 I already saw how insane US politics was. Political ads had no connection to any kind of reality and were basically purely attack and distortion. And since then it got only worse.
Is this any different than any other military intervention America watched idly over the past century? Not really. In the "infallible" 1970s-1990s you might be remembering, we were casually ignoring plenty of similar actions around the world that make this present intervention seem pretty benign and slow moving. American soft power was over when the failure of the Korean war made it clear that all that could be done against a major nuclear power is a stalemate.
I never believed him growing up, institutions and America seemed infallible. It’s sad to say but I think with global warming, covid, and the general decline of American soft power we’ll see more and more global turmoil
My heart goes out to Ukraine and its people