(Marxian) professor: "The American empire is over. We're done ... "

X ^ | Aug 4 | Richard D. Wolff

[RandFan]

@NuryVittachi

"The American empire is over," Richard D. Wolff, U.S. professor of international affairs, tells Al Jazeera. Already the biggest economic power on the planet is not the US and its allies, but China and the BRICS. But no U.S. politician dares to tell the people: "It's over."

[chopperk]

Fessor Wolff is no idiot, he just sees reality.

[RoosterRedux]

He's a hardcore communist—a true believer. That means he's an idiot.

[mewzilla]

We have never been an empire.

[TexasFreeper2009]

The era of liberal exportation of liberal culture at gunpoint world wide is certainly over.

[bert]

Actually, the Trump efforts will grow businesses and stimulate trade.

Americans fear Globalism, but Americanism is in fact the global norm. American standards are de facto world standards. Some nations and especially Canada have dressed up the American standards with some words and commas but at root, the ASTM standard is intact.

When you see videos from around the world, you see American fashion and dress. In far off Tibet, at a very sacred religious ceremony raising hundreds of small cloth flags, one of the men was outfitted in a straw Stetson and cow boy boots. The world values America

[bk1000]

“China is where it is economically because it stole its technology from the U.S.”

No, US high technology was given to China by William Jefferson Clinton.

[RoosterRedux]

Clinton may have opened some doors, but he didn’t give China access to everything invented since 2001. Much of what they have now, they stole or reverse-engineered—especially in the past two decades. That’s a broader, ongoing issue of IP theft and espionage, not just a relic of the Clinton era.

[antidemoncrat]

As I’ve said ... Universities have morphed from institutes of higher learning into cesspools of dis/misinformation and most professors are turds floating around in those cesspools.

[BobL]

“However, there is some truth in what he says about China and BRICs, etc...”

Not surprising when you have a major political party DEDICATED to bringing about the above, and the other political party ok with looking the other way, as they also cashed in.

(now I’ll read all of the comments, likely denying the new reality...it’s a way to cope)

[BobL]

“No, US high technology was given to China by William Jefferson Clinton.”

And MANY OTHERS, including top Republicans, who, at a minimum, looked the other way as we got hollowed out by China.

[FreedomNotSafety]

China has the worlds largest economy in keeping with the fact that it has the worlds largest population. Adding the BRICS doesn’t mean much except to make it look global and empire-ish.

The US is wealthier by far on a per captia (person) basis. Outside its cities Chinese people are poor. The average Chinese live at the lowest levels of the US welfare queens. Probably lower.

The US set all time high records for manufacturing output. We exceed China per captia. A country of 340 million does not have enough people to outproduce 1.4 billion. But per captia we are far wealthier. The US is the world’s second largest steel producer. And that steel is high value steel not basic slabs and unfinished rolls.

China is always on the verge of revolution because its people are repressed and poor.

[BroJoeK]

from the article: ""The American empire is over," Richard D. Wolff, U.S. professor of international affairs, tells Al Jazeera."

RandFan: "I looked and it does say clearly he's a Marxian professor hence the label.
However, there is some truth in what he says about China and BRICs, etc..."

Let's be very clear about this -- that term, "American Empire" is pure anti-American propaganda, whether it's used seriously by Marxists like Wolff, or just for effect as Ron Paul has.

Certainly, in the sense of the old Roman Empire, Chinese Empire, Spanish Empire or British Empire, etc., there never was an "American Empire", is not now and never will be in the future.

Unless you want to count territories like Puerto Rico or Guam as our "empire" -- and even then, both Puerto Rico and Guam have voted to remain as US territories.
Other former territories have voted to become independent, and did so.

Every other country claimed to be part of the "American Empire" are allies or partners by choice and treaty, not by force.

The very definition of "empire" is a prison of nations, conquered militarily and held by force against the will of their captive populations.
That makes Russia and China today's greatest and only real empires.

So, for our pro-Russian or pro-Chinese propagandists -- to call out the "American Empire" is simply projecting their own sins onto their opponents.

As for Ron Paul's "American Empire", clearly he spoke hyperbolically for effect, hoping to shame Americans into withdrawing from the world into our own little isolationist paradise, let the world be d*mned.

I think we can easily forgive Old Ron, so long as we never take him seriously.

Finally, is American influence in the world "over".
No, hardly, it's arguably stronger today that ever, given a very active US president and a rebuilding of the US military.

Pres. Trump calls it our "golden age", so let's hope he's right and that ours lasts much longer than typical historical golden ages.

[Redmen4ever]

Ron Paul’s “American Empire”

https://ronpaulinstitute.org/a-green-light-for-the-american-empire/

According to Ron Paul, the American Empire had its seeds in America’s Manifest Destiny ... Thus, in Ron Paul’s view, organizing new territory as new states coequal to the existing states doesn’t distinguish America from empires of the past.

According to Ron Paul, the American Empire accelerated during the Twentieth Century with WWI and WWII and our formation of the UN, the Bretton Woods Agreement, NATO and many others agreements (could have, but didn’t mention GATT).

In actual fact, we didn’t do any of those things following WWI. We conspicuously did not ratify the Versailles Treaty or join the League of Nations. We returned to normalcy and (qualified) isolationism (that is, isolationism in the context of the Monroe Doctrine). Up to the middle of the century, Republicans led by Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio were America First. But, trying to stay out of WWII didn’t work.

As for military alliances, international trade and investment, it looks as though Ron Paul agrees with the communists that there’s no difference between these things and empires.

Now, let’s think about the location of these military bases. You put military bases at the periphery. Military bases within the periphery are so much infrastructure (e.g., for training). So, we (the U.S.) stationed a chunk of our military force in Europe - and our European allies didn’t station a similar chunk of their military forces in the U.S. This was because the Soviet Union was the threat.

Ron Paul identifies the start of the American Empire as 1990, presumably because of the (First) Persian Gulf War when we acted under a UN Security Council Resolution and also under a Congressional authorization to use force to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Why would an isolationist care about Iraq invading Kuwait? Wouldn’t that be like Germany invading France, or Japan invading China? Since I don’t believe in isolationism but believe in mutual defense, I’m not the best person to address why we shouldn’t care about bad guys invading other countries.

Ron Paul says that the American Empire continued with “the long war” (the U.S.-Afghanistan War of 2001 and the U.S.-Iraq War of 2003), both of which were authorized by the Congress.

Might I point out that Ron Paul voted for the resolution to authorize the use of force against Afghanistan (which, in real time, I viewed as correct); and, that Ron Paul voted against the resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq (which, in real time, I viewed as correct; that is, voting against was correct).

Furthermore, Ron Paul started routinely voting against funding the long war (which, in real time, I view as correct; that is, voting to end funding was correct).

Bottom line is you don’t have to agree with Ron Paul’s theory of history that coincides with the communist viewpoint, to agree with Ron Paul’s opposition to the long war.

Today, the neo-cons are out. The leading neo-con candidate of 2016 was Jeb Bush, and he was decisively beaten by Donald Trump. The closest thing we have today to a neo-con is Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina and he seems out of the mainstream.

With Donald Trump, we are committed to peace through strength and to America First (as opposed to isolationism). So, there is a sense that the Ron Paul view is partly but not completely the Republican view nowadays.

[RoosterRedux]

Well said.

[libertylover]

Partially true but America IS being made great again.
Will it continue? I don’t know but only if we get our spending under control.

[normbal]

Thanks for the reminder about the use of language there.

I missed it.

I have issues with how the left uses “capitalism” too, as if it’s a dirty word when it IS, having been coined pretty much by Marx/Engels as a term of disparagement, there being no actual “Kapitalismus” as a belief system, what they described is, in actuality, how people perform interpersonal value exchanges like bartering or with something of relative value.

It isn’t a “mus” , a belief, it’s just what is absent outside controllers of market values.

Anything involving “the state” isn’t Laissez-faire economics, but controlled.