If the US is an empire, is it necessarily a bad thing?

[BrainGlutton]

@mswas

BrainGlutton How can you say that when America’s wealth was on a sharp increase across the board since World War II? Besides a blip in the 70s and possibly now America’s wealth has increased incredibly. That seems like an ideological stance with little backing by the facts. America has clearly benefitted economically from the world order it props up militarily.

We owe our postwar prosperity to the simple fact that the U.S. was the only major power to emerge from WWII with its industrial infrastructure substantially intact. All nations were customers for our manufactures, and there were plenty of high-wage, low-skill manufacturing jobs here in consequence. That led to the unprecedented mass elevation of working-class Americans to middle-class status or its functional near-equivalent.

We have been slowly and steadily losing ground in all those regards ever since, as Europe and Japan reindustrialized themselves, and, later, as American industries were outsourced to the Third World. We still prop up the world order, but we don’t get as much out of it as we used to. That is, we ordinary Americans don’t; for the corporate elite, things are still profitable.

[XT]

Curiously, I’m generally in agreement with BG’s stance in this thread. Well, with a few small exceptions…

@BrainGlutton

That is, we ordinary Americans don’t; for the corporate elite, things are still profitable.

We get a LOT out of it…the least of which are the taxes that drive the nation. We also get a truly staggering and diverse group of cheap products for ‘ordinary Americans’ to buy.

None of this doth an empire make however…so, generally speaking I think BG is absolutely correct on this point. Plus he said it much better than I could up thread.

-XT

[mswas]

@BrainGlutton

We owe our postwar prosperity to the simple fact that the U.S. was the only major power to emerge from WWII with its industrial infrastructure substantially intact. All nations were customers for our manufactures, and there were plenty of high-wage, low-skill manufacturing jobs here in consequence. That led to the unprecedented mass elevation of working-class Americans to middle-class status or its functional near-equivalent.

Even before World War II we were heavily industrialized and were already playing the role that China currently plays to the rest of the world.

We have been slowly and steadily losing ground in all those regards ever since, as Europe and Japan reindustrialized themselves, and, later, as American industries were outsourced to the Third World. We still prop up the world order, but we don’t get as much out of it as we used to. That is, we ordinary Americans don’t; for the corporate elite, things are still profitable.

I am not sure industry matters as much as it used to. I expect micro-manufacturing to become a lot more serious over the next couple of decadeds.

[begbert2]

I’m starting to wonder what doth make an empire. I see that mswas asserts that all the people making argument from funny definition are using the same funny definition, but doesn’t clarify what that definition is…and why Canada (for example) doesn’t qualify.

As far as I can tell, in practical terms it usually comes down to:

1. If they call themselves an empire, they’re an empire.
2. If they have conquered subsidiary states and regions that they oversee and control, usually to leech for economic gain, they’re an empire, and
3. If they call themselves an empire, they’re an empire.

I’m curious to hear what mswas’s specific definition is. From here it really does seem like “Is a powerful nation and not entirely isolationist.”

[mswas]

begbert2 How about: A nation that exerts control beyond its stated territorial boundaries. OR A nation that is actively expansionist.

[RedFury]

China pushes SDR as global super-currency

I’ll also repeat my previous caveat: it won’t happen anytime soon. Much less overnight.

[XT]

@mswas

A nation that exerts control beyond its stated territorial boundaries.

So…every nation on the UNSC, in the G-20, NATO, etc etc. That’s a LOT of empires 'mano.

OR A nation that is actively expansionist.

Whew. Well, that lets the US off the hook then. I think that one will let just about every modern nation off the hook in fact. Glad you tossed that one in.

Ok…what do you guys want to talk about now?

-XT

[begbert2]

@mswas

begbert2 How about: A nation that exerts control beyond its stated territorial boundaries. OR A nation that is actively expansionist.

So the first is everybody, and the second is certainly not true about America, given that we had Iraq cradled lifeless in our hands and we have elected not to keep it.

(And that second one also strongly correlates with countries that we don’t think of empires because in their active exapansionism they started wars of conquest and were driven back without ever gaining an lasting foothold, like Hitler’s Germany and Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.)

So yeah. You have your definition - and I think it’s uselessly broad and incorrect besides in the first part, and inapplicable to the US and incorrect besides in the second part, and thus reject it utterly.

Now what?

[mswas]

@xtisme

So…every nation on the UNSC, in the G-20, NATO, etc etc. That’s a LOT of empires 'mano.

Control and influence are two separate things and the US is pretty dominant in a lot of those spheres, particularly NATO and the UNSC.

[mswas]

@begbert2

So the first is everybody, and the second is certainly not true about America, given that we had Iraq cradled lifeless in our hands and we have elected not to keep it.

Well there was the domination of all the other 37 states and several territories for the second one.

(And that second one also strongly correlates with countries that we don’t think of empires because in their active exapansionism they started wars of conquest and were driven back without ever gaining an lasting foothold, like Hitler’s Germany and Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.)

Well there is Imperial ambitions, like in Iraq’s case. They tried to make them but failed miserably.

So yeah. You have your definition - and I think it’s uselessly broad and incorrect besides in the first part, and inapplicable to the US and incorrect besides in the second part, and thus reject it utterly.

Ok, so how would you define it?

[XT]

@mswas

Control and influence are two separate things and the US is pretty dominant in a lot of those spheres, particularly NATO and the UNSC.

I’d say that the US exerts about the same amount of ‘control’ as the other UNSC members do historically, especially Russia and China. Same with the G-20…one has but to look at the reception Obama got when he discussed the stimulus and what the US would like the other G-20 members to do. Certainly the US is a main player in NATO…but, again, we influence it, not control it (one can look at the fact that NATO didn’t join in Iraq to see this in action).

-XT

[begbert2]

@mswas

Well there was the domination of all the other 37 states and several territories for the second one.

And funnily enough nobody at all called America an empire then, either. It seems that when you conquer and completely assimilate regions to the extent of removing their national identity, you’re just not thought of as an empire. (Having independent subordinate states that retain a separate identity, now, that will earn you the label.)

@mswas

Well there is Imperial ambitions, like in Iraq’s case. They tried to make them but failed miserably.

This would be a lot more convincing if we hadn’t let them set up a government that wasn’t officially subordinate to ours. You know, like what happens in a colony of an empire. Unless perhaps you think that America is still a colony of England?

@mswas

Ok, so how would you define it?

@begbert2

As far as I can tell, in practical terms it usually comes down to:

1. If they call themselves an empire, they’re an empire.
2. If they have conquered subsidiary states and regions that they oversee and control, usually to leech for economic gain, they’re an empire, and
3. If they call themselves an empire, they’re an empire.

America wouldn’t qualify.

[mswas]

@begbert2

And funnily enough nobody at all called America an empire then, either. It seems that when you conquer and completely assimilate regions to the extent of removing their national identity, you’re just not thought of as an empire. (Having independent subordinate states that retain a separate identity, now, that will earn you the label.)

And why do Iraq and Afghanistan not count again?

This would be a lot more convincing if we hadn’t let them set up a government that wasn’t officially subordinate to ours. You know, like what happens in a colony of an empire. Unless perhaps you think that America is still a colony of England?

What do you call the states?

America wouldn’t qualify.

So you won’t answer then?

[MrDibble]

@mswas

What would you say are the significant differences between the US and the Empires of the Colonial era?

The US doesn’t export its citizens en masse to administer its interests (as civilians) and populate colonies. It settles for military occupation/coercion and economic hegemony (which were also aspects of the Colonial-era empires).

Interestingly, China seems to be settling for economic hegemony combined with citizen export without a military component, in its current African empire-building efforts.

[begbert2]

@mswas

And why do Iraq and Afghanistan not count again?

To lay my cards on the table, I feel that you are broadly overextending the definition of “empire” in order to try and shoehorn America into it in as many ways as possible, most of which are really not fair. I am presuming you’re doing this because you want to bash America for some reason and around these parts “empire” would usually be perceived as a pejorative term (various extant peaceful empires like Japan notwithstanding). This perceived combination of overbroad argument and suspected suspicious motives makes me very reluctant to concede any ground to you at all on this point, lest you take it and try to run with it like an intercepted football.

Putting that aside, though, I will grudgingly admit that some elements of the prior administration may or may not have had imperial ambitions. They certainly did not take actions that were consistent with wanting to convert Iraq and Afghanistan into american colonies in the traditional sense, but things being as they are it’s a little hard to tell if that was due to having different objectives (perhaps some combination of wanting to pillage the country and simply wanting to destroy the prior government and social order?), or if it was due to wanting colonies but just being so completely incompetent at it that they not only dropped the ball, they drove it a mile deep into the earth’s crust.

Regardless though, that was the prior administration. Best I can tell the current one considers the Iraq and Afghanistan a pair of hot potatoes that they’re trying to figure out how to put down without getting getting burned by mashed potatoes splashing on their fingers. Even if America (briefly) had imperial imbitions before, it certainly doesn’t now.

So to recap: The Bush administration may or may not have wanted to make America into a de-facto empire by collecting colonies (as opposed to making it an overt one, which you do just by calling yourself one), but if they did they failed pretty horribly at it and the current administration isn’t trying to carry on the effort. In my mind, that makes us as much an empire, as a guy who swung and missed at three strikes and is now trying to get out of baseball and into the gardening business has made himself a home-run hitter.

@mswas

What do you call the states?

I call them areas that were conquered and utterly assimilated, and usually redrawn as states after the fact. Not a one of them retains any discernable itentity as something separate from the united states, texan chestbeating notwithstanding. (There may be surviving tribal identities, but they are not generally percieved as including the land itself.)

So trying to define, say, Iowa as being logically equivalent to the colony of India under British rule makes about as much sense to me as equating the city of Denver to the colony of India under British rule. The cities and states of america are simply administrative subdivisions of the united states as a whole, regardless of what-if-anything they were 200 years ago.

@mswas

So you won’t answer then?

Are you blind? I quoted my prior answer.