you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is a dead end logic, because assuming that you actually take its premises seriously, there is no justification for genuine political action. State rot will ruin everything in the end anyway, so why bother doing anything?

I never said that. Fight for your freedom, fight for the glory of your nation. Something like civilizational rot might be far down the line but you live in the here and now. Strong coherent nation-states generally don't undergo this type of civilizational collapse due to competitiveness and constant existential threats. This happens to great hegemonic empires which have no real threat to their heartland and no real need for innovation or competitiveness.

They can coast on the works of past generations and fall asleep on the steering wheel. As has happened with the US and the Boomer generation.

A strong but not all-powerful state like Germany, Japan, or France has to be alert at all times and have their shit together. They have times of trouble and blunders too, but they're generally short-lived and they recover quick and return stronger. Empires on the other hand have a tendency toward complete moral, genetic and cultural degradation over time. As we see with the US.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I never said that. Fight for your freedom, fight for the glory of your nation. Something like civilizational rot might be far down the line but you live in the here and now.

Just because you did not say it does not mean that it is not the obvious conclusion to the premises that you have given. Giving up on the future means accepting cynicism and nihilism in the present. Abstract slogans about freedom and glory mean nothing, especially in this situation.

I also completely disagree with your nation state argument. If anything, the opposite relationship seems to be at play. France, Japan and Germany suffered an internal collapse as a result of the collapse of their imperial ambitions. The same applies to Britain, despite the fact that its empire was both powerful and an underdog when compared to the Americans and the Soviets. The Soviet Union also collapsed, despite being an underdog. I am willing to concede that hegemonic powers are more likely to become internally divided, but that is a result of a loss of political will - something which is equally possible both in an empire and in a nation state.