you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]NeoRail 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Forget 2100, I would be much more impressed if anyone can accurately predict 2028. Thanks to the lockdowns and now the Ukraine conflict, the world system is teetering on the brink. I can't remember if it was Keith Woods or someone else who said this, but it does seem like we're heading for a new Cold War situation with different power blocs competing among each other. The issue is, on what basis will this be done? Communism is gone, so there can be no coherent ideological dispute to serve as justification. We are either going back to the vulgarity of pure power politics, or the world will descend into even deeper idiocy and the most simplistic 18th century liberal propaganda about the "fight against tyranny" will be considered a sufficient intellectual foundation. In theory, third worldism and "anti-imperialism" could also make a comeback, but Western governments are already much more hostile toward Western peoples than any third world government is, so if this issue does get assigned central importance, it would be in a one-sided manner from the perspective of the third world states.

[–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

We are either going back to the vulgarity of pure power politics,

I think this has always been the reality and any ideological bent for the most part only really mattered domestically rather than in terms of foreign policy.

In theory, third worldism and "anti-imperialism" could also make a comeback, but Western governments are already much more hostile toward Western peoples than any third world government is, so if this issue does get assigned central importance, it would be in a one-sided manner from the perspective of the third world states.

The third worldist rhetoric you see nowadays from the likes of Russia, China, etc is more along the lines of "we respect national sovereignty with respect to their culture/tradition/norms over forcing western Enlightenment ideals". It's about cultural imperialism more than anything else. The problem with this rhetoric is that it doesn't really appeal to elites/powerbrokers within those nations, who were raised/educated with those norms and want the benefits of it. You can't actually enact policy based off of appealing to the working class, you can only larp like you do or else the elites will be used against you. The Junkers of Germany sabotaged the war effort pretty heavily for example. Ultimately I think that rhetoric will remain toothless as long as there are stakeholders within those countries that value wealth/comfort/access to the West over national dominance. I think the West will outlast Russia in that attrition but China is a wild card honestly.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think this has always been the reality and any ideological bent for the most part only really mattered domestically rather than in terms of foreign policy.

I think ideology does affect foreign policy when the people in charge take decisions ideologically. It is difficult, for example, to understand people like Zelensky and the Ukrainian political class without resorting to ideology - after all, from the perspective of power politics their interests are obviously tied to those of Russia. Similarly, I think it is difficult to explain World War 2 without making reference to ideology. Arguably, the Soviet Union was a more complete, or perhaps dangerous, antithesis to the American project than Germany, yet despite that America joined hands with the Soviets.

Ultimately I think that rhetoric will remain toothless as long as there are stakeholders within those countries that value wealth/comfort/access to the West over national dominance.

There's also the issue of it being an entirely negative policy. "We are against Western cultural imperialism and for autonomy." Autonomy for what, exactly? What is the use and purpose of autonomy? Russia and China have no real answer. Even Dugin, despite his desire to imbue politics with meaning and his ambition as a would-be ideologist, has no answer. Why is cultural autonomy and freedom valuable, why should we retain our natural differences? The Western liberal ideology may be disgusting, but it has conviction and goals. Its opponents have nothing - instead of mobilising for something, they mobilise against something. They derive their identity from the same liberalism that they are in conflict with.

I think the West will outlast Russia in that attrition but China is a wild card honestly.

I used to think the same, but to my shock, and probably to the shock of everyone else, Russia's advantage over the West turns out to be economic and not military. As to China, they have a lot of power and potential in quantitative terms, but ever since the end of the Cultural Revolution the country has been totally soulless. It remains to be seen whether they actually care about anything more besides making money and blustering.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Arguably, the Soviet Union was a more complete, or perhaps dangerous, antithesis to the American project than Germany

I disagree. Both projects are fundamentally egalitarian.

[–]NeoRail 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, but communism was more dangerous to the material existence and interests of the American elites. The Germans on the other hand, if I recall correctly, did not even seize American factories during the war. They limited themselves to simply taking control of them.