tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post4238549728072979792..comments2024-01-21T02:42:13.447-05:00Comments on Middle East Reality: The decline of the post-Revolutionary United StatesArnold Evanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11445744338502151561noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post-41716198750586303502011-12-17T13:24:14.654-05:002011-12-17T13:24:14.654-05:00Starting to think about it I agree with saying the...Starting to think about it I agree with saying the end of the civil war, more or less, and there was no sudden shift.<br /><br />Propaganda aside, WWII was, as far as I can tell, a corrupt war for power for the US. The United States did not enter that war to oppose any form or aspect of German despotism, much less in any way because of Germany's racist policies. The US entered that war to ensure that if the British Empire declined, its power would not be replaced by Germany and Japan in Europe and the Western Pacific ocean respectively, but instead by the US.<br /><br />WWI was a corrupt war for power.<br /><br />The Cuban-American was was a corrupt war for power.<br /><br />The US annexation of Texas was the result of a corrupt war for power.<br /><br />And in fact the US had been at war with different groups of Native Americans from before it was a country in corrupt wars for power.<br /><br />But the civil war was idealistic. The United States of today would have fought all of the wars it fought except that one and maybe the revolutionary war.<br /><br />The US of 2011 would absolutely not fight a war over any policy that a large portion of voting Americans consider acceptable.<br /><br />The US temporarily suspended constitutionally guaranteed rights during the civil war when there were armies marching toward the US capitol.<br /><br />Comparing that to the permanent reduction of rights due to Al-Qaeda, a tiny group thousands of miles away illustrates to me that between 1860 and now the US became a different kind of country, but I can't figure out exactly when.<br /><br />I'll have to think about these things. Also what it means to be revolutionary, particularly before Marx and also with respect to the USSR later in history. I don't have this well formulated in my mind yet.Arnold Evanshttp://mideastreality.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post-71847966609484587542011-12-17T12:49:08.375-05:002011-12-17T12:49:08.375-05:00Arnold, you just keep surprising me - in a lot of...Arnold, you just keep surprising me - in a lot of ways. I suppose your idea about how the loss of formal liberties in USA could be a sign of something positive for the world as a whole is a very interesting one. Unfortunately, USA are NOT going to stop making life miserable for other peoples just because USA's powers are in decline. On the contrary. <br /><br />Still, I wish you safety, as much as it possible now. <br /><br />Regarding USA history. I suppose somehow USA (and before it the colonies) were never pure revolutionary, but still they were SOMEHOW revolutionary. Marx would say they were thus as long as there was some progressive potential in capitalism. My bet would be on the end of the Civil war, more or less. Lidianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34135100.post-21550329850282618062011-12-17T12:33:21.373-05:002011-12-17T12:33:21.373-05:00This also raises the important question of when an...This also raises the important question of when and why the United States stopped being revolutionary.<br /><br />I could make up some guesses, but I haven't put enough thought into that question to really come up with an answer I'd feel comfortable presenting.<br /><br />But I consider this a very important and interesting subject.Arnold Evanshttp://mideastreality.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com