[One Degree]

An isolated US by the rest of the world in trade means a future solid trading block in the Americas. Recent events in Brazil point to this result as well. The US has no trade fears when the Monroe Doctrine has always kept this fallback position open.

[Rancid]

An isolated US by the rest of the world in trade means a future solid trading block in the Americas. Recent events in Brazil point to this result as well. The US has no trade fears when the Monroe Doctrine has always kept this fallback position open.

I wouldn't be so sure on that.

Anyway, I'm hoping this whole Trumpism shit is a blip and not a sign of he future. I'm inclined to believe it's a blip and we will eventually get back to cooperation and unity across nations.

[One Degree]

I wouldn't be so sure on that.

Anyway, I'm hoping this whole Trumpism shit is a blip and not a sign of he future. I'm inclined to believe it's a blip and we will eventually get back to cooperation and unity across nations.

But as @annatar1914 pointed out, there is no reason why trade should not continue without all the ideological entanglement. Why should Europe and the US be required to be in ideological agreement to trade with one another? Why must we join a ‘trade agreement’ with others?

[Rancid]

But as @annatar1914 pointed out, there is no reason why trade should not continue without all the ideological entanglement. Why should Europe and the US be required to be in ideological agreement to trade with one another? Why must we join a ‘trade agreement’ with others?

I agree that trade will happen anyway. Hell, we trade with Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia who are all ideological enemies.

However, I do think trade agreements with Europe are important though, they are needed to take trade leverage away from China.

[Oxymandias]

@annatar1914

I'm fine with that. However, this means that America cannot sustain a hegemony which is probably what @Victoribus Spolia wants.

Also saying that France is fine with German domination is rather ridiculous. I'm not a fan of the European Union and even I don't make such dismissive remarks.

[Oxymandias]

@Rancid

Like I said, America being isolationist means that they lose their hegemony. This is fine for some but a concern for others.

[annatar1914]

@Oxymandias , you said;

I'm fine with that. However, this means that America cannot sustain a hegemony which is probably what @Victoribus Spolia wants.

Although this was partly directed @Victoribus Spolia , I'd say that I doubt that he as an Anarcho-Capitalist is very interested in any Statist Hegemony, American or otherwise, at least if he's ideologically consistent.

Also saying that France is fine with German domination is rather ridiculous. I'm not a fan of the European Union and even I don't make such dismissive remarks.

How are the French not fine with German domination of the post-1945 Europe? That is the question you should be asking, as my statement isn't ''ridiculous'' at all, but a statement of fact. France must enjoy German domination, because it is Germany and not France that dominates the European space. Under American hegemony of course.

[Oxymandias]

@annatar1914

Although this was partly directed @Victoribus Spolia , I'd say that I doubt that he as an Anarcho-Capitalist is very interested in any Statist Hegemony, American or otherwise, at least if he's ideologically consistent.

He's a neo-feudalist that previously had imperialist leanings and those leanings have not disappeared when he became an anarcho-capitalist or neo-feudalist. He generally supports the Crusades on the basis of these imperialist leanings and wants to overall preserve American hegemony. Based on these things, while he is anti-statist, this domination bias supercedes that so I think he would be fine with a state if it's imperialist as long as it doesn't get too totalitarian.

How are the French not fine with German domination of the post-1945 Europe? That is the question you should be asking, as my statement isn't ''ridiculous'' at all, but a statement of fact. France must enjoy German domination, because it is Germany and not France that dominates the European space. Under American hegemony of course.

I kind of question that. The European Union is not a government centralized on Germany. It is just a union. Germany does not dominate France.

[annatar1914]

@Oxymandias

You stated in reply to me regarding @Victoribus Spolia and his views that;

He's a neo-feudalist that previously had imperialist leanings and those leanings have not disappeared when he became an anarcho-capitalist or neo-feudalist.

Having read our friends posts here, I'm well aware of his views on things like the Crusades which have been retrofitted by some Leftists somewhat to serve as a critique of Imperialism which is the final phase of Capitalism... A bit of an anachronism, but anyway, I think that he would better be able to elucidate his thinking on this matter.

He generally supports the Crusades on the basis of these imperialist leanings and wants to overall preserve American hegemony. Based on these things, while he is anti-statist, this domination bias supercedes that so I think he would be fine with a state if it's imperialist as long as it doesn't get too totalitarian.

I'm not seeing that from him so much as you think, but again my only stake in this is that I do not believe the transition to Anarcho-Capitalism would allow such Statism as American Hegemonism to survive. Imperialism is the final phase of Capitalism, culminating into Fascism, Anarcho-Capitalism is Capitalism's death itself, IMO.

I kind of question that. The European Union is not a government centralized on Germany. It is just a union. Germany does not dominate France.

I don't know what to say to you if you don't see Germany as the economic juggernaut and center of the European Union, and how that translates into domination not only of France but more besides.

[Oxymandias]

@annatar1914

Having read our friends posts here, I'm well aware of his views on things like the Crusades which have been retrofitted by some Leftists somewhat to serve as a critique of Imperialism which is the final phase of Capitalism... A bit of an anachronism, but anyway, I think that he would better be able to elucidate his thinking on this matter.

He's a neo-feudalist. He has no association with anarchism (which I think is where your confusion comes from) or any other leftist ideology. His subversion of the existing status quo only goes as far as to create a new status quo more oppressive and backwards than the one previous. He wants to turn back time to a period he romanticizes despite this never being possible and how he himself will be the first to be oppressed by his feudal lords. Anarcho-capitalism is not leftist because it does not absolve the status quo. For all intents and purposes, @Victoribus Spolia doesn't have to wait for the US to collapse for it to turn into a neo-feudal state. With all the privatization of the American government that's going on, it'll turn feudalist of it's own volition.

In regards to your imperialist statement, I don't think Vicky will ever stop being imperialistic or at least encouraging of imperialistic behavior. Domination is built into his moral philosophy and while his political beliefs have changed, his morals will never.

I'm not seeing that from him so much as you think, but again my only stake in this is that I do not believe the transition to Anarcho-Capitalism would allow such Statism as American Hegemonism to survive. Imperialism is the final phase of Capitalism, culminating into Fascism, Anarcho-Capitalism is Capitalism's death itself, IMO.

I don't see how you can think Anarcho-Capitalism or neo-feudalism will result in anything other than a new state. Capitalism requires a state to function. If you don't have a state but some remnant of capitalism you get warlords and feudalism. Even if you think American hegemony cannot be sustained in the interim between the collapse of the previous state and the establishment of a new one, you must understand that Vicky does not think that way nor do I think he wants it to end up that way. He wants to eat his cake and have it too. He wants imperialism and feudalism at the same exact time while also being a feudal lord despite not wanting to associate himself with American politics and thus cannot become a feudal lord because lordship was reserved for those closest to the king.

If you want capitalism's death, you don't get more unregulated capitalism.

[MistyTiger]

I hope other foreign leaders aren't following Macron. I understand his worry though. Trump talks hostile and acts like a beast.

I hope that the future president is more diplomatic and more concerned about world peace and international cooperation in trade and humanitarian efforts. The US can do a lot of good if it wants to. We can make the world a better, safer place by spreading goodness and love.

[annatar1914]

@Oxymandias

Returning again to the subject of @Victoribus Spolia , because I will in due time calve this back to the issue of the OP;

He's a neo-feudalist. He has no association with anarchism (which I think is where your confusion comes from) or any other leftist ideology.

I regard Anarchism as an ultimately reactionary ideology, perhaps even the reactionary ideology... An analysis from both Christian theology and the Old Left has persuaded me of that.

His subversion of the existing status quo only goes as far as to create a new status quo more oppressive and backwards than the one previous. He wants to turn back time to a period he romanticizes despite this never being possible and how he himself will be the first to be oppressed by his feudal lords. Anarcho-capitalism is not leftist because it does not absolve the status quo. For all intents and purposes, @Victoribus Spolia doesn't have to wait for the US to collapse for it to turn into a neo-feudal state. With all the privatization of the American government that's going on, it'll turn feudalist of it's own volition.

Where my break with the whole Leftist spectrum might come lies not with my Theism, but with the concern that ''progress'' is not necessarily inevitable or maybe even desirable in some circumstances, that regression and reaction may be just as much an integral part of the material dialectic as progress and development.

Now, if this all is as I have said, and the trend is really towards ''Anarcho-Capitalism'' I cannot automatically say that this is unjust and wrong, if it was indeed the inevitable consequence of previous forces at work. I'll have to see it.

In regards to your imperialist statement, I don't think Vicky will ever stop being imperialistic or at least encouraging of imperialistic behavior. Domination is built into his moral philosophy and while his political beliefs have changed, his morals will never.

Well, I shan't judge his morals. And as far as i'm concerned, again ''Imperialism'' is the late stage of Capitalism, which I maintain has varieties of Fascism as upholding the social order generated by the holding of the means of production in private hands... Not some other Franz Fanon type bugaboo that word evokes these days somewhat inexactly.

I don't see how you can think Anarcho-Capitalism or neo-feudalism will result in anything other than a new state. Capitalism requires a state to function. If you don't have a state but some remnant of capitalism you get warlords and feudalism. Even if you think American hegemony cannot be sustained in the interim between the collapse of the previous state and the establishment of a new one, you must understand that Vicky does not think that way nor do I think he wants it to end up that way. He wants to eat his cake and have it too. He wants imperialism and feudalism at the same exact time while also being a feudal lord despite not wanting to associate himself with American politics and thus cannot become a feudal lord because lordship was reserved for those closest to the king.

He and I agree in one primary thing outside of religion; that the modern State leads, unless it collapses, to Socialism. Furthermore, while I would say to him that without the State Capitalism will cease to be within a short amount of time... To me, the internal dynamic of Capitalism favors the disintegration of the very State that upholds It.

Another instance where I might differ from the Left, is that I do not believe that under Socialism that the State will ''whither away''. In fact, in my eyes that may not even be desirable. It may well be; 'Socialism or Barbarism'.

If you want capitalism's death, you don't get more unregulated capitalism.

What I want is in general a more just and less evil civilization in the world, I certainly do not advocate evil or injustice during the transition phase either way, whether it falls back into Feudalism or Slavery, or towards Socialism. But, evils and injustice may well abound during the coming period, from what we know of human nature.

Europe and America are going to have to make some choices; I believe that Socialism/Communism or Anarcho-Capitalism is what will be offered as those choices.

[Atlantis]

Trump has launched a trade war against Europe and called the EU a foe, but the US is not Europe's foe. Macron is right nevertheless in that the Europe needs to defend its interests against the US.

It's not only the trade war the US is waging against European industry. More importantly, European sovereignty gets trampled under US boots by the unilateral cancellation of the Iran deal and by the threat of driving European companies into ruin with extra-territorial measures like by a colonial power.

The US has always been like this. The only difference is that with Trump, the US's protection racket shows its ugly face in broad daylight. The US's proxy wars threatening Europe's security in the East and the South should have been enough for Europe to go its own way. But European leaders are so fat and pathetic that they needed the Trump-shock as a wake-up call. Now even the incorrigible pro-Atlantic Merkel is advocating a European army.

It's time to pull the plug on the US plutocracy. Europe has the economic and technological means to develop its own arms instead of subsidizing US weapons development. The breadth and depth of the EU economy is enough to burst the dollar economy, which is once again building the momentum for another global economic crisis. It's a joke that even Europeans pay oil in dollars. With the extortionists US sanction policy against foes and friends, virtually every nation in the world, to start with Russia, Iran and China, would gladly substitute the Euro for the dollar.

Let's shrink the US economy to its true size.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Though I appreciate the thoughtful attention given to my views on things @annatar1914 and @Oxymandias,

I do think you might have been reading too much into my remarks.

The only meaning behind my statement when I said this:

The french are about as scary to the United States with tough talk as a gnat in my coffee.

......was just that I thought the French were pussies.

[MistyTiger]

Well they do call the French frogs.

@Atlantis makes some good points. Unfortunately, not much can be done to get the US to behave better. The US needs a different leader, a different Congress.

I would not want to shrink any economy, US or that of another country, that could have disastrous effects on others.

[Oxymandias]

@annatar1914

I regard Anarchism as an ultimately reactionary ideology, perhaps even the reactionary ideology... An analysis from both Christian theology and the Old Left has persuaded me of that.

Anarchism is not reactionary because it didn't form or emerge as a reaction to a shift from the status quo. Far from it, anarchism constantly seeks to subvert the status quo since that is the only way it could possibly continue to exist in full. Reactionaries are only revolutionary in that they want to return to the status quo. The only difference neo-reactionaries have from historical reactionaries is that neo-reactionaries want to return to a status quo that is so far away in the past that it would be impossible to reinstate the conditions that lead to that status quo. This is why, while they appear to be revolutionary as they are attempting to overthrow the status quo, they are still conservative and strive to establish a prior status quo.

Where my break with the whole Leftist spectrum might come lies not with my Theism, but with the concern that ''progress'' is not necessarily inevitable or maybe even desirable in some circumstances, that regression and reaction may be just as much an integral part of the material dialectic as progress and development.

You seem to have a very specific and particular understanding of progress.

Now, if this all is as I have said, and the trend is really towards ''Anarcho-Capitalism'' I cannot automatically say that this is unjust and wrong, if it was indeed the inevitable consequence of previous forces at work. I'll have to see it.

It honestly probably will, at least in the West. If this anarcho-capitalism "trend" comes somehow to the Greater Middle East (I highly doubt it will) we'll be probably far more capable at handling it than the West (which will probably regress to chaos, oppression, and savagery quite quickly). The West's brand of capitalism hasn't had the same cultural impact on the Middle East as the West.

Well, I shan't judge his morals. And as far as i'm concerned, again ''Imperialism'' is the late stage of Capitalism, which I maintain has varieties of Fascism as upholding the social order generated by the holding of the means of production in private hands... Not some other Franz Fanon type bugaboo that word evokes these days somewhat inexactly.

I don't think @Victoribus Spolia believes that kind of "late stage capitalism" hogwash. And I when I say hogwash, I don't mean that I think it's hogwash as well.

He and I agree in one primary thing outside of religion; that the modern State leads, unless it collapses, to Socialism. Furthermore, while I would say to him that without the State Capitalism will cease to be within a short amount of time... To me, the internal dynamic of Capitalism favors the disintegration of the very State that upholds It.

Actual capitalism reinforces the state. Capitalism consists of exploitative unjustified hierarchies and so is the state. Hierarchies often integrate or mesh well with other hierarchies so capitalism and the state go hand in hand.

Europe and America are going to have to make some choices; I believe that Socialism/Communism or Anarcho-Capitalism is what will be offered as those choices.

If any states fall in the Middle East, at some point in time, I think the Middle East might end up anarchist. Not anarcho-capitalist, just any type of anarchism outside of that. The core ideologies you should be looking for when contemplating what type of anarchist society will emerge in the Middle East if it's current states fall look at mutualism, anarcho-syndicalism, and communalism since, chances are, it's all three at the same time.

[Deutschmania]

This is not entirely new , as Charles De Gaulle responded similarly , back when he was president of France https://www.history.com/news/france-nato-withdrawal-charles-de-gaulle , https://adst.org/2014/06/france-has-degaulle-to-withdraw-from-nato . It wasn't until 2009 that then Pres. Sarkozy had France re-enter NATO completely http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/11/AR2009031100547.html ,http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/france-s-return-to-nato-sarkozy-breaks-with-de-gaulle-and-tradition-a-612840.html.

[Nonsense]

Gen De Gaulle had a certain political nous for the time, perhaps his wartime exile in Britain allowed him the luxury of reflecting on his world view of things.

I like the French, any country that has it's own bloody revolution & creating a republic has my support.

Those who call the French 'frogs' are displaying their own prejudices.

De Gaulle, as a soldier, understood American strategy of divide & rule with the objective of expanding it's hegemony.

It shows the hypocrisy of American views about Britain too, relating to it's Colonialism or Empire, when it itself is guilty of wanting to dominate other countries & regions around the globe.

[annatar1914]

@Victoribus Spolia

You said that;

Though I appreciate the thoughtful attention given to my views on things @annatar1914 and @Oxymandias,

I was concerned that you would not be so,

I do think you might have been reading too much into my remarks.

The only meaning behind my statement when I said this:



......was just that I thought the French were pussies.

I think we were looking at the overall meaning of the worldview that you express, an opportunity offered up by your comments


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@Oxymandias , you said in reply to this comment of mine;


''I regard Anarchism as an ultimately reactionary ideology, perhaps even the reactionary ideology... An analysis from both Christian theology and the Old Left has persuaded me of that.''

That;

Anarchism is not reactionary because it didn't form or emerge as a reaction to a shift from the status quo. Far from it, anarchism constantly seeks to subvert the status quo since that is the only way it could possibly continue to exist in full. Reactionaries are only revolutionary in that they want to return to the status quo. The only difference neo-reactionaries have from historical reactionaries is that neo-reactionaries want to return to a status quo that is so far away in the past that it would be impossible to reinstate the conditions that lead to that status quo. This is why, while they appear to be revolutionary as they are attempting to overthrow the status quo, they are still conservative and strive to establish a prior status quo.

If the circumstances they wish to re-create cannot be recreated, then the Reactionary is not a traditionalist as such but a Revolutionary. However, Anarchists are objectively reactionary because they cannot in any way seriously change the status quo.

Oxymandias you said in response to my comment here;

'' Where my break with the whole Leftist spectrum might come lies not with my Theism, but with the concern that ''progress'' is not necessarily inevitable or maybe even desirable in some circumstances, that regression and reaction may be just as much an integral part of the material dialectic as progress and development.''

That;

You seem to have a very specific and particular understanding of progress.

I do. Genuine human progress is spiritual and cultural, with the socio-economic foundations forming a kind of matrix or mold from which the higher things of human existence develop or come to attention of the human mind.

I further stated;

'' Now, if this all is as I have said, and the trend is really towards ''Anarcho-Capitalism'' I cannot automatically say that this is unjust and wrong, if it was indeed the inevitable consequence of previous forces at work. I'll have to see it.''

To which you further elaborate upon;

It honestly probably will, at least in the West. If this anarcho-capitalism "trend" comes somehow to the Greater Middle East (I highly doubt it will) we'll be probably far more capable at handling it than the West (which will probably regress to chaos, oppression, and savagery quite quickly). The West's brand of capitalism hasn't had the same cultural impact on the Middle East as the West.

I agree, in fact I think that the East will be more capable than the West of handling this phenomena that I foresee.

Now, as to that and the ramifications of Anarcho-Capitalism and how VS's thought appears in relation to it, you stated;

I don't think @Victoribus Spolia believes that kind of "late stage capitalism" hogwash. And I when I say hogwash, I don't mean that I think it's hogwash as well.

We'll have to ask him, but I suspect that he certainly believes that the Capitalism that exists today is entering a crisis from which either what we see as progress-Socialism-or what he sees as progress- anarcho-capitalism/neo-feudalism, comes forth as the next stage in the human story.


Talking of the State and Capitalism, I had said;

'' He and I agree in one primary thing outside of religion; that the modern State leads, unless it collapses, to Socialism. Furthermore, while I would say to him that without the State Capitalism will cease to be within a short amount of time... To me, the internal dynamic of Capitalism favors the disintegration of the very State that upholds It.''

And you replied;

Actual capitalism reinforces the state. Capitalism consists of exploitative unjustified hierarchies and so is the state. Hierarchies often integrate or mesh well with other hierarchies so capitalism and the state go hand in hand.

I respectfully have to disagree; those in power in a Capitalist society, the Bourgeoisie, have a lock on affairs there and run the State to the extent that it even exists, for their private benefit. The State in a society run ostensibly for the common good, a Socialist Republic, is run for the benefit of the people, who do the work and make everything possible. Capitalism undermines any efforts for the public good, and thus ties the hands of the State in that direction as much as possible.

Looking forwards into the future, Oxymandias, you said;

If any states fall in the Middle East, at some point in time, I think the Middle East might end up anarchist. Not anarcho-capitalist, just any type of anarchism outside of that. The core ideologies you should be looking for when contemplating what type of anarchist society will emerge in the Middle East if it's current states fall look at mutualism, anarcho-syndicalism, and communalism since, chances are, it's all three at the same time.

That's an interesting idea, Oxy, I'll have to reflect on that especially given the tribal and familial aspect of life in the Middle East, and the degree of influence it has on shaping the modern era of the region to this day.

[blackjack21]

A European Army seems very unlikely at this point with Britain leaving. Basically, what France is ultimately doing is asking Germany to re-militarize. It's amazing what the French can forget with just a few generations of left wing education.