Uh, yeah, not like this.
If you’re sitting around waiting for the empire to fall, then it’s never going to fall. Empires fall because people make them fall.
And it’s going to be achieved with blood…
Also, ask when Rome fell, historians wont agree on any specific date. They were never the top of the town afterwards, but the fall was more of a gradual multi-century tumble punctuated by hitting every rock on the way down.
A watched empire never falls.
it’s all fun and games until the emperor picks up a fiddle
Idealism is tossing a toll on your mental health
No, Tattorack is correct. Material conditions decaying makes it easier to topple, but Materialists know that without the working class organizing and acutally overthrowing the system, it won’t fall. The system still has to be killed and replaced, otherwise it will linger on.
Not exactly true. USSR, felt without a single drop o blood, most because it’s economic opening movement started too late. US government is taking actions that are isolating US commercially, increasing its debt and losing relevance in the world’s diplomacy.
Haha USSR no single drop of blood that’s a good one my friend
Along of it history, yes. During its dissolution, unless I am missing something, there was no fight.
The USSR wasn’t an Empire, which played into that. Further, the reforms it introduced weren’t because it opened up too late, but because they played against the socialist system of planning. The PRC’s approach to economic reform retained full state control and is focused on unity, rather than disunity, which is why it’s working.
Neither is US. The empire reference is related to the imperialist state policies. Not the same but similar to that was the policies of USSR with other countries of the Soviet block and what Kzar Putin is trying to do with th Baltic’s today.
Your point of view about the Glasnost, Perestroika and consequently the dissolution seems more from the structuralist point of view (which is valid and revelvant for the dissolution), while my argument is more from the economic point of view.
In a very pragmatic way, the closed economy model of USSR imposed many of the issues that deepened the structural problems (like you mentioned) and accelerated the dissolution. Based on Gorbachev own opinion, the Chernobyl disaster was the start of the dissolution: combination of a repressive internal policy creating a fertile environment for corruption, burocracy and inneficiency, together with an outdated industry caused by isolationism.
US seems to be doing the same: closing its economy, negationism, losing diplomatic relevance, …
Although a completely imbecile, Elon is right in one point: there is only one party in US right now, and it is not even remotely aligned with what the Americans need/desire. Same type of structural corrosion that brought the Soviet block to dissolution.
The US is absolutely an Empire, it practices imperialism, by which it extracts vast wealth from the global south. The USSR didn’t do that.
Further, I’m absolutely focused on economics. The Soviet economy slowed, but was still growing. The dissolution of the USSR was multifaceted, complex, and not boiled down to one failure. Further, its conditions are entirely different from the US, which is a decaying Empire, the fruits of imperialism are diminishing and disparity is rising.
I’m a Marxist-Leninist, economics are core to my analysis.
Saying that USSR didn’t extract wealth from other countries in the block, treating them as colonies is a huge stretch. All the political control was crntralized in Moskow, Russia promoted a vast resource extraction, specially from Ukraine, imposed language suppression, cultural assimilation and demographic engineering e.g. Holodomor.
No, this is wrong.
-
The Soviet economic system was federated and planned. The political control in Moscow wasn’t absolute by any stretch.
-
The various Soviet Republics were not colonies, not by any stretch. Resources and goods were shipped around the whole system as needed, not just imported into Moscow.
-
There was no forcible cultural assimilation. There was a huge effort to cultivate a soviet identity, but there wasn’t an attempt to erase cultural identity. The famine in the 1930s was caused by natural causes, not “demographic engineering,” grain was re-allocated to Ukraine once it was known that there were famine conditions. There was forcible re-allocation of various ethnic groups like Koreans, which did exist, but this isn’t the same claim you made either in scope or character.
So no. The USSR was not imperialist, not by the correct concept of imperialism as a form of international extraction, nor the vague “Soviet Bad” thing you tried to make it out to be.
-
Comrade, this is number 1 bullshit.
Mean, mode, or median?
What’s the standard deviation look like?
i’m more concerned with what the standard deviant looks like i got to keep up with my fashion
From post-apocalyptic raiders to antihero Casey Jones, weaponized and armored sports gear is always stylish and fashionable.
i feel like we’re less post-apocalyptic and more apocalyptic and maybe i should get more eyes
Rome lasted 1,480 years.
in b4 someone says that it is an “average”.
that number is made up BS anyways
Forget about averages, his post isn’t even factually correct. Rome did not last 1,480 years.
depends how you define Rome, from 753bc and the Byzantine empire lasted all the way to 1453CE. so Rome lasted longer if you count it as the Roman empire.
The Roman Empire began in 27 BC with Augustus, the first emperor of Rome. It eventually split in half in 395 AD. The Western Roman Empire, including the city of Rome itself, fell in 476 AD. The Eastern Roman Empire, or the Byzantine Empire was centered on Constantinople, not Rome.
yhea, but they still considered themselves Roman.
the point is that it is impossible to determine when exactly an empire begun or ended.
we could argue for weeks and the Roman empire, and that’s just one of countless empires.
The point is Rome did not last 1,480+ years as you and the other poster claimed, not even close. Odoacer conquered Rome and became the first barbarian king of Italy in 476 AD.
tell that to the byzantines who claimed to be the successors of the Roman empire. don’t think they got the memo
The Roman Empire split in 395 AD. The Western Roman Empire, including the city of Rome itself, fell in 476 AD.
deleted by creator
Empires don’t end, they fizzle out.
Even if this statistic wasn’t bullshit, this comic has an inherent cruelty to it that ironically feels very American
Real empires go for much longer.
The US will not be more than a shitstain in the pages of history.The 250 year thing is basically completely made up BS
Indeed. The empire you left to make your own with blackjack and hookers was nearly double that. If you want to be facetious too, then probably triple.
250 years is just a rough estimate. As an expert, what’s the number you’ve arrived at?
Three
Add fiddy and we’ll talk.
deleted by creator
It’s straight up not a thing, there is no number of years which tends to correspond to the life expectancy of empires
We’re talking about the average life expectancy of an empire. It’s a fairly straightforward calculation if one has all the data ready.
Average out of which number? There has not been enough empires in human history to get any kind of valid statistical conclusion.
Also, the ancient egyptian empire lasted over 3k years, for you to get an average of 250y with such outlier you would need to include what, several 10y “empires”, or divide empires by ruler. Which would then make the conversation moot since each US president would be a new “empire”.
The claim comes from John Glubb, and he used this chart to make the average out of… 11 data points!?! While missing tons of other ancient empires that lasted thousands of years?!
This is the book where he makes such claim
So to answer your comment, yeah math is easy. Impossible to reach such average number with all the data though, given that it was made with a wildly incomplete and incorrect data…
the ancient egyptian empire lasted over 3k years
No, not even close. The Egyptian Empire lasted from 1570 to 1069 BC.
The claim comes from John Glubb
No, there are others as I’ve already mentioned. The Changing World Order by Ray Dalio also arrives at the 250 year number. Cliodynamics and Structural-Demographic Theory suggests cycles of 200-300 years as well.
It’s not really that straightforward though, is it? Firstly is it a mean or a median average? What counts as an empire? When do we date the rise and fall of specific empires? These are not questions with straightforwards answers. Would Hitler’s Germany count as an empire? How many Roman empires were there?
I wish liberals could actually read.
Hurrr librulz durrrrr. Fuck off.
I wish more people understood statistics. Did you learn about moments?
You’re all worried about statistics and the poor guy can’t even read.
Do you count the Byzantine as separate or the same as Rome?
Your talking about structures comprising huge numbers of people across multiple generations. There is no clear “death”. Just the gradual shifting from one set of conditions to another. Pick any line in the sand, declare it to be the “end” of an empire, and you’ll still find people living under its rules, speaking the language, and using the currency well afterward.
Hell, look at Britain. No longer the globe-strangling power that they were, but it’s still the same country with the same rules and government and money.
Good counter argument
Sure, we could also work out the average life expectancy of a mammal.
But, would it really be useful, predictive or meaningful, given the variety and variability of the conditions the data emerges from?
Yes. The average life expectancy of a human for instance is a useful statistic in healthcare, social services, financial and retirement planning, etc.
Yes, because of the relatively similar conditions and needs of humans
Something empires don’t have!
Interesting… 😂
mammal, not human
It being an average number, pulled out of it’s context, doesn’t necessarily mean anything beyond just the average
Regardless, that is the number we are interested in.
I hate to be nitpicky about a meme but I love to be nitpicky. This claims is based on bullshit statistics that the author made up or bent to his will. The Ottoman empire alone shows this to be incorrect but Rome too stands out. Besides, what would an arbitrary amount of time have to do with the collapse of complex economic systems. Its bullshit idealism and I hate seeing it.
I am begging the US to collapse though
Also worth pointing out that, while America may be 249 years old, no one would consider it an empire for the majority of that time. Its debatable, but I would argue we didn’t really reach an empirical level of power until the late 40s, when we started taking over what was left of the British Empire’s influence over the middle-eas5.
The US has always been a settler-colony, but it became more Imperialist after World War I with the inter-ally debts. It became world hegemon after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, however.
Average. It’s just an average. I haven’t verified whether the number is accurate (and often it’s probably debatable what qualifies as an empire and at what point it fell) but some empires lasting way longer does nothing to disprove 250 years being the average lifespan.
The second part of what you said is still entirely correct of course, that number has no real predictive capabilities for the collapse of the USA.
It isn’t though, I have seen the original source of this claim and its bs. The author just picks and chooses when empires begin and end so that it fits their claim. I would concede the point if it were ever actually an average.
I mean yea that doesn’t surprise me in the slightest honestly, even outside of the number itself being pretty meaningless in the first place it’s very fuzzy what the actual dates are.
It’s not just Glubb. The Changing World Order by Ray Dalio also arrives at the 250 year number.
Cliodynamics and Structural-Demographic Theory suggests cycles of 200-300 years as well.
Of course this is incorrect, go look up an empire and see.
… Roman empire got over 1000 years, Ottoman’s got 623 years, Mongol empire only got 162.
…and Italy, Turkey, and Mongolia are still around, they’re just not empires anymore. They’re Nations.
“Average”
it isn’t an average, it’s a literal bs made up number
Sure, but that doesn’t change there will be outliers at both ends. And the lower end would likely have far more. So no matter the average, it would be on lower end of the max.
So if an empire and only one lasted to 1000, but others 5 years, or even days. It makes sense that an average around 250 is entirely possible.
if you want to go into statistics, normal average are useless for these things, as many empires last a few years, while others can last thousands. they don’t fall in a normal distribution, you might need a geometric mean.
but also, empire is such a vague term. did the Roman empire fall around the 5 century? or do you count Byzantium as the Roman empire?
Did England start with the Norman invasion? or was it from before and the Normans were just a new dynasty?
it’s something that’s practically impossible to count, what’s an empire? when it started/ended? and on top of that no normal distribution.
I don’t disagree, there isn’t a great way to quantify the data, I’m just making a discussion out of the main comment seemingly missing what an average is by talking about edge cases on the high end. Also their 3 examples, which I assume are the only 3 high end cases. Already have a massive discrepancy.
1000 and the next closest being ~600, it infers that long empires are few and far between.
there’s no average, that number was literally made up for some bs theory of empires.
it isn’t because it’s an “average” it’s literally made it, and it’s impossible to get, as whatever definition of empire will miss so many “empires”.
it’s multiple layers of bs.
No one’s arguing that dude, but that doesn’t mean people can’t point out and talk about someone who missed what an average is as well.
Mean, median, or mode?
Yes.
I take preference to the “Russian method” cut off the high and low score and mean them.
these where the first versions of empire that existed on this world and full of equal parts flaws and dumb luck as a result
the modern hybrid euro-colonial versions also have flaws and luck on their side, but, more importantly, they learn and adapt from each other and, as a result, have a pattern that we can now identify.
You do know what average means in this context, right? You divide the sum of the empires’ years by the number of empires.
The actual paper the number comes from (Fate of Empires by John Glubb) is complete bullshit, though. Even the cherry-picked examples it uses, which are limited strictly to the surroundings of the Mediterranean, don’t use any kind of consistent criteria for when an empire starts or ends. He tries to count “Alexander (and his successors)” as one coherent entity and then picks an end year in which all of them had either already collapsed long ago or would not do so for many decades to come. He cuts centuries off of the Roman Empire’s lifespan by just saying that the empire was unstable and getting invaded a lot (and ignoring the Eastern Empire entirely). HIs reckoning of the “Arab Empire” includes three separate caliphates, and the end date isn’t even the actual end of any of them
Other than that, no, it does not attempt to find an average in the sense of a mean lifespan. It actually does argue that 250 years for an empire can be compared to a human living 70 years.
But if the average hides a huge range of datapoints, it becomes less useful.
Then it wouldn’t be reasonable to assume the US would collapse right at the average (mean) though. If the majority of empires collapsed at the same age (the mode) it would be different, but the mean tells you very little about when any particular empire will collapse.
The mean number of children per household is a decimal, that doesn’t mean any households have partial children.
Pic unrelated
(I’m /j)
When someone says “death to America”, they aren’t saying “death to Americans”. A government/state is a regime, not all it’s people, despite how much as nationalists love to stoke that sort of patriotism. So I have no problem with the slogan, I call for the fall of the US imperialist regime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America#Interpretation_and_meaning - has some confirmations from various Iranian politicians and a travel writer.
Usians: “hate the government not the people”
Usians when hearing someone else say “hate the government not the people” about USA: “we’re gonna kill you”
OK, so what’s the plan for bringing death to the USA without killing a single American?
Where is that constraint coming from? “Death to [x]” is a statement of a desire.
“Death to Americans” would be a call for the deaths of citizens. Obviously Iran doesn’t consider the typical American citizen to be oppressing them, so they are not interested in calling for that.
Someone yelling “death to America” could still be supporting the death of George W. Bush or Donald Trump, who are Americans. It could even involve combating many in the US military. That’s still very different from calling for “death to Americans”, because the target is the regime, not its citizens simply for being citizens.
But I still think you’ve raised an interesting discussion to have so I’ve tried to answer it.
In an ideal world, regime change. Relatively peaceful dissolution is preferable and possible (consider the death of the Soviet Union).
However, given the ruthlessness of the people with the most power in the US, I suspect they would gladly kill millions of Americans before even considering a peaceful surrender. People are shot by the state in regular protests, let alone one directly threatening the state (case in point - Jan 6 had a protester killed by police). So unless some interesting lucky opportunities open up (such as a military coup), the USA will (continue to) kill Americans to maintain stability, regardless of whether those opposing the USA kill a single American.
Given that situation, it sounds like any resistance to the US is bad because will likely involve deaths of innocent people. Yes, but the other side of the story is that to do nothing ‘‘also’’ results in the deaths of innocent people. To the people running the show, it’s completely normal to oversee the constant atrocious social murder of many thousands each year through poverty, artificial scarcity of food and medication, healthcare denial and other neglect in the name of profit. We overproduce enough food to feed everyone, there’s enough land and property to house everyone.
To do nothing is to allow many Americans to keep dying each day from easily preventable deaths. To fix that system will most likely kill many Americans in the process. You can almost simplify it down to a trolley problem - there’s no clean solution whichever choice you make. But, for each of us, there is a correct decision.
Maybe it’d be a good idea to use a word other than death, which is clearly being misinterpreted to mean killing people. “Dissolution of [x]” obviously isn’t as snappy, but it’s an improvement at least in terms of accuracy of intent.
I agree, it’s very tactless.
It’s not correct, but would be nice.
I want to believe
Thankfully, nothing lasts forever.
Despite all the and suffering it has caused and will cause, Trump admin has at least handed us the beginning of a breakdown in US hegemony as trust has eroded with other nations who are all busy pivoting away from it right now.
Unfortunately upon breaking the gridlock, other nations are scrambling to maintain the status quo rather than leaning into the future by redoubling commitments to address human and climate crises before it’s too late for the humans.
Made-up bullshit
Facebook type posting
It’s funny to imagine our descendants in whatever America becomes defending the empire by saying it wasn’t America’s fault it collapsed, it was Israel’s; hopefully though one of the things they admit is it’s also because of culture war idiocy and other arbitrary, fabricated social divisions; EDIT: Also the empire’s insistence on capitalism and wasting the talents contained in around 350 million people; China capitalizing (haaaaa, see what I did there?) on their population with excellent access to really good education and health services has turned their one billion people into its most powerful asset, meanwhile in America humans are also an asset, but in the form of slavery (wage slavery and actual slavery).
