RE: Imperialism
April 5, 2022 at 9:28 am
(This post was last modified: April 5, 2022 at 9:37 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Democracies (and the democratic nations as a bloc) export their violence and their violent people to the social, economic, and imperial fringe. That they elect to do so by direct public mandate or representative government is the only difference, in this respect, between a democracy and an autocracy. This is true with respect to domestic policy - in the creation and exploitation of second class citizens, as well as foreign policy - in the support of extractive import schemes funding local muscle - often buttressed by military support.
To play devils advocate here, the difference between a democracy and any other form of government is not what people under such a government do, merely how they accomplish the same goals that every other group of people anywhere have always banded together for. That democracies tend not to make war on each other is a pleasant euphemism for the war they do make. The problem with autocracies in that context is not that they're warlike or more warlike, but that they don't select the wars they do pursue by the informed consent of the citizenry.
IMO, the most effective and prudent form of imperialism is cultural imperialism. I think that democracies are better suited to cultural imperialism than autocracies are (or even could be). Mostly, in that democracy (or it's premise) is a part of the cultural pitch. Cultural imperialism is, itself, responsible for the observation that democracies tend not to go to war with each other. A conflict like that would be likely to be perceived as internecine warfare. It fails to successfully export it's violence. The US built a world order and achieved global hegemony by practicing cultural imperialism, primarily. On balance, at least so far, that's been a net positive for humanity. The obvious flaw in cultural imperialism is the content of the culture, and we see that many of the biggest issues that we face (as a nation or as a species) have their origin in some ill-thought out foreign and domestic policies arising from the dominant culture and it's interaction with others it might subsume, subvert, or subjugate.
With that in mind, it will probably continue to be true that some form of democratized cultural imperialism improves humanity's situation. Not necessarily western culture or american culture - mind you. Not because any particular culture is just so damned good or superior. Because of the relatively poor state of affairs for the vast majority of humanity at present. Because people will compete with each other for the forseable future, and any form of competition other than shooting wars is preferable to shooting wars.
To play devils advocate here, the difference between a democracy and any other form of government is not what people under such a government do, merely how they accomplish the same goals that every other group of people anywhere have always banded together for. That democracies tend not to make war on each other is a pleasant euphemism for the war they do make. The problem with autocracies in that context is not that they're warlike or more warlike, but that they don't select the wars they do pursue by the informed consent of the citizenry.
IMO, the most effective and prudent form of imperialism is cultural imperialism. I think that democracies are better suited to cultural imperialism than autocracies are (or even could be). Mostly, in that democracy (or it's premise) is a part of the cultural pitch. Cultural imperialism is, itself, responsible for the observation that democracies tend not to go to war with each other. A conflict like that would be likely to be perceived as internecine warfare. It fails to successfully export it's violence. The US built a world order and achieved global hegemony by practicing cultural imperialism, primarily. On balance, at least so far, that's been a net positive for humanity. The obvious flaw in cultural imperialism is the content of the culture, and we see that many of the biggest issues that we face (as a nation or as a species) have their origin in some ill-thought out foreign and domestic policies arising from the dominant culture and it's interaction with others it might subsume, subvert, or subjugate.
With that in mind, it will probably continue to be true that some form of democratized cultural imperialism improves humanity's situation. Not necessarily western culture or american culture - mind you. Not because any particular culture is just so damned good or superior. Because of the relatively poor state of affairs for the vast majority of humanity at present. Because people will compete with each other for the forseable future, and any form of competition other than shooting wars is preferable to shooting wars.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
