I think it’s both. Empire weakens its foundations, then the weakest links in the chain break off, heightening contradictions at play. Empire has to be killed, but this process begins because of Imperialism itself. No matter who pulls the trigger, the US will only have itself to blame for its own downfall.
I could very well be wrong, I’m still a baby ML and am starting to read Hudson’s Super-Imperialism to see how the US empire functions in the modern day, it isn’t the same as Imperialism in Lenin’s time, but I believe Lenin to be correct still in that Imperialism begets its own demise through inciting others against it.
The death of an empire is the qualitative development after a huge sum of quantitative changes, but you still need something to trigger the qualitative change, it won’t happen by itself.
Think of Syria, the fall of Assad happened due to the collective sum of erosion of the economy, the army, the people, etc, but still it was ultimately triggered by the terrorist HTS attack. If that event didn’t happen, Assad would still be in Syria.
People need to organize to kill the empire, not pray for it to fall under its own weight.
100% agreed, I understand what you mean and why you took issue with my framing. The shift from quantitative build-up to qualitative collapse of the US Empire still requires the jump from quantitative to qualitative itself, I agree. If I didn’t, I don’t think I could still be considered a Marxist, haha. Thanks!
You’re completely right, the working class of the imperial core is reactionary by definition, always been and always will be.
Hopefully the Empire will whither and die, and a newly revolutionary working class can arise and organize from its ashes.
I have a problem with that phrasing. The empire will not die by itself, it has to be killed.
I can’t think of any empire or state, no matter how frail, that just collapsed under its own weight.
I think it’s both. Empire weakens its foundations, then the weakest links in the chain break off, heightening contradictions at play. Empire has to be killed, but this process begins because of Imperialism itself. No matter who pulls the trigger, the US will only have itself to blame for its own downfall.
I could very well be wrong, I’m still a baby ML and am starting to read Hudson’s Super-Imperialism to see how the US empire functions in the modern day, it isn’t the same as Imperialism in Lenin’s time, but I believe Lenin to be correct still in that Imperialism begets its own demise through inciting others against it.
The death of an empire is the qualitative development after a huge sum of quantitative changes, but you still need something to trigger the qualitative change, it won’t happen by itself.
Think of Syria, the fall of Assad happened due to the collective sum of erosion of the economy, the army, the people, etc, but still it was ultimately triggered by the terrorist HTS attack. If that event didn’t happen, Assad would still be in Syria.
People need to organize to kill the empire, not pray for it to fall under its own weight.
100% agreed, I understand what you mean and why you took issue with my framing. The shift from quantitative build-up to qualitative collapse of the US Empire still requires the jump from quantitative to qualitative itself, I agree. If I didn’t, I don’t think I could still be considered a Marxist, haha. Thanks!