>>465794Look at Putin's alliance with the WEF program and what they're teaching in Russian schools. They teach kids about the essences in people to track them. Literal Plato's Republic shit. It's madness and a sign of what the right wants to become, the agenda they would push if they win the culture war. You already see that in the Anglo-American right and the program they hint to with their many influencers and shills - they want full bore eugenics and they all march to the same program. The "left" has a slightly different program but still eugenist. Eugenics is the one thing that is paramount above all, because that is what the rulers actually care about now. They don't care about capitalism and talk about how profit and productivity are evil and economic growth is out of control (because it's a proxy for population and population is evil).
You'd have to see enough of the rightoids' own propaganda and be able to pick it apart to see it represented in Putin's Russia and the Dugin shit, plus the shit Russian English-language propaganda puts out. I've been lurking and see their shit for the past several years, and they stepped up with COVID, the Trump cult, and that infusion of money for influencers after the Floyd riots. I know for certain eugenics is their ride or die. That's the only thing keeping the coalition of interests and the ruling institutions together. They don't believe in the market system as a disciplinary force, because increasingly people realize the market is rigged and the rich can just print themselves free money and make us accept it. There was doubt that 2008 could be repeated, until they did that in 2020 and burned everything to the ground while they offered the so-called stimulus.
>That's wrong there's always people who fight against the empire.There are people who fight the empire out of a pathological opposition to the Satan, and those who fight the empire because they must and submission is not an option. Most people who want to take part in politics know how this game works, and if you are a revolutionary, you are playing that game. Not playing that game entails being a hermit or being a madman fighting a doomed cause. If you have political though, you realize empires are the only way humans can really orient the state towards aims. People will not fight and die for an idea bereft of any real purpose. They will not fight for a lie, and that's all republics ever were. Since we are denied a type of government that overcomes the irrationality of republicanism and we're not even allowed the dignity of an enligthened despotism, we're stuck in this cycle for a long time.
Look around most of the people who are active in politics, and if you talk about a world without empires with any seriousness, you realize you're in the wrong game. Calls to abolish the empire are always sops. The Marxists are no different. They were not fighting to end empires, but to gain position in the imperial camp. It was one of the charges Mao made against the Russians - they were selling out to the imperials and going against their fellow communists, which they were. Then the Chinese sold out to the empire even harder, finalized with the ascension of Deng.
>Yes the US empire is the biggest force, but that doesn't guarantee that people will seek to submit them selves to it.The US as a legal institution is not the empire. This global network of oligarchic firms, NGOs, and institutions above the state is the form the empire takes, supplying its useful officers. The formal state is just an arm of the beast. Private bureaucracies and enforcement mechanisms are massive, and the formal state as massive as it is largely exists to keep this private sector aligned to the mission, and the state is owned by those oligarchs. There is no public oversight or interest overriding oligarchy, and hasn't been for a long time.
Most of the people opposing "the US" are really seeing that the US is a sick dog and jumping on to the new thing, thinking they'll be on top. It's still going to be the same people, and the US state apparatus isn't going anywhere. The only thing that is being abolished is anything good in the former United States.
> But it would also be wrong to omit the fact that nation states are competing against each other.The nation-state as a geopolitical actor was done after 1989, which is something most history and political theory students will know. The rulers of constituted nation-states are tasked with keeping local interests in line, but they cannot pursue genuine "national interests", and really never did. The national interests of the older nation-states were that they sought to enter this global system that was coming into the world. First they compete by racing for colonies and trading opportunities, then they see the global market, the rise of monopolies, and the dominance of oil in technology and industry. Controlling the oil was key to the global system during the 20th century. Only now do you see the interest of oil receding, and it is still necessary to ensure that no one breaks the oil monopoly or utilizes the machine for unapproved purposes. Now the interest is in mechanisms of control, and the rise of data mining and operational control is the "new oil" of the 21st century.
Imperialism never "kept the peace" in any serious way. A look at the Anglo-American empire shows an empire kept in line by war, deception, narcolords, Satanism, a particular attitude towards science and technological institutions, eugenics, gratuitous sadism as a moral philosophy, and whatever genuinely productive qualities can be squeezed out of a wholly maladaptive society. Fortunately for the Empire, the rest of the world doesn't present any serious alternative idea and gave up trying, because in their heart they just want to do the shit the Americans do. If they had a different idea for a global empire that didn't involve planned wars, depopulation, narcostates, and eugenics, they haven't propagated the idea - not that they would, since going against eugenics is going against the Satan. It's death, unless you're like me and have nothing serious to lose. I'm just pissing in the wind, but political actors cannot do what I do. They'd be destroyed if they refused to play with the kayfabe.
Kautsky gets a lot of shit, much of it deserved for being pretty fucking wimpy about the war and what Nazism really meant. Imperialism was the global system at that time, and the supposed conflict of nation-states - which was really a conflict within the nation-states to control the empire - was a temporary state of affairs. The Nazis aren't fighting for Germany - they hate Germany and hate Germans, and sacrificed it all for the eugenic creed. They really did, and that is the only explanation for Nazi conduct during the war. The Nazi strategy was all about organizing fifth columns in any country they wanted to take over, either by invasion or subversion. They were the conspiratoral Jews themelves when it came to their strategy, and that's what you would do if you wanted to win in Germany's position. The moment one country did the right thing and purged the shit out of fascists is the moment they were fucked. German war plans were premised on the idea that the British and Americans were secretly with their Aryan brothers and would coup the US. You still have the apologist types in the US who bemoan the Krauts losing and fail to recognize who their betters are. They didn't succeed in shitting up the world in the 1940s so they try, try again, this time with the support of blue blooded English assholes and the slimiest of America's aristocracy.
>I think that capitalism would have already been replaced by a more advanced mode of production if it wasn't for "imperium" stamping out attempts of individual countries to move on to a newer mode of production.1930s, new economic order. The capitalism Marx described was superceded by this new thing, by decision of those who won rather than by revolution. The revolution was defused by allowing some of the left elements into the imperial structure and allowing them institutional legitimacy - this is what Gramsci's strategy was, march through the institutions. Once that part of the left got their stake in the institutions, they held on to that and turned against the working class base. They invented "fuck you, I've got mine".
The market system persists because a lot of people were invested in it, and that was the only thing they had. They had no reason to ever allow that stake to be sacrificed in favor of any socialist plan. The communists had to defeat their enemies, and when they did win, they usually co-opted the bourgeois in their nation rather than destroy them. They had to give up their claims to property but they often found themselves in favored positions so long as they accepted the Party's rule. That's why you have aristocrats all over the Soviet Union who remain in good standing, because they didn't really consider the Soviet Union ideological evil or fanatical at all.
This just gets to how "mode of production" is nebulous, and is never constituted as a wholly realized "system". Capitalism forms gradually as merchant banks gain prominence and are the facilitators of trading empires starting in the 16th century. By the time there is a revolution to formally introduce capitalism, the bourgeoisie had insinuated themselves in the older system, and the old nobility really could not save the ancien regime. There were liberal nobles who saw the revolution as a conspiracy to put themselves in charge, because Louis was a piece of shit surrounded by other pieces of shit. It gets complciated when you look at the details of these things, and get past the idea of a clean narrative and just-so stories. The people who lived through the French Revolution and its aftermath had a more nuanced view of what happened, because there was enough living memory of how it actually was.