I want to hear you reasons, why do you think that.
I think we’re going through Cold War 2 before World War 3. China and Russia have been testing krill fishing limits recently while American private equity has entered the field, and the TikTok showdown is testing Internet authority.
The class war never stopped.
America will take Greenland, and then Canada is next being surrounded on three sides.
Can a NATO country invoke the defence pact if it’s attacked by another NATO country?
NATO vs America wasn’t on my bingo card.
I think sort of, although it won’t be as cut-and-dry and the first two. I think it’ll be somewhere between a traditional ‘hot’ war and a cold war, where the larger players (ie: China, the US, Russia, the EU) will engage in propaganda wars, attempts to destabilize each other, cyber attacks, trade wars etc. while in areas outside of those groups (eg: Ukraine currently) there will be physical wars fought by proxy between the bigger groups.
I think we’re seeing the start of it now, and IMO the US is probably doing the least well so far of the major groups. Russia is doing the destabilization thing, which is working quite well in Europe and spectacularly well in the US, China seems to be leading in trade and tech (both cyber attacking and just undermining the US tech sector with things like DeepSeek) and I think Europe’s strategy seems to be to just bunker down and see what happens.
I think the main advantage the US traditionally has always had is its military - it’s geared up very well for a big physical war, but I don’t think this is that kind of conflict. And with the Trump administration’s obsession with tariffs and the general disregard for education and soft power, I think the country is really heading in the wrong direction for what may be coming.
Most arguments against a potential WW3 happening seemed to base the assumption that we were dealing with mentally competent world leaders, who were ultimately worried more about their money and comfortable life, so would not let it happen. Trump and Elon have grown up in such wealth, they are completely disconnected from reality and I believe are insane enough to think they are untouchable by anyone and anything, even Putin knows he is not invincible. This swing to the right in Western countries seems to be filled with similar people, with the common belief that they will never truly have to deal with the consequences of their actions. People with this level of insanity, do not care if the poors get ground up in their wars and thus, i think it is now just a matter of time.
when the rich wage war it’s the poor who die
Not WW3, but Cold War 2.
Already there
I mean, unless there is no major global war from now until the heat death of the universe or some other extinction level event, aren’t we just perpetually going towards WW3?
This might be his exit strategy. This is how he can get a third term.
No, we are not headed for WW3.
The military-industrial complex must be fed, our weapons sold or used. But, a large magnitude hot war has far more social and economic risk and not enough return on investment relative the alternative of multiple proxy wars. We’ve currently proxy wars in Israel and Ukraine. Economic growth is optimized by beginning a proxy war with China.
If Trump was smart then he might internally convince others in his administration to diplomatically and operationally over-commit. Then we could have WW3. But, he’s a puppet ruling by fear. We’ve been fighting our proxy wars since Reagan. Trump isn’t capable of overcoming capitalism’s mandate for optimized growth.
Economic growth is optimized by beginning a proxy war with China.
But where? Taiwan seems the obvious candidate. Not sure if that would really lead to (quaterly) economic growth though.
Not sure if that would really lead to (quaterly) economic growth though.
Regarding war and money, the question often isn’t who’s positioned to gain the most, instead who’s positioned to lose the least. We often don’t measure self against history and reason, instead relative our competitors.
Taiwan seems the obvious candidate.
The US has already manufactured consent to have a proxy war with China. I assume we’ve not done it in Taiwan because we’d lose more on trade than we’d gain consuming weapons, perhaps also because China could absorb the loss of Taiwan as a trade partner better than the US.
But where?
To be determined. We’re ready and waiting for an opportunity to present itself.
In the long term, yes. The bourgeoisie are rich and comfortable with no desire for a war that could jeopardize their position. However, they have lots of financial incentives for military spending because it’s rife with corruption. As such, they do a lot of saber-rattling to make WWIII seem like a genuine possibility, while also fighting in proxy wars around the globe.
But the problem is, they’re playing with forces beyond their control. If you have a generation raised on constant propaganda to genuinely hate other countries, then all it takes is a couple people in the wrong positions at the wrong time who aren’t in on the game. Right now, the rabid dog is on the leash of the bourgeoisie, but the gamble they’ve been making is that they can keep pumping steroids into it forever and never lose control.
Furthermore, wasting all this money on war and militarism has allowed China to emerge as a credible threat to their global hegemony. China is sitting back and focusing on domestic economic development, and they are winning the peace while the US burns itself out. What happens when the only area in which the US has an advantage is the military? Are people really going to accept becoming #2, or are they going to force a confrontation? Given that we’re talking about Americans, who are 1) Riled up on propaganda, 2) Preoccupied with being “#1,” and 3) Unused to experiencing the effects of fucking around firsthand, it seems almost inevitable. Ofc, it’s true that we somehow maintained a Cold War with the USSR for decades, but it’s different today because conditions are declining and the far-right is growing stronger every day.
Perhaps. Depends, ultimately, on if the US Empire goes down with a bang, or a whimper. Its grip on the world is spilling through its fingers like sand, so either it will watch it fall out helplessly, or will attempt to strike and retake what it’s losing.
“and now class I would like to draw your attention to a footnote that existed between the ancient empires of Britain and the Glorious Peoples Empire of China… for a time there was a thing called ‘America’…”
I don’t think the PRC will be taking on the mantle of “Empire.” Hegemon, sure, but their strategy thus far has been starkly different from the British and US Empires with respect to the Global South. The current US Empire dominates the Global South largely through massive Financial Capital and control of the World Reserve Currency, and is largely de-industrialized, while the PRC focuses more on selling to other countries as a heavily industrialized country. For example, in the US, “Made in USA” is a rarity, and usually just assembled in the USA, while in China “Made in China” goods are by far the norm.
UK went through industrialization leading to its empire, and the US was the industrial power during its ascent. Same thing with Japan before WWII.
Many imoeralistic powers seem to go through big industrial growth before expansion.
Sure, but that evidently doesn’t seem to be the course the PRC is taking. Rather, as Marxist-Leninists, they appear to be more interested in building up the Global South through favorable trade deals as an investment in future customers for their exports. This is fundamentally a different strategy from focusing on exporting financial and industrial Capital to the Global South. Further, China is too populous to offload their productive forces to the Global South, even if we doubt them as dedicated Communists it doesn’t appear to be an economically viable strategy to adopt an Imperialist stance to begin with.
They’re not Marxist-Leninists at all though… They’re just a highly regulated form of capitalism.
The government doesn’t own Tencent, they just keep a strong grip on them. They have their own billionaires, the factories have owners, companies bid to fulfill government contracts, you apply for a job and get paid what they offer. It’s just capitalism
Their government does a lot more than in the US and has a lot more influence, and they do influence the market more… But that’s just regulation and public services
They basically do what we did to tik tok. The US government can revoke a corporate charter for any or no reason, China just actually uses this authority actively
They claim to be Marxist-Leninists, explain their actions, and have an economy driven by Marxist-Leninist analysis. They have Markets, yes, but markets aren’t the same thing as Capitalism itself. Rather, they have a Socialist Market Economy, which is driven by public ownership and planning of heavy industry, energy, finance, infrastructure in general, etc and have partial private ownership over light industry.
By what reasons do you say they aren’t what they say they are? What do you think their economy would look like if they were “true Marxist-Leninists” in your eyes? When does an economy become “Capitalist” and when does it become “Socialist” in your eyes?
Belt and roads is China’s attempt to do exactly what we’ve been doing with the global south, invest for influence and put them on a debt treadmill. Build infrastructure, pressure them to take on more debt with new projects, say it’s time for austerity, open up more foreign investments, use pressure to buy up raw resources, etc
It’s worth mentioning Coca-Cola… You can get American products everywhere, opening them up as a new market isn’t a different strategy, it’s part of the process
This is bullshit projection.
- The Atlantic, 2021: The Chinese ‘Debt Trap’ Is a Myth
- Geopolitical Economy Report, 2022: China forgives 23 loans for 17 African countries, expands ‘win-win’ trade and infrastructure projects
Is there actual evidence of these debt traps, or is that just an assumed motivation? Again, China’s financial Capital is largely held by the State, not private entities. Big difference in motivation compared to, say, US finance Capital, which is largely Private. Furthermore, Coke largely produces in the Global South, China produces in its own country.
Yes, the World Bank and the IMF. I’ve even seen it personally, which is what led me to dig down the rabbit hole - I got interviewed by a world Bank employee to explain why I was installing a system for an airport, and they kept trying to guide me to explain why it was helpful…I couldn’t, because it was only useful if the Internet is down, and if that happens it’s probably not useful because the system had to be taken down if there’s bad weather, and the airport regularly flooded during storms anyways
They were constant protests and news coverage of projects being pushed on them, and it was an open secret for the airport workers. It was for things they didn’t need or want, even though they had plenty of infrastructure in disrepair already
Argentina is the classic example, they resisted and had their currency destroyed, which makes international trade hard. Other countries go so deep in debt they have IMF officials installed in their government to implement austerity measures, some even are forced to hand over their currency printing powers
Sometimes countries get into our good graces, like Peru, and they are let off the treadmill in exchange for beneficial trade deals. That’s after having their resource rights sold off and letting in foreign investments to extract wealth moving forward, but mostly they’re kept in perpetual debt as leverage
It’s a wild and very deep rabbit hole. The information isn’t hidden, it’s just spun in a positive light
Yes, the World Bank and the IMF are major actors in post-WWII neocolonialism.
Guess which is the sole country with veto power in both the World Bank and the IMF?
You’re describing Imperialism as outlined by Lenin in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism and its contemporary form by Hudson in Super Imperialism, but these are overwhelmingly done by Western countries, especially the United States. Do you have specific evidence of this being a primary factor for China specifically? Again, the US relies on this as its Capital is overwhelmingly financial, whereas China’s is Industrial.
I mean… They’re not exactly hiding it. The expressed purpose of belts and roads is to invest in their infrastructure and partner with them to build industrial capacity. Conveyer belts and roads. They openly state they’re doing it to build up trading partners and global influence
It’s literally the same thing… Will they be better partners? Hopefully, it’s not exactly a high bar
I feel like we’re already in WW3 but everyone has to pretend we’re not to avoid escalating it to nuclear.
Probably. Too many hot spots in the world right now where a minor mistake can result in a chain reaction.
As the Axis, yes
We’ve been in it for decades it’s just more covert and low intensity. The war never stops until we overthrow capitalism I’m afraid
