Less dependence on a US dollar weakened by faster inflation. Fewer foreign investments in the US. Nations less willing to host US bases, building up their own military instead. Less of a coordinated effort to fight contagious diseases or provide aid during disasters. The internet fragments, com domains become less popular for exchanging ideas and commerce.
Depends on whether the dictatorship is competent or incompetent. Businesses need years of lead time to negotiate deals, build factories, make a profit. But they can’t make plans for the future with a government that is run by idiots. That’s a guaranteed money-loser.
Just wait a year or two and find out.
The cons would outweigh the pros.
We would be back to the 2000s where the world was cautiously allied with the U.S during the Bush years. Like, the world depends on the U.S for a lot of things and to lose it’s support, ally and everything to dictatorship would be detrimental. Trump is orchestrating a U.S where he thinks everyone should bow to the country, under his rule. It’s not about making America Great Again, it’s about making Trump Great Again.
As a European, I can’t see any difference. It is true that Bush junior - just like his father - shamelessly exploited his supremacy to bring Iraq under his control, but I don’t see what has changed since then.
I don’t think there’s a previous period to compare it to. The US has gone through isolationist periods before (eg 1930s) but never dictatorship.
Dictatorship of The Proletariat:
Step 1: Vanguard Party takes “temporary” control
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Vanguard Party says: “Actually nvm, its “temporary” indefinitely”
Result: Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, but with extra steps.
Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds:
But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.
The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
The pure socialists had a vision of a new society that would create and be created by new people, a society so transformed in its fundaments as to leave little opportunity for wrongful acts, corruption, and criminal abuses of state power. There would be no bureaucracy or self-interested coteries, no ruthless conflicts or hurtful decisions. When the reality proves different and more difficult, some on the Left proceed to condemn the real thing and announce that they “feel betrayed” by this or that revolution.
- Americans Can Now Expect to Live Three Years Less than Cubans
- Helping 800 Million People Escape Poverty Was Greatest Such Effort in History, Says [UN] Secretary-General, on Seventieth Anniversary of China’s Founding
- China’s Energy Use Per Person Surpasses Europe’s for First Time
- At 54, China’s average retirement age is too low
- China overtakes U.S. for healthy lifespan: WHO data
Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second
I’m sure people thought the same about disposing of monarchy at one point.
People could form their own communes that best reflects their values and stay united under a federation of some sorts for defense against the inevitable bourgeois aggression.
Perhaps that is what the USSR could have been.
Maybe next time.
Tourism and business travels would probably take a hit.
Europeans still summered at the beach in Spain under Franco.
Some would still come, but much less. I personally have chosen to avoid travel in USA during trump 1. I would again if things get crazy. I know that Australia, for instance, lists USA as risky for gun violence and demonstrations. It particularly calls out election and inauguration as to be avoided. It’s still noted as safe, but not as safe as Australia due to general violent crime. https://www.smartraveller.gov.au/destinations/americas/united-states-america
Why is that?
The American brand still has a lot of value and a lot of American exports are tied to that brand. A large part of that brand is Freedom™. If the USA were to go full fascist, that brand is fucked.
There is also the idea that part of America’s media strength is based on a free market for cultural output. A fascist America would likely not have the ability to pump out the quality of media that it did before due to government censors.
I think the strongest brand America has ever had is capitalism™. And I don’t think anything would change in the entertainment industry if America was openly autocratic. I think the US is organized that way for a very long time, just with a veneer of democracy to keep the people somewhat happy.
It is the veneer that moves product.
America exports a lot of tourism dollars and that’d likely come grinding to a halt.
There would be less noise on the internet every 4 years.
That’s about it.
give it a few years. were about to find out
There’s plenty of historical precedents of democratic countries becoming authocratic. The Weimar republic, for example.
That’s right. And the US is well on its way. It is unfortunately almost an exact copy of historical events.
It’s wild to me that liberals and leftists were both aware of the path that Weimar took towards facism and the liberals decided to use that knowledge to pressure the leftists to hold their nose to vote w them anyways (just as it happened in the Weimar) and the leftist refused (also just like what happened in the Weimar) and now we’re in this situation w trump.
It makes me believe that; at some future state; the liberals will likewise believe that they can force the leftist to kowtow to their platform to the same disastrous results and it makes me wonder if the left wing of politics will permanently do this dance of the liberals perpetually trying to force the leftists into unwillingly accept their platform despite it not happening no matter how much they push for it and I also wonder if the liberals will ever learn this lesson as well of the lessons from 2016 and 2024 that they will never be able to pressure the leftists into accepting thier platform.
The fact that the Democrats continue to insist that they lost this election because they went too woke makes me believe that this will happen at least one more time; assuming that there will be another time.
Better make sure the capitol in DC has fire supression.
If the US became an international bad actor the first crisis to resolve would likely be the outsized environmental impact America has. I’m pretty sure the rest of the world could sanction America into oblivion due to how unnecessary American exports are but it’d put China in an unrivaled power position.
It’d really fucking suck but that may be where we’re headed.
If the US became an international bad actor
- List of Atrocities committed by US authorities
- A Detailed Chronological List of US Interventions, Invasions, Destabilzations, and Assistance to Oppressive Regimes (ending in 2002)
- The U.S. Did Not Defeat Fascism in WWII, It Discretely Internationalized It
- Shock therapy (economics)
- Are We The Baddies?
- The blueprint of regime change operations How regime change happens in the 21st century with your consent
- Infographic: US military presence around the world The US controls about 750 bases in at least 80 countries worldwide and spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined.
- Michael Parenti: Africa is Rich
- World Incarceration Rates If Every U.S. State Were A Country
Is the US currently treated as a bad actor internationally?
Depends where. It has allies and has enemies and frenemies. Since Trumps first term, it’s viewed as more unstable and unreliable. I don’t think his second term will alter that view. America was a lone superpower after the fall of ussr. So, it provided stability. Now with the rise of China, and a more unified EU, it’s less powerful, but still the most powerful. The USA has done some terrible atrocities and continues to support many. The most recent being the current genocide in Gaza. Do you think Palestinians view the USA as a bad actor?
I see: you’re myopic. You’ve got rules-based international order brainworms. You think the imperial core, which represents a minority of the world’s population, natural resources, and industrial production, is the entirety of the “international community.”
#AlwaysTheSameMapBRICS is already bigger than the G7 by every useful measure. Ranked: The World’s 20 Largest Economies, by GDP (PPP)
I’m not - my original comment wasn’t talking about whether the US was acting in a morally correct manner but rather if it was seen as a reliable mediator. It is certainly not the most trusted nation in the world but it is highly trusted. Becoming a despotism would break a lot of that trust as “being a democracy” is highly valued internationally and, traditionally, America is essentially the judge of who is and isn’t a democracy (or has control of the organizations that do).
BRICS is in a really interesting place right now because China continues to prop up Russia and India and South Africa are intent on reinforcing good will with China. They have a real tangible power internationally but Russia is still an extreme pariah. I was disappointed that they didn’t adopt an alternative trade currency as that’d provide (imo) a lot more global stability in the long run - but that may still come together. Also in my opinion if China either dropped support of Russia or supported a coup/revolution to depose Putin it’s likely they’d rapidly overtake the USA in the few western spheres the US still politically dominates - I’m not a political strategist but I absolutely can’t comprehend why China is spending so much potential reinforcing a highly unpredictable government like Putins but that may just be down to personality quirks of Xi.
Russia is still an extreme pariah
Russia is still an extreme pariah only if you get your information from imperial core media. Russia just hosted the BRICS summit a few weeks ago, and everyone showed up. The Global South generally doesn’t have issue with Russia, and unlike the imperial core, they aren’t sanctioning it.
Also in my opinion if China either dropped support of Russia or supported a coup/revolution to depose Putin
I have no reason to think China has any interest in deposing Putin. I think you’re just making things up in our head. You may be projecting imperialist thinking onto ant-imperialist China.
a highly unpredictable government like Putins
The Russian government is not unpredictable. Where are you even getting this from? And neither is Putin an unhinged dictator with limitless powers. He’s quite rational, and he’s about as answerable to the Russian bourgeoisie as Biden is to the American bourgeoisie.
that may just be down to personality quirks of Xi.
This sounds like great man theory, which liberals often subscribe to, but Marxists don’t.
If the US became an international bad actor
🌎 🧑🚀 🔫 🧑🚀
deleted by creator
