The Decline of the "Empire": Economic and Political Aspects

Economist and best-selling author Professor Richard Wolff discussed the signs of imperial decline in a recent interview, drawing parallels between historical examples and contemporary processes in the USA. In his opinion, American hegemony is going through a crisis similar to those that happened to the Roman, British and other empires before their decline.

One of the key indicators of decline, Wolf said, is the denial of the problem itself. In the US, the topic of the possible collapse of the empire remains taboo: neither Democrats nor Republicans raise it on the public agenda. Instead, the country is trying to slow its decline by preventing the growth of new centers of power, such as China or multinational alliances.

The professor believes that Israel, whose policy of settler colonialism opposes the global anti-colonialist trend of the last 150 years, is a striking example of anachronism in the modern world. At the same time, the US support for Israel, according to Wolf, reflects a common attempt by both countries to maintain their elusive dominance.

The economic underpinnings of the decline, according to the expert, are evident in the sharp stratification of society. Over the past 40 years, the US has seen a massive redistribution of wealth in favour of the super-rich elite, while the middle and working classes have faced deindustrialisation, cuts in social programmes and growing despair. This has created the ground for populism, which exploits the anger of the dispossessed, directing it against migrants and external enemies instead of analysing systemic problems.

Paradoxically, the ideology of free trade, once promoted by the US as the basis for prosperity, is now being rejected in favour of protectionism and tariffs. At the same time, China is positioning itself as a defender of globalization, which highlights the reversal of economic roles.

Wolf notes that the only way out of the crisis is through acknowledging reality and reconsidering policy. However, so far, none of the leading parties are ready to propose radical changes. Instead, the US continues to increase military spending in an attempt to maintain influence, while domestic demand for alternative political forces, such as left-wing populists, is growing.

History shows that empires rarely go gracefully; they often collapse in chaos. The question remains whether the US can avoid this scenario or, like its predecessors, will cling to its elusive power until the end.

Comments

[Machito]

The US will cling to its hegemony until the very end.
For the hegemon.
Without clinking glasses.

[vikk62]

Richard Wolff is an American economist, a supporter of Marxist political economy, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. A leftist and a Greenpeace supporter. Clearly understandable

[severok1979]

Our analysts formulated this position much earlier and much more elegantly:

[shin]

America is finished? But Russia has been on the path to prosperity for the last 30 years. No growth of social stratification. Total stability. A study conducted by the HSE Analytical Center and the Vnesheconombank Research and Expertise Institute showed that 3% of the wealthiest Russians own almost all of the country's financial assets, including cash savings.
The data shows that 92% of all time deposits are also in the hands of these 3%.
This indicates a significant concentration of wealth in the hands of a small part of the population and a high level of economic inequality in Russia.

[Uncle lee]

Quote: golen

But Russia has been moving towards prosperity for the last 30 years. No growth of social stratification. Total stability.

Harsh sarcasm...And nothing to add.

[Panadol]

Because, for example, we have taken the classic capitalism of the late 19th century as our weapons. Like, they are trying to live the 20th century again in a European way. But this is a utopia. The development of civilization does not stand still. And if someone in the Kremlin thinks that it is possible to preserve the situation, then in theory, we will have Afghanistan. And not only in economic terms. But in other terms too.

[Knell wardenheart]

Not at all, Israel as a "young state" receives absolutely the same expansionist-nationalist "bonus" as many young states and young nations. Take the Germans of the Bismarck era or the Japanese of the post-Meiji era and many other examples. As a nation, the Jews are very ancient, but having found a state, they were FORCED to forge a new nation on the basis of the old one, which was a disparate religiously oriented community with different languages ​​and dialects and far from homogeneous ethnically (this is the most ridiculous, if you think about it). Forging a new nation on the territory of a new state, Israel received exactly the same processes that many new nations encountered when they found new states - the need for territorial expansion to compensate for the nationalist impulse.
There is nothing "anomalous" about Israel in this regard. Young states always grow at the expense of aging and flabby ones.
For a modern person this seems wild, but if we look at historical analogies, there are plenty of them.

[Epifantsev Sergey]

Only internal processes can destroy America; external ones are not capable of this.

[Carib]

That's right, but you'll still need to push the cabinet balancing on one leg, just a little bit, at the right moment.

[U-58]

Strangely, neither the USSR nor Russia appears in the material when describing the collapse of empires. Is this not in the study or only in the review provided?
Again, when stating the “stratification of society” into the mass of poor and the handful of rich, the United States is cited, but not Russia.
Is this a coincidence or is there again a "filter" applied to the material?

[plant15]

Quote: U-58

Strangely, neither the USSR nor Russia appears in the material when describing the collapse of empires. Is this not in the study or only in the review provided?
Again, when stating the “stratification of society” into the mass of poor and the handful of rich, the United States is cited, but not Russia.
Is this a coincidence or is there again a "filter" applied to the material?

A very useful remark, comrade.
A little over a hundred years ago the Russian Empire disappeared.
The USSR disappeared a little over thirty years ago.
Now we bear the burden of "gathering the lands".
We have already had an invasion and an armed rebellion.
The public is lulled to sleep by "The Collapse of America".
Those. positive.
There is some inadequacy in all this.

[APASUS]

Empires rarely go gracefully; they often collapse in chaos. The question remains whether the US can avoid this scenario.

They won’t be able to. Because the whole problem of the USA is that they have to live within their means, and they don’t want to cut their expenses. A vicious circle!

[Glagol1]

These will be "in office" for a long time. The foundation is too strong. The dollar, the military machine all over the world, powerful allies, the stock exchange, the secret services that have dirt on 90% of the upper class. It won't just go away. The main risk for the States is their national debt. If they keep the UST price below 5, or better yet below 4 percent, they can refinance for decades. But 6-7% - that will be a crisis. And quickly. But while UST is 4,5% or even a little lower - it's not particularly hard. True, the self-propelled grandfather-can has racked up 4 trillion in new debts in 11 years, leaving Trump no room to maneuver.