Is the USA in a state of decline as a civilization?

[Helz]

If so is the USA going to fall into a Thucydides Trap situation with China?

Outside of that is China geared to become the next global hegemon?

[Marshmallow Marshall]

If so is the USA going to fall into a Thucydides Trap situation with China?

Outside of that is China geared to become the next global hegemon?

About "decline as a civilisation": I'd argue that's related to a global instability in the Western world, of which the US are the prime example. If, by "decline", you mean changes in terms of social organisation, of who wields power, etc., then yes. If you mean it a bit like Spengler meant it for Germany (cf. The Decline of the West), i.e. that the matrix of ideas in the US is drastically changing, ehh, I would not be so sure of it. The current changes are mostly exacerbations of preexisting elements : religion, libertarianism, some form of social-democratism (if such a thing can be said of the US); this indicates the underlying principles in the US are still more or less the ones that have been there for a very long time.


Thucydides' trap: Depends on the leaders of concerned countries. In a way, we're already in a soft Thucydides' trap*, just like how we were in one during the USA-USSR cold war: two rival powers, the US being the longstanding one, are fighting eachother with their influence. The Truman doctrine of containment was clearly a move similar to the moves Sparta made to prevent Athenian expansion (asking cities to, at the very least, remain neutral). Today, similar policies are conducted, but without the ideological basis: support to Ukraine, attempts to solidify and perhaps even grow the American sphere of influence in southeast Asia (Indo-Pacific initiatives). I see no reason, rationally speaking, for the US to go further than that; as for China, it benefits from peace, since it grows faster than its rivals. The only thing I somewhat fear is to see irrational leaders ignore all of this, along with nuclear dissuasion, and straight up escalate the conflict. But hey, if humanity does that, I guess it deserves what's coming...

*I am aware that this expression usually refers to a fully blown conflict between the declining/preexistent power and the rising one, but the dynamic Thucydides describes in his work is basically a cold war that became hot after a few years, hence my broadening of the term.


Hegemony: The main factor here is going to be internal stability, be it for China, Russia, India, the US and the EU. China seems to be struggling more and more with keeping its people under control. It might have to change its ways - which doesn't necessarily mean converting to liberal democracy, but at least adopting some measures that are more "freedom-friendly" or actually improving its people's life standards -, and that could result in solidification of Chinese power working towards a domination in the new cold war, in collapse of the country, or even in some form of tense cooperation if it feels it doesn't need to oppose the West to grow. Overall, though, Chinese hegemony seems unlikely on the long term.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I sometimes feel like nobody ever reads things posted here...

[Crimson]

If so is the USA going to fall into a Thucydides Trap situation with China?

Outside of that is China geared to become the next global hegemon?

No. That requires effort on a stage that wouldn't counter check them a all points of what would seem good points fo argue, but with real estate nothing but top to bottom slums and no actual infrastructure Being built from a local standing populace, and more of the same communism in different, prob less noticeable ways, I couldn't see why a stupid fucked country that isn't even repeated consistently with my care between the U.S, or good ol' USA! Let's just call it 'murica since it's too much to abbreviate when it makes sense to a degree.


Bitch.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

No. That requires effort on a stage that wouldn't counter check them a all points of what would seem good points fo argue, but with real estate nothing but top to bottom slums and no actual infrastructure Being built from a local standing populace, and more of the same communism in different, prob less noticeable ways, I couldn't see why a stupid fucked country that isn't even repeated consistently with my care between the U.S, or good ol' USA! Let's just call it 'murica since it's too much to abbreviate when it makes sense to a degree.


Bitch.

Are you an undercover AI since 2011 or what? Lol

[scumbot5679]

I sometimes feel like nobody ever reads things posted here...

Why would we read your posts?!? :P

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Why would we read your posts?!? :P

xD

More like read helz, this ain't even my thread...!

[Helz]

xD

More like read helz, this ain't even my thread...!

It does suck. Im half ass posting questions that generated very interesting discussion on other platforms (because most of my conversations now happen on other platforms) to try to generate interaction. Then we get trolling in response >.<

The Discord still has engagement even if its pretty aggressive at times.

I like how you separated the ideas of a shift in control from Spengler's concept of decline although I do feel he nailed a bit or two of our current conditions. A core part of his belief was the idea that in its final stages a society will stop producing brave new ideas until it hits a point of decline and given that his concept was centered around culture I feel like that fits well. Had a conversation just last night about how few large scale movies are produced anymore without a proven track record of profitability. If media is the reflection of culture and its performance is the quantified measurement of its quality the fact 3 major streaming services lost about half a trillion last quarter or that we are down in both audience engagement and profitability in movie theaters reflects a decline in value I would attribute to that lack of producing 'bold new content.'

Thats just touching the entertainment sector. Other bits people in other chats talked about were things like the growing wealth gap, the raising cost of living, the stagnant wages with declining currency value, the growing political unarrest, the decline in ability to access information that can be agreed upon as true, the increasing barriers to entering markets, the lowering quality of life for the masses, the decline of healthcare in tandem with the increase of its cost, etc..
I would say a good chunk of that reflects an isolated power base that wants to both prevent any shift in the status quo while also grinding more out of the general population very much in line with Spengler's thoughts (Although in my initial question I did not have him in mind at all)

[Marshmallow Marshall]

About "bold new content": I don't think that's a decline. I think that has always been, and that time operates a selection of the "greatest", leaving us with some "great masterpieces of olden days", while the pile of garbage that was doubtlessly generated in the past falls into oblivion. Before Spengler, Nietzsche was already complaining about the lack of "greatness" around 150 years ago, after all, and since then, humans have set foot on the Moon (not that I'm a huge space exploration partisan due to problems on Earth, but still, it can't be denied that it's a great achievement). Great works do exist. They're just rare, and they have always been.

That said, at risk of "name-dropping" authors lol, I do think Tocqueville has a point when he says democracy tends to reduce the propension to great works, due to everyone looking to forward their own interests. It could even be said that the moon landing (and the multiple Sovietic space achievements before that) were made possible by the fact the people did not hold that much power in the end in either the US or the USSR, and that the space race was very much akin to pharoahs building pyramids to show their power...

There is resistance against this, though. There are plenty of people, including among the "standard people" (i.e. not the ruling class), who would be perfectly ready to spend money to make space exploration possible. Great projects still exist. As for the long list of issues you have written, it's a bunch of things people want to fix - and fixing these is, in itself, a great project. A civilization is not only its leaders, but also its people and its values, and I don't see these as "dead". The main source of decline I would see there would be political apathy, which is admittedly rampant, but I would argue it cannot last: when you don't care about politics, politics still care about you, and this is going to blow in people's faces at some point...

[Helz]

About "bold new content": I don't think that's a decline. I think that has always been, and that time operates a selection of the "greatest", leaving us with some "great masterpieces of olden days", while the pile of garbage that was doubtlessly generated in the past falls into oblivion. Before Spengler, Nietzsche was already complaining about the lack of "greatness" around 150 years ago, after all, and since then, humans have set foot on the Moon (not that I'm a huge space exploration partisan due to problems on Earth, but still, it can't be denied that it's a great achievement). Great works do exist. They're just rare, and they have always been.

That said, at risk of "name-dropping" authors lol, I do think Tocqueville has a point when he says democracy tends to reduce the propension to great works, due to everyone looking to forward their own interests. It could even be said that the moon landing (and the multiple Sovietic space achievements before that) were made possible by the fact the people did not hold that much power in the end in either the US or the USSR, and that the space race was very much akin to pharoahs building pyramids to show their power...

There is resistance against this, though. There are plenty of people, including among the "standard people" (i.e. not the ruling class), who would be perfectly ready to spend money to make space exploration possible. Great projects still exist. As for the long list of issues you have written, it's a bunch of things people want to fix - and fixing these is, in itself, a great project. A civilization is not only its leaders, but also its people and its values, and I don't see these as "dead". The main source of decline I would see there would be political apathy, which is admittedly rampant, but I would argue it cannot last: when you don't care about politics, politics still care about you, and this is going to blow in people's faces at some point...

I could absolutely see how time filters great works from forgettable ones. I do think Spengler's concept of decline is totally independent of that and applies well to the drive in our society to follow what's established as opposed to innovating in a number of respects but yeah, great works are the exception and time is unforgiving to mediocracy.

I feel like political apathy is more of a reelection of what citizens have control over. The more people realize their vote does not matter the less they will vote or even engage in the process. For an example consider New York's right to repair legislation. Overwhelmingly supported by both citizens and politicians with sweeping votes but when put into practice Govenor Hochul gutted it favoring corporations interests.
So why engauge? When you have both citizens and politicians in favor of something and it still can not happen the system itself is broken. You can get mad about it and scream until your blue in the face or you can say fuck it and focus on the things in your life you can change.

In short- I think political apathy is healthy in a world where involving yourself will just make you upset and you have no voice. Some will say you need to keep screaming into the dark but I would rather pick the fights I take personally and I respect people that step back from the toxicity of macro politics.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I feel like political apathy is more of a reelection of what citizens have control over. The more people realize their vote does not matter the less they will vote or even engage in the process. For an example consider New York's right to repair legislation. Overwhelmingly supported by both citizens and politicians with sweeping votes but when put into practice Govenor Hochul gutted it favoring corporations interests.
So why engauge? When you have both citizens and politicians in favor of something and it still can not happen the system itself is broken. You can get mad about it and scream until your blue in the face or you can say fuck it and focus on the things in your life you can change.

In short- I think political apathy is healthy in a world where involving yourself will just make you upset and you have no voice. Some will say you need to keep screaming into the dark but I would rather pick the fights I take personally and I respect people that step back from the toxicity of macro politics.

Does the overwhelming majority of people have no real influence whatsoever on macro politics? Absolutely. Does that mean they shouldn't have any awareness of where the ship of state, the ship they are on themselves, is sailing? No. While not everyone has to be a literal activist on a full-time basis, being aware of issues so that small-scale actions are at least possible is a good idea. Even more importantly, if everyone just decides to be apathetic, the sliver of accountability that exists and that maintains a minimum of acceptability when it comes to macro decisions pretty much disappears.

That doesn't mean one has to lose their mind over it through anger or desperation, though; drawing a line is what is "healthy", as you said. One simply has to be mindful not to draw that line too close to "nothing".

[Helz]

Does the overwhelming majority of people have no real influence whatsoever on macro politics? Absolutely. Does that mean they shouldn't have any awareness of where the ship of state, the ship they are on themselves, is sailing? No. While not everyone has to be a literal activist on a full-time basis, being aware of issues so that small-scale actions are at least possible is a good idea. Even more importantly, if everyone just decides to be apathetic, the sliver of accountability that exists and that maintains a minimum of acceptability when it comes to macro decisions pretty much disappears.

That doesn't mean one has to lose their mind over it through anger or desperation, though; drawing a line is what is "healthy", as you said. One simply has to be mindful not to draw that line too close to "nothing".

While I agree with the core idea of what you are saying I just do not know if it makes sense in practice. If a meteorite is going to hit earth and kill everyone and we know we are powerless to stop it is awareness of that impending doom an improvement? I would say no. I see so much anger and toxicity generated from politics. People get blindly caught up in talking points and attack etch other over regurgitated rhetoric that often totally misses any kind of functional solution. Worse we see people classifying others as racists, fascists, or hateful people the moment they voice tangential concepts to the established rhetoric. Is this really better than apathy?

I can honestly say the people I know who are the most active keeping up in politics are often the least pleasant people to be around. They get consumed by a manufactured world view and aggressively push that world view onto others blaming 'the other side' for what they see wrong in the world. I feel like this basic cost in quality of life would be justified if some good came of it but really, I don't see it. I do not see some kind of progress and I generally think the world is a worse place now than it was 10 years ago.

Awareness does not seem like the issue to me. We are all watching as corporations crunch on citizens squeezing more money for products designed to be disposable while wages fall. While our purchasing power falls stock prices grow so politicians call it progress. There is just a very basic conflict of interests in the decision making process we are totally unable to address. Even the way we have public discourse on the subjects has been so consolidated that its used to manipulate the public.

For example if we were to talk about healthcare the conversation almost immediately jumps to insurance. Should people pay for it? Should it cover pre-existing conditions? Should the Government pay for it? But why is that where the conversation goes instead of addressing that Americans pay astronomically larger amounts for medicines and services than other first world countries? We are conditioned to approach the conversation from such an angle. It provides a solution to 'people need healthcare' without hurting the profit margins politicians are so focused on. Maybe its the very 'awareness' of us tuning into the rhetoric that hinders us from approaching situations with functional solutions.

I just don't see being aware of problems as an objectively good thing when as a society we march are way down a bad path with full awareness of what we are doing. Accepting strife and pain into our lives without some benefit for that cost is rough.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

While I agree with the core idea of what you are saying I just do not know if it makes sense in practice. If a meteorite is going to hit earth and kill everyone and we know we are powerless to stop it is awareness of that impending doom an improvement? I would say no. I see so much anger and toxicity generated from politics. People get blindly caught up in talking points and attack etch other over regurgitated rhetoric that often totally misses any kind of functional solution. Worse we see people classifying others as racists, fascists, or hateful people the moment they voice tangential concepts to the established rhetoric. Is this really better than apathy?

I can honestly say the people I know who are the most active keeping up in politics are often the least pleasant people to be around. They get consumed by a manufactured world view and aggressively push that world view onto others blaming 'the other side' for what they see wrong in the world. I feel like this basic cost in quality of life would be justified if some good came of it but really, I don't see it. I do not see some kind of progress and I generally think the world is a worse place now than it was 10 years ago.

Awareness does not seem like the issue to me. We are all watching as corporations crunch on citizens squeezing more money for products designed to be disposable while wages fall. While our purchasing power falls stock prices grow so politicians call it progress. There is just a very basic conflict of interests in the decision making process we are totally unable to address. Even the way we have public discourse on the subjects has been so consolidated that its used to manipulate the public.

For example if we were to talk about healthcare the conversation almost immediately jumps to insurance. Should people pay for it? Should it cover pre-existing conditions? Should the Government pay for it? But why is that where the conversation goes instead of addressing that Americans pay astronomically larger amounts for medicines and services than other first world countries? We are conditioned to approach the conversation from such an angle. It provides a solution to 'people need healthcare' without hurting the profit margins politicians are so focused on. Maybe its the very 'awareness' of us tuning into the rhetoric that hinders us from approaching situations with functional solutions.

I just don't see being aware of problems as an objectively good thing when as a society we march are way down a bad path with full awareness of what we are doing. Accepting strife and pain into our lives without some benefit for that cost is rough.

This feeling is not unique to the US, and seems to be harming pretty much every liberal-democratic society (other societies are too busy suffering in silence or trying to attain something that somewhat resembles liberal democracy). There are two counter-points to your stance I wish to bring, even though I'm not sure they will satisfy you, simply because the truth is there is no heavenly amazing super solution.

1) Social organisation is not a meteorite. It is not impossible to change. It is incredibly hard to individually control, but so are many things in life. To manage this lack of power over reality in order to avoid harming one's health while keeping on living and interacting with the world is a work that probably lasts throughout one's entire life, but it's still necessary.

2) If we just choose to see all the problems of our time as inevitable and entirely uncontrollable forces, almost like divine punishment, then why don't we all just go and jump from the nearest cliff? Saying darkness will inevitably consume everything and we cannot do anything about it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It also strips life of its meaning. Better a tragic life than an utterly empty one, for the former is life, whereas the latter is death before death itself.

[Helz]

1) Social organisation is not a meteorite. It is not impossible to change. It is incredibly hard to individually control, but so are many things in life. To manage this lack of power over reality in order to avoid harming one's health while keeping on living and interacting with the world is a work that probably lasts throughout one's entire life, but it's still necessary.

2) If we just choose to see all the problems of our time as inevitable and entirely uncontrollable forces, almost like divine punishment, then why don't we all just go and jump from the nearest cliff? Saying darkness will inevitably consume everything and we cannot do anything about it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It also strips life of its meaning. Better a tragic life than an utterly empty one, for the former is life, whereas the latter is death before death itself.

I do agree I spoke to an assumption that things can not change while it is technically possible.

I feel its less of "its impossible so why try" so much as "I have so much energy and time in my life, what do I focus on that brings value to my life?" I could follow political parties and politicians or the proposed laws but even that dissemination of information is awful. Information is twisted in its presentation and politicians often change their positions. To actually understand the major laws that get passed there is a hardly an outlet out there that will actually dig into it and explain it. I remember years after Obama care was put into law the very politicians that voted for it admitted to not understanding massive parts of it. These kinds of things make it very intellectually demanding as well as time consuming to even be aware. The fact or major news outlets do not even try when its literally their job to disseminate such information is a big problem.

Then if I am aware what do I do with that? I get frustrated trying to hold conversations that cut through skin deep regurgitated rhetoric or angry at the abuses of power with no real recourse to implement change. At one point I literally sued the federal government for enforcement of a FOIA request to get information on conflicts of interest in Central Texas VA Healthcare and I still couldn't push that through. I feel that not just the system itself is broken but the clearly established checks and balances themselves are compromised. I had my day where I spent a lot of time and effort to right the wrongs I saw at scale but I drew the conclusion my time is better spent elsewhere. There is only so much of it and I can do more good working with organizations and individuals within my society. If anything I would say people should be involved in their very local politics but addressing local corruption can get dangerous fast. At the end of each presidency a pile of pardons gets handed out to powerful people who broke the law and as a society we have pretty much accepted that as 'normal.' I think we are well over the point of no return and some collapse and reform will have to occur to reset things.

Maybe its more on the individual to decide if Apathy or Awareness is the right way to go. For me personally I very intentionally avoid allowing some things space in my head.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I do agree I spoke to an assumption that things can not change while it is technically possible.

I feel its less of "its impossible so why try" so much as "I have so much energy and time in my life, what do I focus on that brings value to my life?" I could follow political parties and politicians or the proposed laws but even that dissemination of information is awful. Information is twisted in its presentation and politicians often change their positions. To actually understand the major laws that get passed there is a hardly an outlet out there that will actually dig into it and explain it. I remember years after Obama care was put into law the very politicians that voted for it admitted to not understanding massive parts of it. These kinds of things make it very intellectually demanding as well as time consuming to even be aware. The fact or major news outlets do not even try when its literally their job to disseminate such information is a big problem.

Then if I am aware what do I do with that? I get frustrated trying to hold conversations that cut through skin deep regurgitated rhetoric or angry at the abuses of power with no real recourse to implement change. At one point I literally sued the federal government for enforcement of a FOIA request to get information on conflicts of interest in Central Texas VA Healthcare and I still couldn't push that through. I feel that not just the system itself is broken but the clearly established checks and balances themselves are compromised. I had my day where I spent a lot of time and effort to right the wrongs I saw at scale but I drew the conclusion my time is better spent elsewhere. There is only so much of it and I can do more good working with organizations and individuals within my society. If anything I would say people should be involved in their very local politics but addressing local corruption can get dangerous fast. At the end of each presidency a pile of pardons gets handed out to powerful people who broke the law and as a society we have pretty much accepted that as 'normal.' I think we are well over the point of no return and some collapse and reform will have to occur to reset things.

Maybe its more on the individual to decide if Apathy or Awareness is the right way to go. For me personally I very intentionally avoid allowing some things space in my head.

Fair enough; all of this indicates a sore need for simplification, or at the very least effective vulgarisation that doesn't twist reality too much + proper education so that people can have a decent understanding of politics without having to spend their life researching stuff lol. That is up to politicians to do - and is thus up to citizens to demand. This is not as hard to do as having a global understanding of politics, by the way: interest/pressure groups can focus on specific issues that remain political without getting involved in the broader, large-scale issues.

About the "point of no return" position: I unfortunately feel like you might be right on that point, specifically regarding the US. And while I am aware this thread has "USA" in its title lol, I also feel like the conversation ended up expressing views that would apply to any democratic society, which is extremely unhealthy for the ones that aren't near-doomed by a terribly strange system that imperatively requires a deep reform within its core principles (why the heck do "great electors" even exist today??? unnecessary steps away from direct democracy contribute to the feeling of lack of power over the system). Hence, my earlier points probably apply much more to the rest of the democratic world than to the US.

However, this argument could always be reversed... and turned into an argument for becoming revolutionary, specifically to bring this deep reform from ideas to reality. That is however infinitely beyond the point, and expecting people who can live reasonably well to become revolutionary is probably irrational.

And in the end, it is obviously up to individuals to do what they want with their lives. It's just that I fear those who decide they want nothing to do with politics at all will end up having the very bad surprise of not being able to do what they want with their lives anymore.