If you are invested in the United States continuing to exist in some form that is institutionally continuous, and yet you recognize the horrors of America's history of imperialism, how do you reimagine American foreign policy? Who is in this space?
-
Show this thread
-
Who is doing anti-imperialist work while imagining something less catastrophic and "millions of people probably die" than somehow America ceasing to exist as a state?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Whenever I imagine social justice, I assume eventually the institutions of the state will have to be organized around anti-hegemonic principles. But short of an actual "one-world government," how can international cooperation be structured around anti-hegemonic principles?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Furthermore, does "peace" (i.e., the restriction of violence to approved sectors among approved actors) require (a) hegemonic power(s)? How do you avoid both the global hegemony of a state that abuses its power to control smaller states...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
AND avoid the European phenomenon of centuries of war between relatively equally-matched regional powers?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Again, it is unclear how to get there politically, but it is fairly simple to imagine an America within my lifetime, institutionally continuous with America as it exists today, where presently-oppressed groups live decent lives.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
I've spent less time thinking about it, but it is far, far less clear what it looks like to have an America that doesn't murder and immiserate millions in other countries in defense of its interests and agenda.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
And IS there ever an appropriate kind of international intervention? Is there ever an ethical imperative for a militarily stronger state to intervene in the affairs of a weaker one? If so, how should that nation conduct itself?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread
And like "no free movement of capital without free movement of labor" is a lovely slogan and makes a lot of sense theoretically, but pragmatically... what does that actually look like? Not "how do we make it politically feasible" but "what happens if we get what we want?"
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.