==========================
The Entropy of Empire
There are, no doubt, many reasons why men aspire to become the chief executive officers (CEOs) of nation-states turned empires, not the least of which is a sincere desire to directly effect the course of these empires’ decision making and thus, history. Rarely is this opportunity granted, because nation-states, and especially imperial nation-states, are driven by an overweening self interest that is nearly perfectly inscrutable. Thus, the course of empires is goverened not so much by the conscious decisions of individual men, as it is by the inevitable collapse of empires; what I call the the “entropy of empire.”
======================

I have a different analysis: so called empires like the USA, the soviet union, china, the british empire, the roman empire etc are created by forces exerted by the rich, exerted downwards, and they are destroyed by forces exerted by the workers, exerted upwards.

The creation of the USA is documented in the writings of its creator, James Madison. He wrote that he created the federal union in order to disempower the people and thereby thwart democracy by disuniting the majority, and thereby protecting the rich from the majority. His words.

When we workers take down this american federalist empire, it will be by starving the beast and sending taxation and spending power back to the states, thus creating a higher degree of democracy by more closely uniting the majority in each state, and thereby enhancing democracy. Democracy is what the majority seeks.

Reagan did not kill off the Soviet Union. Detroit and japan. In the 80s, cars were quite fuel efficient. (even more than today, because they were lighter. (Laws created from the top have made cars heavier and thus less fuel efficient than they could be.) The effect of all these fuel efficient cars was to drive down the price of oil. Russia is rich in oil. That oil money was used to keep the satellite soviet states happy. Once the price of oil fell, the money dried up, and the satellite states went their own ways. Why? Because they wanted more democracy. With no oil money coming in, the puppets of russia that ruled in the satellite states were swept out of power, and new parliamentarian (and thus highly democratic) forms of government were installed in the satellite states. Of course in russia itself, federalism still reigned because it is too large for the people to actually wrest control of it from the rich.

you wrote:
==========================
The entropy of empire narrows and constrains the choices any individual actor can make, and does so most powerfully with respect to actions of the CEO. As a result, the most powerful influence an imperial CEO or emperor is likely to have will occur not as a consequence of the formal or deliberate decisions he makes, but rather, as a consequence of his unintended actions.
==================

You have a top down orientation. You look at events from the perspective of the rich and powerful. I look at them from the perspective of the workers.

you wrote:
==================
If you doubt the former, it is only necessary to look to the economic and international policies of the ostensibly liberal Democratic US President, Barac Obama, taken since he assumed the Presidency in 2004, and contrast them with those of George W. Bush, his “ultra-conservative” Republican predecessor. Because the entropy of empire is in play, it is hard to tell where the forigen or economic policy of Bush left off, and that of Obama began.
=====================

I agree that obama is not that different from bush, but what about one of his beliefs–that lasting change comes only slowly. It’s true.

you wrote:
=================
There is an unfortunate tendency to think of empires solely in geopolitical terms; as agglomerations of nation-states and territories spanning continents and being possessed of vast wealth and power. In fact, empires come in all sizes, and while all are, relatively speaking, both wealthy and powerful (and ultimately profligate and failed) they can exist whenever conditions allow for the dominance and control of an asset deemed essential by some fraction of the population. The Roman catholic Church prior to the Reformation and the company owned Appalachian mining town are both examples of empires that can exist apart from the nation-state (and even within it), writ both very large and very small. It is a peculiarity of cryonics under current conditions that, because of its lack of widespread societal aceptance, the absence of meaningful qualitative feedback, and the high threshold of resources and credibility required to capture any of the current microscopic market [BUT WHY IS IT SO MICROSCOPIC?], new ventures are effectively prohibited, at least within the US. Thus are empires made, and once made, they go on until their time is up; until their entropy collapses them.
=====================

you wrote:
===============
Anyone who takes or accepts the credit for the intellectual workproduct of another man, as JFK did when he was complicit in the creation of Profiles in Courage, has shown himself to be a blackguard.
====================

One thing that scares me about you is your moral absolutism and certainty that you are right.

you wrote:
===============

The economic collapse resulting from the stock market crash in 1929 had led to profound social unrest and the emergence of vigorous socialist and communist political activism throughout the Western world.
================

Actually it began much earlier. Really it started in the 1600s. There was a wave of populism that not only resulted in the french revolution, but also resulted in the creation of the USA and the destruction of the articles of confederation. Shays’ Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, even that surrounding of the building where Madison and the other elites were hammering out the details of the new federalist pseudo-democracy (disgruntled and unpaid war vets surrounded the building, stuck their rifle barrels into the windows. Madison had to shoulder his way out of the crowd (they should have hung the little monster) (btw that incident caused madison to place the new capital in DC because it was isolated from the working class majority who he was afraid would burn down the capitol)).

Further examples of the wave of populism that began well before the Depression was the Haymarket affair. You can get a good idea of how strong that wave of populism was by looking at the Red Scare political cartoons of the 1910s and early 1920s. They used to be on baruch.edu.

you wrote:
===============
In Germany, Spain and Italy the advance of communism was seen to have been effectively stopped by Hitler, Franco and Mussolini, and perhaps even more importantly, to have been countered by a movement (Fascism) which offered economic recovery as well as eugenic improvement and a new “scientific system of government.” Mussolini made the Italian trains run on time and Hitler created a vast industrial infrastructure in Germany and pulled the country out of a catastrophic inflationary depression.
=====================

I suspect that the elite exaggerate the effects of hyperinflation because it wipes out the debts that the workers owe to them.

you wrote:
===============
Both men coupled these acommplishments with a showy ideology that sparkled with glamor and promised to bring order out of chaos.
================

One way that Hitler kept power was by giving the wealth of the jews to the people. The pogroms were in some ways a wealth redistribution program.

you wrote:
===============

At the time of JFK’s presidential campaign, elements inside the US Air force were engaged in a major disinformation campaign, principally to convince as many in government as possible, as well asthe American electorate, that there existed a “missile gap” between the USSR and the US.
=================

Ah, yes. The missile gap. Read Chomsky’s book on the spectacular achievements of propaganda.

The elite are so adept at finding ways to fund wars. The Lusitania, The Maine, The Tonkin Gulf, Pearl Harbor, Kuwaiti Rape Rooms, Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Instead of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, shouldn’t we more properly be labeled Homo Sapiens Propagandus?

you wrote:
===============

The Western view of Russia and of communism, is that their economic system (collectivism) was a grotesque and nearly complete failure, which was the direct result of collectivist ideology and practice.

=======================

It was really collectivist; more like pseudo collectivist. Collectivism can only take place on the local level.

The Soviet system, along with Red China’s system, was really a grab of power and wealth by posturing politicians. The wealth was owned by the elite there just like it is here.
You can put a feather in your hand and call it macaroni, but it still just a feather.

you wrote:
===============

As peoples, we squandered the funds that would have paid for us to become a space-faring people,
==============

Thank Dog the space race is over. What a bunch of nonsense. I too once a heinlein-phile, wanting to go into space.

http://laudyms.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/defense-spending-is-much-greater-than-you-think-more-than-1trillion-a-year/

He was terribly young and inexperienced, and how on earth one trains for a job like the Presidency of the US is beyond me. It’s a difficult job, not just because of the decisions you get to make in a proactive way, but (more so) because you must avoid mistakes and misunderstandings that will lead to explosive escalation. It’s a lot like defusing bombs and handling high explosives for a living. Eisenhower had remarkably good reasoning skills and enormous wisdom. If you contrast the two men, you can see at once the advantage that age, and the experience of commanding in WWII, bestowed on Eisenhower (and that was lacking in Kennedy). I cannot begin to imagine Eisenhower countenancing escapades like the Bay of Pigs, or trying to kill Castro, let alone with poisoned pens or LSD.

Finally, I think Kennedy saw the Presidency as a “big deal,” as an opportunity to make his mark on history – not to any special end – not to end slavery, or even go to the moon. The best the CEO of an extant empire can do is to minimize the evil it does while maximizing its stability and prosperity. It’s a custodial job that requires yeoman-like work. Unless, of course, you are bent on either expanding the empire, or holding onto it when it is no longer economically viable to do so. A good example of the latter is Churchill, who was a horrible CEO of the British Empire in decline, but who was absolutely essential to the survival of Britain in WWII. — Mike Darwin