Display:
If people always choose coercive relationships - which is nonsense anyway, although it seems to be a given among people who believe they're important enough to decide policy for everyone else - then a stable hegemony is impossible by definition.

Historically, there's never been any such thing. At best, relative stability is maintained by cripplingly expensive wars until the economy implodes and the wars are no longer affordable.

Ethically and practically, mutually beneficial relationships are vastly more productive and stable for everyone except the psychotic predator class who would rather cover themselves with scraps and baubles than allow a peace dividend to grow the world economy.

It's self-styled 'realists' who are the biggest brake on progress and innovation.

Not everyone wants to remain a stupid rat chasing other stupid rats for scraps around a barrel. Some of us have more interesting plans.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jul 26th, 2010 at 03:50:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No one here is arguing that hegemony is stable.
by santiago on Tue Jul 27th, 2010 at 10:41:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series