it strikes me as sad that the only thing that is capable of displacing the american empire from it's top position as the world's hegemon is the leadership itself; not any sort of political agitation, nor progressive movements, nor working within the sytem, nor humanitarian reasons, nor resource/climate depletion.

the people at the top really are in an ivory tower where nothing at all can touch them and it feels like there's absolutely nothing we can do to change it; it might be possible if we could put our differences aside to work together, but it's clear that they've mastered the ability to keep driving us apart so that doesn't seem realistic ever again.

[–] CrawlMarks@hexbear.net 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I am pretty sure it was the same with every other empire appart from the cases where a bigger empire comes in and takes over. Like, the bolshevics were fighting a failed underdeveloped state

[–] machiabelly@hexbear.net 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Ottomans took a slow decline over centuries after institutions based on constant expansion failed.

British were unable to maintain all their colonies after WW2.

Assyrians were too brutal and it made them unstable.

Achaeminids were outclassed in terms of military theory, tactics, and equipment

A bunch more due to famine.

Incans and aztecs from smallpox.

No powerful state at their apex fell from anything other than military defeat, unsustainable institutions, catastrophy, or poor leadership.

Internal dissent can overcome a weak state, but not a strong one, at least not without support from foreign powers.

It doesn't mean that internal dissent is useless, just that it won't be the biggest factor in decline.