I kinda wandered off from this response. Ain't doing great mentally.
So, what I imagine will happen as the US, as the centre of capital, will continue to alienate "allies" as various economic forces get tighter and tighter. This will cause socialist sentiment to rise in what used to be considered the Imperial core. Whether any revolutionary action or legalistic "democratic" socialist action is successful during that time is a matter of happenstance; supply, the presence of fascist paramilitaries, the divisions between industries and nationalities etc. are impossible to predict. What does matter is that the US will preference stability (or instability favouring capitalists e.g. fascist rioting) within its own borders compared to stability for its historical allies. The preponderance of history would then suggest that the US would be one of the last places to go (alongside geographically isolated capital fortresses, see later)
Notes:
So, when I say that the US is the centre of capital, what do I mean by that? Let's say that the US increased taxes and instituted massive inheritance taxes. Would not capital migrate to Lichtenstein or the Maldives or whatever? Unfortunately for our hypothetical capitalists, their networth is reliant on the systems that US maintains through its military power. Thus capitalists could flee to the Maldives and enjoy daiquiris on the beach to the end of time, but all the industry, technical skills, workers etc. would be left in the US and its subordinate nations. I think deep down they understand this, even if individually it might be preferable to flee to the Cayman islands. Systems like global food production or the petrodollar are similar; Johnny capitalist is not going to be able to yank the food chain in Western Africa from Monaco. A capitalist who flees to Monaco who owns several billion dollars of farming real estate does not have the capacity to maintain their grip on that farming real estate. Ergo, it always comes back to systems of production and the military force required to actively maintain those systems. Thus, the US is the centre of capital.
Geographically isolated capital fortresses: You must have heard about various capitalists building survivalist bunkers in New Zealand or whatever. Similar things happen in other island nations. I feel like why should be obvious: an island is substantially more defensible than a place where angry mobs can just walk to your house. I live in a virtual island (Perth, Australia). I want to write a short essay on Fortress Perth, and why Perth would be a good place for both Capitalists to bunker down in, but also a good place for revolution. But once the capitalists' control over the vast military reserves of the US is relinquished, and for a while before, they'd hunker down in distant fortress to hatch plots and hopefully inevitably break apart. That said, these locations are small and incapable of mounting the sort of political offensives that the US, with all of its wealth and resources, can.
I kinda wandered off from this response. Ain't doing great mentally.
So, what I imagine will happen as the US, as the centre of capital, will continue to alienate "allies" as various economic forces get tighter and tighter. This will cause socialist sentiment to rise in what used to be considered the Imperial core. Whether any revolutionary action or legalistic "democratic" socialist action is successful during that time is a matter of happenstance; supply, the presence of fascist paramilitaries, the divisions between industries and nationalities etc. are impossible to predict. What does matter is that the US will preference stability (or instability favouring capitalists e.g. fascist rioting) within its own borders compared to stability for its historical allies. The preponderance of history would then suggest that the US would be one of the last places to go (alongside geographically isolated capital fortresses, see later)
Notes: So, when I say that the US is the centre of capital, what do I mean by that? Let's say that the US increased taxes and instituted massive inheritance taxes. Would not capital migrate to Lichtenstein or the Maldives or whatever? Unfortunately for our hypothetical capitalists, their networth is reliant on the systems that US maintains through its military power. Thus capitalists could flee to the Maldives and enjoy daiquiris on the beach to the end of time, but all the industry, technical skills, workers etc. would be left in the US and its subordinate nations. I think deep down they understand this, even if individually it might be preferable to flee to the Cayman islands. Systems like global food production or the petrodollar are similar; Johnny capitalist is not going to be able to yank the food chain in Western Africa from Monaco. A capitalist who flees to Monaco who owns several billion dollars of farming real estate does not have the capacity to maintain their grip on that farming real estate. Ergo, it always comes back to systems of production and the military force required to actively maintain those systems. Thus, the US is the centre of capital.
Geographically isolated capital fortresses: You must have heard about various capitalists building survivalist bunkers in New Zealand or whatever. Similar things happen in other island nations. I feel like why should be obvious: an island is substantially more defensible than a place where angry mobs can just walk to your house. I live in a virtual island (Perth, Australia). I want to write a short essay on Fortress Perth, and why Perth would be a good place for both Capitalists to bunker down in, but also a good place for revolution. But once the capitalists' control over the vast military reserves of the US is relinquished, and for a while before, they'd hunker down in distant fortress to hatch plots and hopefully inevitably break apart. That said, these locations are small and incapable of mounting the sort of political offensives that the US, with all of its wealth and resources, can.