The Triempirate
THE TRIEMPIRATE
In the 1930s, Italy (Fascist) and Germany (Nazi) joined forces in alliance and called themselves the Axis powers. Later, they included Japan (Unitary state imperialism) and created a three-point Axis. All of them were totalitarian and were ready to carve up the world in a three-way split.
After World War II, when the Axis powers had been defeated, there arose a different power-sharing détente – courtesy of the Cold War.
The United States led one faction, based on North America and Western Europe, and it was called the ‘Free World’. Mostly it was based on Market economics. There were elements of Corporate Statism, but it was generally under control, and for the most part its constituents could justifiably refer to themselves as democratic and free. Many elements in Europe were more like welfare states, but still had free enterprise systems.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics led the main opposition to the Western world, mainly through Stalinist Communism. This was a totalitarian, centrally controlled command economy, with little freedom for anyone, even the rulers. Although begun by Lenin and continued by Stalin, this was nationalist Communism, Russian variant.
The non-aligned nations that ostensibly did not take sides, were often known as the ‘Third World’. For the most part, these were countries that were poverty-stricken, had authoritarian government, often were emerging from colonialism, and almost all at best had showcase democracy. Their economies were dysfunctional and they were not able to take care of their people. The only reason they existed was that many of them had strategic natural resources, and were geopolitically vulnerable so that the first two powers engaged in a zero-sum contest that usually resulted in a neutral balance of power.
There was a fourth area, a Third Power, which people seldom recognized as powerful and able to wield its influence. This was Communist China, as begun by Mao Tse-Tung and later continued by a series of party loyalist functionaries, a self-perpetuating group who were and are, in the end, pragmatists. This was the same as the post-Stalinist USSR had been. Preaching their own brand of Communism, the Chinese autocrats actually were simply another variant of authoritarian/totalitarian rule based on and in the Middle Kingdom.
Since the fall of Soviet Communism in the early 1990s, there has been an ostensible realignment of powers. But this has only been either a cosmetic or structural change, not an essential one.
The Soviet Union has downsized to less than the area of the old Russia, geographically not as large as the Tsar’s Russian Empire. Yet it still controls a vast area, one of the world’s largest populations, and includes many nationalities and non-Russian territory. Its economy has staggered but not collapsed, is recovering and it still has vast natural resources not yet exploited. The central authority under Pres. Vladimir Putin grows stronger after each crisis, as the Russian people look for a strong father figure.
The Chinese are Communist in official ideology only. They have unleashed the entrepreneurial spirit of the Chinese people and have become one of the world’s biggest economies. Their technological and military strengths are growing every day. Yet they are doing this with a controlled economy. In the end, all economic efforts must be for the benefit of the state, not the people. Chinese influence throughout Asia is stronger than ever, and imperialism in one form or another is a major government program.
The United States has reverted back socio-politically to the Age of the Moguls, where corporate powers held rights equal to or greater than individual Americans. And in the Ark of Empire motif, young men die on foreign soil to benefit business interests and family honor, pretexts for war provided upon request.
The current Triempirate differs only from the earlier versions in that the three powers share a common fundamental ideology – Corporate Statism.
Is this reading too much into history?
If the Triempirate theory is true, why is there a ‘Rule of Three’?
Is the United States of Europe not to be counted because it is not acting as a traditional imperialist power?
Copyright JCormode 2008
In the 1930s, Italy (Fascist) and Germany (Nazi) joined forces in alliance and called themselves the Axis powers. Later, they included Japan (Unitary state imperialism) and created a three-point Axis. All of them were totalitarian and were ready to carve up the world in a three-way split.
After World War II, when the Axis powers had been defeated, there arose a different power-sharing détente – courtesy of the Cold War.
The United States led one faction, based on North America and Western Europe, and it was called the ‘Free World’. Mostly it was based on Market economics. There were elements of Corporate Statism, but it was generally under control, and for the most part its constituents could justifiably refer to themselves as democratic and free. Many elements in Europe were more like welfare states, but still had free enterprise systems.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics led the main opposition to the Western world, mainly through Stalinist Communism. This was a totalitarian, centrally controlled command economy, with little freedom for anyone, even the rulers. Although begun by Lenin and continued by Stalin, this was nationalist Communism, Russian variant.
The non-aligned nations that ostensibly did not take sides, were often known as the ‘Third World’. For the most part, these were countries that were poverty-stricken, had authoritarian government, often were emerging from colonialism, and almost all at best had showcase democracy. Their economies were dysfunctional and they were not able to take care of their people. The only reason they existed was that many of them had strategic natural resources, and were geopolitically vulnerable so that the first two powers engaged in a zero-sum contest that usually resulted in a neutral balance of power.
There was a fourth area, a Third Power, which people seldom recognized as powerful and able to wield its influence. This was Communist China, as begun by Mao Tse-Tung and later continued by a series of party loyalist functionaries, a self-perpetuating group who were and are, in the end, pragmatists. This was the same as the post-Stalinist USSR had been. Preaching their own brand of Communism, the Chinese autocrats actually were simply another variant of authoritarian/totalitarian rule based on and in the Middle Kingdom.
Since the fall of Soviet Communism in the early 1990s, there has been an ostensible realignment of powers. But this has only been either a cosmetic or structural change, not an essential one.
The Soviet Union has downsized to less than the area of the old Russia, geographically not as large as the Tsar’s Russian Empire. Yet it still controls a vast area, one of the world’s largest populations, and includes many nationalities and non-Russian territory. Its economy has staggered but not collapsed, is recovering and it still has vast natural resources not yet exploited. The central authority under Pres. Vladimir Putin grows stronger after each crisis, as the Russian people look for a strong father figure.
The Chinese are Communist in official ideology only. They have unleashed the entrepreneurial spirit of the Chinese people and have become one of the world’s biggest economies. Their technological and military strengths are growing every day. Yet they are doing this with a controlled economy. In the end, all economic efforts must be for the benefit of the state, not the people. Chinese influence throughout Asia is stronger than ever, and imperialism in one form or another is a major government program.
The United States has reverted back socio-politically to the Age of the Moguls, where corporate powers held rights equal to or greater than individual Americans. And in the Ark of Empire motif, young men die on foreign soil to benefit business interests and family honor, pretexts for war provided upon request.
The current Triempirate differs only from the earlier versions in that the three powers share a common fundamental ideology – Corporate Statism.
Is this reading too much into history?
If the Triempirate theory is true, why is there a ‘Rule of Three’?
Is the United States of Europe not to be counted because it is not acting as a traditional imperialist power?
Copyright JCormode 2008
Labels: Imperialism, Modern Axis Powers
posted by Jack Cormode at 4:21 PM
0 comments
