Why don’t empires work but countries do work?

[Hardkill]

I remember Leo saying in his Stage Red video that one good thing about Red traits is that “it allows unification of squabbling tribes” for creating a cohesive nation. Obviously this has worked and states, provinces, countries, etc. will continue to hold together as they are for probably centuries longer. However, why did empires such as the British Empire, French empire, Spanish empire, Roman Empire or other empire throughout history never lasted for long?

[Yarco]

Historically, empires tend to die when they spread themselves too thin.

In the time where your only form of communication is running letters from France to Rome on horseback, it's pretty hard to maintain control over vast distances or maneuver armies around in time to fend off sneak attacks.

Even in modern times, the sheer cost of maintaining an intercontinental military will tend to lead to the collapse of an empire. As I think we will eventually see with the United States. Although now that we live in an information age and air travel, I think maintaining an empire is easier than ever. We are starting to see China build their empire in Africa. Theoretically Russia could start pushing West and taking back former USSR countries, but I think the international pushback would be too much.

[hyruga]

Well, aren't China, Russia, America or Australia these big countries an empire themselves?

[Leo Gura]

Because they tend to be too exploitative and selfish.

An empire would work if it treated all the states with genuine care.

You can think of the EU as a benevolent sort of "empire" which is working. It has to be an empire of equals, not dominators.

[Hardkill]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Because they tend to be too exploitative.

An empire would work if it treated all the states with genuine care rather.

You can think of the EU as a benevolent sort of "empire" which is working.

True. Empires are or were indeed exploitative. 

However, let’s take the British empire as an example for the point I am trying to make. Instead of having that empire break apart, why couldn’t that entire empire turn into a democratic empire throughout the whole world just like how the entire country of Great Britain changed from being a country governed by monarchy to that being governed by democracy instead of breaking apart into various different tribes? Am I wrong? I am open to seeing my understanding as being possibly incorrect. 

Edited December 19, 2021 by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Instead of having that empire break apart, why couldn’t that entire empire turn into a democratic empire throughout the whole world

Because the purpose of it was nothing more than to exploit for the benefit of the British.

If there was some higher purpose, then it could work. But there was no such grand vision in that case. And also, the members of that empire were not at similar levels of development to make something like that work. It's important that all the member states are on a similar level. The EU works to the extent that the member states are at similar levels of development, otherwise there is too much tension.

The US is also facing this problem as Blue states outgrow the Red states. Keeping a union together is difficult because all the divided parts want to pull in different directions, refusing to subordinate for a higher good.

Nationalism is still a powerful force that most people are unwilling to surrender in order to create a truly benevolent empire. It will take another 100+ years for mankind to transcend nationalism.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Knowledge Hoarder said:

@Leo Gura Would be cool if the entire globe turned into one country, one empire. What are the chances of that happening?

In 500 years it probably will.

[Hardkill]

53 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Because the purpose of it was nothing more than to exploit for the benefit of the British.

If there was some higher purpose, then it could work. But there was no such grand vision in that case. And also, the members of that empire were not at similar levels of development to make something like that work. It's important that all the member states are on a similar level. The EU works to the extent that the member states are at similar levels of development, otherwise there is too much tension.

The US is also facing this problem as Blue states outgrow the Red states. Keeping a union together is difficult because all the divided parts want to pull in different directions, refusing to subordinate for a higher good.

Nationalism is still a powerful force that most people are unwilling to surrender in order to create a truly benevolent empire. It will take another 100+ years for mankind to transcend nationalism.

Ahhh, I see. Okay that make sense to me.

So, it’s because of a number of things including some of he reasons that you just mentioned now up above that have caused empires throughout history to fail. You’re saying that one of the reasons that empires in previous history didn’t work in the past was because those empires such as the British empire had rulers or leaders that neither had a higher vision nor the interest to establish a widespread democratic system throughout their own entire empires. Another reason you’re saying as to why empires in previous times like the British empire couldn’t work for long was because each of those empires had too many different kind of societies that were too different from each other in terms of the  development that each of the societies were at. The reason a country has always worked and still works to this day is because everyone within a particular is close enough to each other in the level of development they are all at. The third reason you gave was because for millennia most people throughout the world have been too attached to the belief of nationalism which also prevents benevolent evolved empires from happening.

You say though that perhaps the only  exception or the possible time throughout all of history that an empire may not have failed was the formation of the EU.

Thank you, Leo. That really helped me a lot to understand better how societies work and develop.

So, do you think that given how divided the US has gotten, that the US will split apart inevitably?

[Etherial Cat]

14 hours ago, Hardkill said:

I remember Leo saying in his Stage Red video that one good thing about Red traits is that “it allows unification of squabbling tribes” for creating a cohesive nation. Obviously this has worked and states, provinces, countries, etc. will continue to hold together as they are for probably centuries longer. However, why did empires such as the British Empire, French empire, Spanish empire, Roman Empire or other empire throughout history never lasted for long?

Because solide power structures do not only need to be built, they also need to be maintained.

A nation state is unified through a process that takes centuries of cohesion and social unification. A good nation state is created out of a defensible territory, a culturally rather homogenous population and capable leadership/government.

Empires tend to spread far out of an initial nation state, swallow up different cultural nations/tribes/cultural ego and fail at both keeping the territory and create a new sense of cohesion between the different populations because the power structure do not last long enough to make the two former element possible. As a consequence, at the first occasion the added territories are lost and the collective egos reclaim their former identity and sovereignty.

Also, nowadays, de facto empire that holds power are smart and do not call themselves empires, but third party countries or partners. They like better to frame themselves like that, because the word empire is badly connoted and they can anyway get all the advantages of being an empire without the disadvantages. For instance, the US is obviously an empire. 

That's why we still talk a lot of concepts like imperalism and neo-colonialism.

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The EU works to the extent that the member states are at similar levels of development, otherwise there is too much tension.

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

An empire would work if it treated all the states with genuine care.

You can think of the EU as a benevolent sort of "empire" which is working. It has to be an empire of equals, not dominators.

If you had a European perspective, you would likely see the EU as a corrupt, defunct and doomed structure which needs to desperately hold for geopolitical and military reasons.

They do a fantastic job at greenwashing and trying to pass as a progressive IO, but underneath the image it is unfortunately rather an undemocratic, technocratic mess, dismantling slowly social progress to align with more neoliberalism.

Also, some toxic Blue states like Poland and Hungary have major SD level differences with  other member states ( ex: Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Germany).

For instance, Poland just banned abortion and is weaponizing migrants. Also, they are rejecting the supremacy and judgments of the European court of justice. So the EU is facing full frontal dissidence by this specific memberstate. 

Another important point to understand is that European nations states have strong agendas against one another. And due to how the treaties functions, major decisions need to be taken at the unanimity. And in the current circumstances, no one will move towards more power for the EU. So everyone is paralyzed.

It's like trying to get Blue states like Califonia and New York to renew their vows with Alabama and Kentucky.

Edited December 19, 2021 by Etherial Cat