• CantaloupeAss [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think “failed state” applies. The US government still has full sovereignty over its territories and there is no competing force that has any political or military claim that could realistically contend with the existing state apparatus. Is it a brutal and exploitative state with a fully frayed safety net? Yes. But a failed state? No.

    • Blursty@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you think its starving citizens consider it to be successful?

      By what measure do you see it as successful? Because it has “no competing force that has any political or military claim that could realistically contend with the existing state apparatus”? Is that the metric?

        • Blursty@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          We don’t have roving bands of militia outcompeting the US military, nor do we have separatist political groups forming competing governing structures within US territory.

          I honestly thought you had both these things? Well not outcompeteing the military no, but aren’t there confederate secessionists?

          Although there are many Americans who are in poverty, the vast majority of Americans are not starving.

          In the richest country in the world, not everyone is starving. Good job.