I am anxious, as usual – and materially it's to do with the current state of affairs. There is talk of a 3rd World War within the context of this century, and yet we can already acknowledge that historians looking upon this period – in their own century – will have plenty of options to mark as the start of the conflict. They could point to events within the past decade (2016-2026), but I question this framing of periodization. How were the events after the conflict labeled as WWII, itself labeled as the "Cold War" and dotted with numerous violent conflicts across the globe, not worthy of enumeration? If we widen the scope a few centuries back, we could include the Seven Years War (1756-1763) and the later British colonial uprising (1775-1783) as part of a first "World War"1. But I digress – the point of this article is not to get lost in the weeds of labels.
Definitions, on the otherwise, will be needed here, as the intent of this article is to be an examination. In the spirit of this being a draft, though, I would like to invoke Marx's Grundrisse2 and request that the following be given the academic allowance a rohentwurf should. The terms 'Climate Collapse' and 'Imperialist Collapse' carry their own assumable definitions just by the combination of the respective former words and their shared 'Collapse' in their latters. We can get carried away with anxieties within our current, contemporary conditions – but we can briefly define and examine these terms within the context of countering that anxiety with forward-thinking planning.
Climate Collapse"Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us. " Engels, The Dialectics of Nature, 18833
**The accelerating breakdown of Earth's ecology and biosphere due to disruptions caused by relentless exploitation of natural resources.** **Note: labor counts as a natural resource!
Many may view this term as being 'overly anxious' in scope, and I'm sure they would share either a direct or liberal worldview with those that react to the term of 'Climate Change' with suspicion. There is already reports4 and immediate observations to the changing climate before us, but 'Collapse' frames the dangers on a massive scale – rising seas, scorched earth, the end of civilization and all life – which is not occurring in our immediacy (hopefully?). But it is a collapse which needs to be addressed, and Capitalism chooses to address it by embracing its potential. As a mode of production, it already thrives on crisis – what is the boom-bust cycle if not already a well-financed industrial line of apocalypses? *Apokalypsis*, from Greek, means "unveiling" or "revelation", and historically signified transition – not total destruction, but conditions from which a new order emerges. So, sure – if not all life is wiped from the face of the planet, there'll probably be somebody left to sell to.
Lacking a fundamental, systematic change on how this collapse could be addressed, we've instead endured numerous profit-focused investment opportunities presented as solutions; carbon trading, green bonds, and infrastructure to support interplanetary ambitions which encourage us to deny the material reality of what's occurring here on Planet A(ki). We have a history of technological developments which shows that with global implementation we could, at best, mitigate the total damage. The 'math' involved with such implementation doesn't shake out for those concerned about their finances, though. They would rather invest their capital not on far-reaching mitigation, but on "apartheid fantasies of bunkered safety"5 that ensures they retain their class positions - they're banking on doing the selling post-apocalypse.
Imperialist Collapse"Laugh hard, it's a long way to the bank" - John Linnell, Rythmn Section Want Ad, 19856
With this article serving as an examination, I want to posit the question of "which one sounds better?", so that we can apply the same level of optimism that our would-be overlords wish to frame their apocalypse into the definition I wish to propose:
**The systemic disintegration of imperialist structures – feudal or capitalist – due to internal contradictions, external pressures, and resistance from oppressed resources.**
Rome is no longer in existence, yet its impact and consequences remain in these United States. The British Empire no longer exists in the 'superpower' form it carried following the conflict the Soviets called the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945), yet its colonial exploits carried through into conflicts we're contending with today; American Nationalist Assimilation within the occupation of Turtle Island, Zionist genocide within the occupation of Palestine. To tie it all together, we now have Operation Epic Fury for these United States to continue leaving its lasting impact and consequences on the region. What ties these three empires together is the pattern of exploitation and overreach which breeds its own resistance. If we want to resist Climate Collapse, such as by implementing infrastructure that helps sustain life on this planet and aid in survival programs on an international scale, my own answer to the question I posed is "Imperialist Collapse sounds better".
Why? Because just as the fall of the imperialist feudal order paved the way for the current global capitalist version, its collapse opens the possibility for socialism – which these United States could surely use right about now. The old phrase of "seize the means of production" needs to be paired with viewing an oncoming apocalypse as something we, labor (a natural resource!), can seize for our own benefit. This isn't something that can be done hastily, lest we be adventurist – but it also can't be a tailist case7 in which we wait for the absolute worst to happen before we organize. Our tasks should be organizing in the here and now, with an understanding that the spirit we are acting upon is that an even worse collapse than Imperialist is not only a possibility, but a down-right certainty if we maintain our current status quo. I'd rather bank on the future in which we're helping each other survive, collectively and without class.
Conclusion"But the whole process of accumulation in the first place resolves itself into production on an expanding scale, which on the one hand corresponds to the natural growth of the population, and on the other hand, forms an inherent basis for the phenomena which appear during crises. The criterion of this expansion of production is capital itself, the existing level of the conditions of production and the unlimited desire of the capitalists to enrich themselves and to enlarge their capital, but by no means consumption, which from the outset is inhibited, since the majority of the population, the working people, can only expand their consumption within very narrow limits, whereas the demand for labour, although it grows absolutely, decreases relatively, to the same extent as capitalism develops. Moreover, all equalizations are accidental and although the proportion of capital employed in individual spheres is equalized by a continuous process, the continuity of this process itself equally presupposes the constant disproportion which it has continuously, often violently, to even out."8
What is difficult for me to reconcile between my concern for this overtly apparent potential for the end of all life, in the immediate and the long term, could come about by a lack of action. At the same time the most apparent solution (to me), based on previous successes in history that have refined theory, is itself a hardship that should be acknowledged as such. Avoiding unprogressive conflict can lean into liberal passivity, while an unabashed display of hatred of the bourgeoisie for causing this impending doom is undeserved vanguardism – without a mass conscious movement that's clued in, at least. Mass action can only be undertaken by educating the working class, but what angle do we place our agitations of that need upon? In an examination of these 2 forms of collapse, socialist optimism can steel us with the sense that the education provided has a purpose, and the lessons will be carried on by future generations not as lessons to repeat, but as foundations upon which lasting solutions were established. So is the immediate task to teach our current generation how to invoke the collapse of an empire?
Despite my own erratic position on what is to be done, the answer is no. What we have to teach in regards to imperialist collapse is that it is not only possible, but necessary, to establish alternative governance that operates with local collective leadership, which then expands to cooperation amongst various collectives. If we give a generation an early curriculum on rights and responsibilities in relation to their environment and community, and tie that into engagement with both, we are giving them the keys to govern.9 This then gives us the best possible chance to have a generation what will be able to administer a government that's able to respond to events like wide-reaching natural disasters, because what should cooperative aid be driven by if not an empathetic collective concern? But this solution is so far an idealist notion, trapped in a liberal promise until we begin to make moves to materially invoke a mode of production that has a foundation set in inherent human rights that are applied universally, multilaterally in international socialism.
This gives me a chance to reframe my position that Imperialist Collapse sounds better than Climate Collapse, because the question of 'which one sounds better?' becomes an idealist thought – the formation of the question is only suggestive. If I want action, perhaps the more appropriate question to pose in regards to acknowledging both collapses examined is: are you willing to work towards the kind of apocalypse you want? If so, you're going to need to define what that transition looks like, and with what spirit of intention you're acting upon to invoke it. I want a vanguard, which means the working class needs to be educated so that they, as a natural resource, have the means to define their own governance.
Have fun out there.
1Ned Blackhawk, Rediscovery of America, IV – The Native Inland Sea: The Struggle For The Heart Of The Continent 1701-55, 2023