This is still a financial assessment, not a real one. There aren’t enough people who know how to architect, build, design, deploy, and operate the kinds of factories America would need. It would take 30 years minimum to even get to place of approaching where China was 20 years ago. By 2055, China will be so far ahead it’s ludicrous.
And that’s just the US trying to play catch up. China dominates academic research in high tech. The US would take at least 30 years to rebuild its university system to produce enough research and innovation that it could compete in the next century’s high tech arena.
And the US’s public schooling system doesn’t have what it needs to produce workers for that economy. Another multi-decade project.
And all of that doesn’t even touch the infrastructure problem. Transit just for employees is untenable for what would need to be done due to suburban sprawl and lack of public transit. But the rail, the roads, and the bridges aren’t in good enough repair to handle reindustrialization. And neither is the power grid, the water system, nor waste management. China is so far ahead on all of these aspects of infrastructure, it would take 30 years and about 4 New Deals worth of investment to just be able to compete with China of 2015.
For what it’s worth, I agree, hence why I said it would delay. The US’s only real hope for the future is Socialist revolution and building ties with the PRC so they help build up the US’s real productive forces.
PRC will never help the USA build up industry because the USA is a criminal settler colony. China will help whatever state emerges from the ashes of the USA rebuild after decolonization.
And how exactly do you imagine this “decolonization”? I always hear these slogans such as “land back” but nobody ever elaborates what stuff like that actually means, so I come to the conclusion that either it is just another empty slogan so “progressives” can feel good about themselves or what they have in mind is basically ethnic cleansing and they don’t want to say that (out loud).
The fact that you think no one ever elaborates means you’re not actively engaged in the ongoing conversation. This has been a conversation within the the indigenous community for decades. There are indigenous academics all over the world writing about this stuff at high levels of discourse analyzing the problem through a plethora of critical lenses.
The fact that you think it could be anything near ethnic cleansing shows that you’re not ready to have the conversation. You think you’re a victim and that you don’t deserve to have your life disrupted. The indigenous discourse has been so very clear on this topic that the only excuse for you still saying this is that you think you’re curious but you haven’t read a single indigenous scholar, listened to a single indigenous podcast, or asked an indigenous person about the topic. That’s not curiousity, it’s intellectual dishonesty.
Decolonization means repairing the damage done by colonization through the dismantling of all structures that colonization relies upon. Ultimately that will mean redrawing borders entirely. Right right now what that means is fighting to have all treaties recognized and enforced. In the middle it means the transfer of sovereignty over portions of land from the colonial state to the indigenous people.
There are plenty of non-indigenous non-tribal-member people living on reservations right now. Reservations are not ethnically “pure”, so why would anyone be talking about ethnic cleansing. When you worry about ethnic cleansing, you are projecting the crimes of your own people onto the victims of that crime and then saying the reason you’re going to continue oppressing them is because of you don’t they’ll commit the same crimes your people did.
First of all, you make a lot of assumptions. I do not see myself as a “victim”. I was not even born in the US and am not from the Americas or any other country with a settler colonial history. I could always go back to where I was born, so I do not view this through some kind of personal lens. But some European (or other non-indigenous) descended Americans actually have lived here for many generations and then there are non-white Americans who came here as refugees, for example, and they do not have the luxury that I have. You are correct that I have not read the work of an indigenous scholar on this topic. That is because my exposure to this kind of rhetoric has been through people chanting this in unrelated contexts/activism. AFAIK those people were not even indigenous themselves. I am sure that there are books and academic papers written by indigenous people out there outlining ideas on this topic.
But let me also say that it is unclear to what degree the people who chant these vague slogans believe in what any given academic paper or book espouses. This is essentially similar to the whole ‘defund the police’ situation. Many “left wing”/" progressive “/liberal people claimed that this did not actually mean abolishing the police and that claims that it does are merely right wing fear mongering. Then someone literally writes an op-ed in the NYT that " yes, we do mean abolish when we say defund”. And I have seen people online express the opinion that all European descended Americans should just “go back” to Europe. Maybe this is an extreme, fringe view, maybe it is not. But the vague language surrounding this subject does not fill me with hope that it is. My worry about ethnic cleansing is not the result of some kind of projection; it is the result of people chanting these kinds of slogans and talking about “decolonization” being (seemingly deliberately) vague about what this actually entails in practice and the knowledge that rhetoric about people 'not rightfully belonging" somewhere historically has led to horrific bloodshed and ethnic cleansing. None of that anything to do with historical European colonization of the Americas but with much more recent history.
So assuming that you are in fact familiar with a wide body of work on this subject by actually indigenous people and that are your views on the subject are informed by that, what does “ultimately redrawing the borders” mean in practice. Does everybody who currently lives within the borders of the United States get to stay within that area at least (which does not inherently mean there would be no ethnic cleansing but at least means it would be far less egregious than expelling people from an entire continent)? I am not in favor of the exploitation or oppression of indigenous people but at the same time I am not in favor of ideologies that believe that we can simply turn the clock back centuries and achieve some kind of historical “justice” through violence. That is in my opinion only slightly better than traditional fascism. We have to achieve the closest possible thing to justice within the constraints of the realities of today and with the people who are alive today and who are not responsible for the actions of people generations ago. Finally, I am not a fan on vague slogans in general, especially in the context of issues as sensitive as this one.
You are correct that I have not read the work of an indigenous scholar on this topic. That is because my exposure to this kind of rhetoric has been through people chanting this in unrelated contexts/activism. AFAIK those people were not even indigenous themselves. I am sure that there are books and academic papers written by indigenous people out there outlining ideas on this topic.
Probably because you are white or white-adjacent and your access to information is primarily through other white people. I don’t need to answer for those people chanting whatever you heard. You need to answer for why you aren’t curious enough to actually explore the scholarship on this topic but you’re more than willing to wade into arguments with people on the Internet.
But let me also say that it is unclear to what degree the people who chant these vague slogans believe in what any given academic paper or book espouses
No investigation, no right to speak. Do you think I care what you think about what other people think about what other people think? Really? Do you think this is good rhetoric on your part?
This is essentially similar to the whole ‘defund the police’ situation.
Yes, it is. But not for the reasons you think it is. It’s similar because it intersects with whiteness and oppression.
Many “left wing”/" progressive “/liberal people claimed that this did not actually mean abolishing the police and that claims that it does are merely right wing fear mongering. Then someone literally writes an op-ed in the NYT that " yes, we do mean abolish when we say defund”.
Yes, because abolitionism has a long and storied and deep history and it attacks white power structures, so when white liberals want to feel good about themselves they chant slogans of oppressed people and get emotional but refuse to do the work and when push comes to shove these white liberals literally believe that what oppressed people want is what white liberals want, and it’s not. Defund the Police is an abolitionist position, and everything else is just being filtered through white privilege and white guilt.
Many “left wing”/" progressive “/liberal people claimed that this did not actually mean abolishing the police and that claims that it does are merely right wing fear mongering. Then someone literally writes an op-ed in the NYT that " yes, we do mean abolish when we say defund”.
That’s called agitation. It’s not a policy. It’s doing exactly what it was meant to do, which is piss you off. The reality is that many white people are likely going to need to go back to Europe because they will resist black and indigenous sovereignty and what it will entail. Dismantling the structures of oppression inherently means dismantling the infrastructure of white society. They are one in the same.
But the vague language surrounding this subject does not fill me with hope that it is
You think vague language is indicative of well-formed dominant ideas? Are you daft? You yourself have admitted you haven’t even bothered to READ about it, what do you know about the language surrounding it except 4th hand shit filtered through your network of whiteness?
My worry about ethnic cleansing is not the result of some kind of projection; it is the result of people chanting these kinds of slogans and talking about “decolonization” being (seemingly deliberately) vague about what this actually entails in practice and the knowledge that rhetoric about people 'not rightfully belonging" somewhere historically has led to horrific bloodshed and ethnic cleansing. None of that anything to do with historical European colonization of the Americas but with much more recent history.
You’re just so goddamned ignorant it hurts. Show me where Pol Pot’s ethnic cleansing used “vague language”. Show me the vague language being used by Israel and the USA in their ethnic cleansing of Gaza. Show me the vague language in Mein Kampf about the ethnic cleansing. It’s not there. It’s all very clear language. And you are absolutely projecting because other than Cambodia, which I don’t for a second believe you’ve even researched let alone studied seriously, I doubt you can name any ethnic cleansing campaign that wasn’t perpetrated by Europeans. Indigenous people have no interest in ethnic cleansing, they have been CRYSTAL CLEAR in their saying so, and they give examples of the multi-ethnic make up of their reservations, places where they actually have sovereignty today, as a great example. You can’t just live in your delusional fantasy land and then come out swinging at ghosts.
what does “ultimately redrawing the borders” mean in practice.
It literally means a change in sovereignty in practice. If you don’t understand what that means, you’re going to have to study. I can’t educate you that deeply. It means that the borders between North and South Dakota won’t exist any more, and that those state governments won’t exist, because the borders that define the jurisdiction of those state governments won’t exist. A government that governs that land will exist, but it won’t be the same size and shape as the governments that currently govern that land. The same will true through South America, Africa, and likely parts of Asia. French Guiana, St Pierre and Miquelon, Saint Martin, Martinique, and Guadelupe won’t literally be part of France. The British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Anguilla, The Caymans, Montserrat, and Turks and Caicos won’t literally be part of the UK. Puerto Rico will be independent. Hawaii will be independent. Sint Maarten, Curaçao, Aruba, and Bonaire won’t be literally part of the Netherlands.
Like, do you even understand how these borders came about? Or the names? America is named after an Italian. Once decolonization is effective, the name will from its inhabitants, not from its conquerors. The names of the states, just the NAMES not even the borders, are named after kings and queens of Europe (Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, Carolina, Louisiana), European colonizers (Pennsylvania, Washington), a number of European places (Jersey, York, Hampshire), and a number use names from the colonizer languages (Colorado, Montana, Vermont, Nevada). These places ALL had names given to them by the inhabitants of the land before a foreign king granted ownership of that land to random settlers who landed, killed a bunch of people living there and their ways of life and then gave it names.
Does everybody who currently lives within the borders of the United States get to stay within that area at least (which does not inherently mean there would be no ethnic cleansing but at least means it would be far less egregious than expelling people from an entire continent)?
How the fuck would anyone even be ABLE to expel that many people from an entire continent? This is pure victim fantasy. Again, indigenous reservations exist today, they have sovereignty over that land today, and they are ample examples of non-indigenous people living on those reservations. The larger answer, however, is that people are going to get displaced within the territory called the USA today, because climate change is making the current situation unlivable. Additionally, people are going to be displaced where there are big projects to correct the relationship with the ecosystem. People are going to feel displaced when told they can’t consume water at the rate they consume it anymore. People are going to feel displaced when sections of highway are torn up and dams are dismantled to return ecosystems to sustainable states. NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT AN ETHNO STATE EXCEPT THE WHITE PEOPLE WHO ARE AFRAID OF RETRIBUTION.
I am not in favor of the exploitation or oppression of indigenous people but at the same time I am not in favor of ideologies that believe that we can simply turn the clock back centuries and achieve some kind of historical “justice” through violence.
There you go, arguing with ghosts and making shit up despite fully knowing you have no idea what you’re talking about and haven’t even been arsed to engage with the discourse. Historically, there has never been an end to oppression without violence. There will be violence. It’s inevitable, because the oppression will not stop unless it is forced to stop.
That is in my opinion only slightly better than traditional fascism.
Did you really just do the meme?! You have to understand how much this sounds like utter brain rot. We know that slaves were captured and suffered great violence, but slaves should never kill their masters - that’s only slightly better than traditional fascism. Fuck you.
We have to achieve the closest possible thing to justice within the constraints of the realities of today and with the people who are alive today and who are not responsible for the actions of people generations ago.
This is just ignorant. Ethnic cleansing of indigenous culture using the residential school system was happening well into the 1990s. Black and indigenous women were sterilized against their will as POLICY into the 1970s. Their are people alive today in the USA living on property that was acquired using the wealth extract from slaves and even making money from tourism that is centered around the experience of seeing how slave owners lived. The placement of some highways, of towns, of dams, that are all existing TODAY, were chosen explicitly because they would be part of the destruction of indigenous culture. You don’t just get to say that because it was someone’s granddad who made the decision we all have to live with it now because granddad is dead and gone. That’s not even ridiculous, it’s malicious.
Finally, I am not a fan on vague slogans in general, especially in the context of issues as sensitive as this one.
No one gives a shit what you’re a fan of. People don’t craft messages based on what makes you comfortable. Educate yourself or stop talking.
Not really. In the scenario of the US no longer being the world empire, I don’t see why the US couldn’t enlist help from other countries to re-industrialize. It could rebuild industrial capacity and educational capacity in parallel if say, it imported capital from China. You could drastically cut down rebuilding times with a planned economy.
What other countries? England? Germany? France? The industrial center has moved to China. The only country that could help would be China. And China is not going to help the USA build up the industrial capacity of a genocidal settler colony that will use that industrial capital to produce weapons.
No, it’s not realistic to assume that anyone is going to come and just help America. When America is no longer the world empire, the process of decolonization will eliminate this particular state and replace it with something unrecognizable. It won’t be called America, it won’t be Eurocentric, it won’t be trying to compete in world markets. It will be dismantled and gone.
What other countries? England? Germany? France? The industrial center has moved to China.
There are plenty of other countries with decent levels of industrial manufacturing in the global south. India, Brazil, Russia, Vietnam come immediately to mind. But that’s besides the point, since by the time that the US collapses, more global south countries will join the ranks of moderately/highly industrialized countries.
It won’t be called America
Well, uh, the thing that comes after America would be helped by the rest of the world. America would be gone, but the land and the people won’t be.
The US economy is too based on rent seeking for that to happen without a system disintegrating crash.
That is, maybe some polity occupying the territories formerly known as the United States could do it.
Which might be something motivating this “network state” bullshit.
Hence why I said it would need essentially a mega-FDR admin or Socialism to achieve, and the mega-FDR admin would merely be a delay of crashing.
This is still a financial assessment, not a real one. There aren’t enough people who know how to architect, build, design, deploy, and operate the kinds of factories America would need. It would take 30 years minimum to even get to place of approaching where China was 20 years ago. By 2055, China will be so far ahead it’s ludicrous.
And that’s just the US trying to play catch up. China dominates academic research in high tech. The US would take at least 30 years to rebuild its university system to produce enough research and innovation that it could compete in the next century’s high tech arena.
And the US’s public schooling system doesn’t have what it needs to produce workers for that economy. Another multi-decade project.
And all of that doesn’t even touch the infrastructure problem. Transit just for employees is untenable for what would need to be done due to suburban sprawl and lack of public transit. But the rail, the roads, and the bridges aren’t in good enough repair to handle reindustrialization. And neither is the power grid, the water system, nor waste management. China is so far ahead on all of these aspects of infrastructure, it would take 30 years and about 4 New Deals worth of investment to just be able to compete with China of 2015.
There’s no way. The US is well and fully cooked.
For what it’s worth, I agree, hence why I said it would delay. The US’s only real hope for the future is Socialist revolution and building ties with the PRC so they help build up the US’s real productive forces.
PRC will never help the USA build up industry because the USA is a criminal settler colony. China will help whatever state emerges from the ashes of the USA rebuild after decolonization.
And how exactly do you imagine this “decolonization”? I always hear these slogans such as “land back” but nobody ever elaborates what stuff like that actually means, so I come to the conclusion that either it is just another empty slogan so “progressives” can feel good about themselves or what they have in mind is basically ethnic cleansing and they don’t want to say that (out loud).
The fact that you think no one ever elaborates means you’re not actively engaged in the ongoing conversation. This has been a conversation within the the indigenous community for decades. There are indigenous academics all over the world writing about this stuff at high levels of discourse analyzing the problem through a plethora of critical lenses.
The fact that you think it could be anything near ethnic cleansing shows that you’re not ready to have the conversation. You think you’re a victim and that you don’t deserve to have your life disrupted. The indigenous discourse has been so very clear on this topic that the only excuse for you still saying this is that you think you’re curious but you haven’t read a single indigenous scholar, listened to a single indigenous podcast, or asked an indigenous person about the topic. That’s not curiousity, it’s intellectual dishonesty.
Decolonization means repairing the damage done by colonization through the dismantling of all structures that colonization relies upon. Ultimately that will mean redrawing borders entirely. Right right now what that means is fighting to have all treaties recognized and enforced. In the middle it means the transfer of sovereignty over portions of land from the colonial state to the indigenous people.
There are plenty of non-indigenous non-tribal-member people living on reservations right now. Reservations are not ethnically “pure”, so why would anyone be talking about ethnic cleansing. When you worry about ethnic cleansing, you are projecting the crimes of your own people onto the victims of that crime and then saying the reason you’re going to continue oppressing them is because of you don’t they’ll commit the same crimes your people did.
First of all, you make a lot of assumptions. I do not see myself as a “victim”. I was not even born in the US and am not from the Americas or any other country with a settler colonial history. I could always go back to where I was born, so I do not view this through some kind of personal lens. But some European (or other non-indigenous) descended Americans actually have lived here for many generations and then there are non-white Americans who came here as refugees, for example, and they do not have the luxury that I have. You are correct that I have not read the work of an indigenous scholar on this topic. That is because my exposure to this kind of rhetoric has been through people chanting this in unrelated contexts/activism. AFAIK those people were not even indigenous themselves. I am sure that there are books and academic papers written by indigenous people out there outlining ideas on this topic.
But let me also say that it is unclear to what degree the people who chant these vague slogans believe in what any given academic paper or book espouses. This is essentially similar to the whole ‘defund the police’ situation. Many “left wing”/" progressive “/liberal people claimed that this did not actually mean abolishing the police and that claims that it does are merely right wing fear mongering. Then someone literally writes an op-ed in the NYT that " yes, we do mean abolish when we say defund”. And I have seen people online express the opinion that all European descended Americans should just “go back” to Europe. Maybe this is an extreme, fringe view, maybe it is not. But the vague language surrounding this subject does not fill me with hope that it is. My worry about ethnic cleansing is not the result of some kind of projection; it is the result of people chanting these kinds of slogans and talking about “decolonization” being (seemingly deliberately) vague about what this actually entails in practice and the knowledge that rhetoric about people 'not rightfully belonging" somewhere historically has led to horrific bloodshed and ethnic cleansing. None of that anything to do with historical European colonization of the Americas but with much more recent history.
So assuming that you are in fact familiar with a wide body of work on this subject by actually indigenous people and that are your views on the subject are informed by that, what does “ultimately redrawing the borders” mean in practice. Does everybody who currently lives within the borders of the United States get to stay within that area at least (which does not inherently mean there would be no ethnic cleansing but at least means it would be far less egregious than expelling people from an entire continent)? I am not in favor of the exploitation or oppression of indigenous people but at the same time I am not in favor of ideologies that believe that we can simply turn the clock back centuries and achieve some kind of historical “justice” through violence. That is in my opinion only slightly better than traditional fascism. We have to achieve the closest possible thing to justice within the constraints of the realities of today and with the people who are alive today and who are not responsible for the actions of people generations ago. Finally, I am not a fan on vague slogans in general, especially in the context of issues as sensitive as this one.
Probably because you are white or white-adjacent and your access to information is primarily through other white people. I don’t need to answer for those people chanting whatever you heard. You need to answer for why you aren’t curious enough to actually explore the scholarship on this topic but you’re more than willing to wade into arguments with people on the Internet.
No investigation, no right to speak. Do you think I care what you think about what other people think about what other people think? Really? Do you think this is good rhetoric on your part?
Yes, it is. But not for the reasons you think it is. It’s similar because it intersects with whiteness and oppression.
Yes, because abolitionism has a long and storied and deep history and it attacks white power structures, so when white liberals want to feel good about themselves they chant slogans of oppressed people and get emotional but refuse to do the work and when push comes to shove these white liberals literally believe that what oppressed people want is what white liberals want, and it’s not. Defund the Police is an abolitionist position, and everything else is just being filtered through white privilege and white guilt.
That’s called agitation. It’s not a policy. It’s doing exactly what it was meant to do, which is piss you off. The reality is that many white people are likely going to need to go back to Europe because they will resist black and indigenous sovereignty and what it will entail. Dismantling the structures of oppression inherently means dismantling the infrastructure of white society. They are one in the same.
You think vague language is indicative of well-formed dominant ideas? Are you daft? You yourself have admitted you haven’t even bothered to READ about it, what do you know about the language surrounding it except 4th hand shit filtered through your network of whiteness?
You’re just so goddamned ignorant it hurts. Show me where Pol Pot’s ethnic cleansing used “vague language”. Show me the vague language being used by Israel and the USA in their ethnic cleansing of Gaza. Show me the vague language in Mein Kampf about the ethnic cleansing. It’s not there. It’s all very clear language. And you are absolutely projecting because other than Cambodia, which I don’t for a second believe you’ve even researched let alone studied seriously, I doubt you can name any ethnic cleansing campaign that wasn’t perpetrated by Europeans. Indigenous people have no interest in ethnic cleansing, they have been CRYSTAL CLEAR in their saying so, and they give examples of the multi-ethnic make up of their reservations, places where they actually have sovereignty today, as a great example. You can’t just live in your delusional fantasy land and then come out swinging at ghosts.
It literally means a change in sovereignty in practice. If you don’t understand what that means, you’re going to have to study. I can’t educate you that deeply. It means that the borders between North and South Dakota won’t exist any more, and that those state governments won’t exist, because the borders that define the jurisdiction of those state governments won’t exist. A government that governs that land will exist, but it won’t be the same size and shape as the governments that currently govern that land. The same will true through South America, Africa, and likely parts of Asia. French Guiana, St Pierre and Miquelon, Saint Martin, Martinique, and Guadelupe won’t literally be part of France. The British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Anguilla, The Caymans, Montserrat, and Turks and Caicos won’t literally be part of the UK. Puerto Rico will be independent. Hawaii will be independent. Sint Maarten, Curaçao, Aruba, and Bonaire won’t be literally part of the Netherlands.
Like, do you even understand how these borders came about? Or the names? America is named after an Italian. Once decolonization is effective, the name will from its inhabitants, not from its conquerors. The names of the states, just the NAMES not even the borders, are named after kings and queens of Europe (Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, Carolina, Louisiana), European colonizers (Pennsylvania, Washington), a number of European places (Jersey, York, Hampshire), and a number use names from the colonizer languages (Colorado, Montana, Vermont, Nevada). These places ALL had names given to them by the inhabitants of the land before a foreign king granted ownership of that land to random settlers who landed, killed a bunch of people living there and their ways of life and then gave it names.
How the fuck would anyone even be ABLE to expel that many people from an entire continent? This is pure victim fantasy. Again, indigenous reservations exist today, they have sovereignty over that land today, and they are ample examples of non-indigenous people living on those reservations. The larger answer, however, is that people are going to get displaced within the territory called the USA today, because climate change is making the current situation unlivable. Additionally, people are going to be displaced where there are big projects to correct the relationship with the ecosystem. People are going to feel displaced when told they can’t consume water at the rate they consume it anymore. People are going to feel displaced when sections of highway are torn up and dams are dismantled to return ecosystems to sustainable states. NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT AN ETHNO STATE EXCEPT THE WHITE PEOPLE WHO ARE AFRAID OF RETRIBUTION.
There you go, arguing with ghosts and making shit up despite fully knowing you have no idea what you’re talking about and haven’t even been arsed to engage with the discourse. Historically, there has never been an end to oppression without violence. There will be violence. It’s inevitable, because the oppression will not stop unless it is forced to stop.
Did you really just do the meme?! You have to understand how much this sounds like utter brain rot. We know that slaves were captured and suffered great violence, but slaves should never kill their masters - that’s only slightly better than traditional fascism. Fuck you.
This is just ignorant. Ethnic cleansing of indigenous culture using the residential school system was happening well into the 1990s. Black and indigenous women were sterilized against their will as POLICY into the 1970s. Their are people alive today in the USA living on property that was acquired using the wealth extract from slaves and even making money from tourism that is centered around the experience of seeing how slave owners lived. The placement of some highways, of towns, of dams, that are all existing TODAY, were chosen explicitly because they would be part of the destruction of indigenous culture. You don’t just get to say that because it was someone’s granddad who made the decision we all have to live with it now because granddad is dead and gone. That’s not even ridiculous, it’s malicious.
No one gives a shit what you’re a fan of. People don’t craft messages based on what makes you comfortable. Educate yourself or stop talking.
That’s more what I was talking about.
Not really. In the scenario of the US no longer being the world empire, I don’t see why the US couldn’t enlist help from other countries to re-industrialize. It could rebuild industrial capacity and educational capacity in parallel if say, it imported capital from China. You could drastically cut down rebuilding times with a planned economy.
What other countries? England? Germany? France? The industrial center has moved to China. The only country that could help would be China. And China is not going to help the USA build up the industrial capacity of a genocidal settler colony that will use that industrial capital to produce weapons.
No, it’s not realistic to assume that anyone is going to come and just help America. When America is no longer the world empire, the process of decolonization will eliminate this particular state and replace it with something unrecognizable. It won’t be called America, it won’t be Eurocentric, it won’t be trying to compete in world markets. It will be dismantled and gone.
There are plenty of other countries with decent levels of industrial manufacturing in the global south. India, Brazil, Russia, Vietnam come immediately to mind. But that’s besides the point, since by the time that the US collapses, more global south countries will join the ranks of moderately/highly industrialized countries.
Well, uh, the thing that comes after America would be helped by the rest of the world. America would be gone, but the land and the people won’t be.
100%, and is the most optimistic path within the realm of possibility.