Full podcast episode: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qJqnf7t_3srelY0.html Lex Fridman podcast channel: kzfaq.info Guest bio: John Mearsheimer is an international relations scholar at University of Chicago. He is one of the most influential and controversial thinkers in the world on the topics of war and power.

I think Lex was asking about how the most powerful countries lose that status over time, but unfortunately because he used “the American empire” as an example, the conversation became narrowly about recent technical empires.

"In an industrial world you don't need an empire. What you need is a strong manufacturing base." - John Mearsheimer

1:48 "We're not running an Empire the way the British and The French ran their Empire". He literally admits America does have an Empire, just not an old school Empire.

To add to that: the US doesn’t have a strong manufacturing base anymore and the dollar is like toilet paper.

Does America function as empires of the past? no. Does it have the ability to project empire-like power all over the world? Yes. America is something unique, not really an empire, but also kind of like an empire. When someone says it is an empire or not, neither one feels right to me.

Now we have CEO running empires.

USA has 800 bases around the world and the dollar is the world currency! What could possibly make people think USA is a empire?

In ancient times, the Athenian Empire was simply the hegemonic city of Athens dominating the Delian League alliance. Very similar to the situation of the US now with their various alliances.

Everyone who’s interested in this should read Collapse by Jared Diamond. It’s by the same author as Guns, Germs, and Steel. He’s also the most prolific polymath of our time.

Not sure how you can talk about the collapse of the British Empire and skip the world wars.

John is so off on this one. His first description of an Empire sounds like the thesis of American foreign policy. To spread democracy around the world in the form of military bases, custom made rebellions with a side of assassinations, hand picked presidents, imported western business opportunities, and most importantly the use of the American dollar as the main form of currency. This is the US's formula which has been copied and pasted on dozens of nations around the world for the past 60 years. Th US doesn't look like a typical historic empire, but that makes sense in a world that is post nuclear weapons.... you cannot just swing your ball sack around and slaughter millions of people around the world until you establish dominance. So the US has been successful in creating a method of colonization and imperialization that is more veiled and more abstract.... where the financial results are achieved with less physical presence. So the US does its dirty work through its intel agencies who can operate in the shadows. And they partner with businesses partners around the world to get the paperwork done away from the eyes of public policy. And if need be they'll sneak in some extremely important policy into washington through their puppets in politics. This is how the US establishes empire. This is how the US is able to cut Russia off from the rest of the world simply because Russia rightfully felt threatened by continued encroachments of US and NATO on their border. Only an empire would have the power to sanction such a major player like Russia from the rest of the world even though it would have a net negative effect on all other players. This is how the US is able to defy international law and literally veto all attempts to prosecute them by the international court on any grounds for obvious crimes..... That's not because the US is smarter than everybody. Its because the US is an empire.

Mearsheimer is correct that the two things that bring an end to empire are: 1. Nationalism (the desire of a people for self-rule). and 2. Cost-benefit analysis...meaning being able to afford to garrison and run the entire empire. It gets too costly at a certain point. Those are the two things that ended the unofficial Soviet empire in 1989-91. They are the two things that ended the British Empire after WWII. And they are the two things that are likewise going to end the unofficial USA empire as well. That process is already beginning as the "Multi-Polar World" arises to end USA hegemony over most of the planet. It's inevitable. No one nation is going to get to dominate this whole planet.

This guest got too hung up on the exact definition of empire. I think what Lex was really asking is why do very powerful nations or civilizations lose that power, which is more nuanced than just “the individual states within want independence and it’s not worth keeping them”. What are the events and circumstances, both internal and external, that lead to a change in power and influence.

Lex wanted a hot take about why America is going to collapse

I've always thought of the Mongols as having the largest empire. Not only was the British empire larger but it was more powerful as well.

The way he defined “empire” sounded pretty “America-like”. So what if it’s a little different then the British empire?

Lex, your guest is so well-spoken and FASCINATING! Thank you!

Hahaha no US empire? This guy is something else.

He literally admitted America is an Empire. So what if it does things differently from Britain. America has Army Bases on many Countries of the World.

His definition of empire perfectly explains American Empire but for some reason America is not an Empire... Right...

America is only a hegemon, not an empire. It doesn’t outright dominate other nations, the core of its functionality is its’ society instead of its government and you can’t call America an empire without calling countries like China, Russia, India, Brazil and other nations empires as well.

Just remember everyone, the real problem lies inside each and every individuals mind. All external results come from our thinking and subsequently our actions. If we want to improve our world, we have to improve our minds first. Humanity needs more perspective especially when it comes to our position in the universe. We need to know what it means to be alive and hopefully that meaning will guide everyone of us to the role of caretaker instead of dominator or agitator. Our conscience has been muddied by our desire to attach and accumulate and so our decisions are tainted by blurred vision.

Soviet union very much was an empire.

Every empire rises and falls . Change is constant, it is happening every day. It is Upto people how they adapt .

the Spanish Crown ruled over more than 20 million km2 for more than 300 years, but you do not mention it... it is ridiculously insane.

The 'choose' are the only group of people that have been present and held important roles as advisors and administrators for nearly all the great empires in known history. Lex, being a 'chosen one', already knows the answer.

"Empires are like volcanos. they blow up from inside

I don't think the United States is an empire, he says, and then proceeds to describe what he thinks an empire is... and describes the United States perfectly. That was more than a little disconcerting. I also fundamentally disagree with his assertion that the Soviet Union did not possess an empire. Eastern Europe would like a word with John.

Did the Roman empire fall for the same two reasons of nationalism and industrial revolution?

The Soviet Union was definitely an Empire from central Europe to the pacific ocean with a policy to expand most of the 20th century until its collapse. Mearsheimers logic is a bit flawed.

How can it be argued that the Soviet state wasn’t an empire ? They literally had individual country governments ran by their own people but with Soviet control. You could argue USA has the largest empire of all time, dependent on how you define empire and stay consistent with this definition.

The US outsourced most of its manufacturing and has become more of a "designer" so in the modern world based on John's argument that is the beginning of the collapse

I enjoyed every bit of this interview!!

I dont know. The American empire is soft and silent. Ish. If you dig America has leverage everywhere, everywhere. China would had acted years back but power is complicated. Its 2.0 empire. America is such a dominate empire you cant see it because its everything.

Did he seriously just say the USSR didn't have an empire?

"Empires eventually collapse. The USA is not an Empire, so it will never collapse....". This guy is too optimistic (or historically naive).

Not listening to the writing on the wall is a recipe for destruction

This is fascinating. How did the industrial revolution diminish the profitability of empires? The French still fought bitterly onto holding Indochina til 1954, and I don't believe that it was a Communist suppression ideology til the US used came along. Were the French pressured into it by the western powers? I could be wrong.

John is so underrated..

Once again spot on by John Mearsheimer!

Zeitgeist explains it all…it’s happening right in front of our eyes

Lex, you are a new voice, appreciate who you can pull and invite. But you are the voice you want to challenge the old guard. Do it!!!!

Nothing last forever especially when humans are involved

The empire collapses after the continuous wars and pandemics.

I really disagree with his perspective that the United States is not an empire. He’s judging the empire role on how much land mass a country occupies, but the United States after World War 2 became the most powerful nation by orders of magnitude. I argue that economics has given the United States the empire role, simply because most of the world trades with the dollar. Make no mistake that just because the United States doesn’t physically occupy your country, it still controls how countries operate, and more importantly, how they make money. This I argue, is far more power than just simple occupation. Please feel free to debate or elaborate, if any of you wish.

i think this guy is looking at old style colonial empire and new age empire that dosent require the same kind of hands on control. by his standard empire is over however most of us are well aware that isnt the case.

you dont have to colonize a territory to become an empire. In fact colonizing a territory is more problematic and costly in our current times. It's rather better installing your own puppet or having a significant influence over each country where they will mostly do your bidding. this is where John i think got it wrong. a modern empire will not own territories but rather will have its own organizations & corporations well entrenched in these states that control and exploit its national resources. Another way an empire controls these states is by enslaving them through debt making them de facto colonies of the empire while making the local citizens of such states think they are in control when in fact they're not. The modern empire will just siphon the needed resources from such states and exert its influence over them only when they need it at a certain point in time rather than having to manage these states on a day to day basis. Such is how the modern empire works....efficient and ruthless.

What a fantastic mind this man has

POWERFUL

I dont really understand the distinction between why he doesnt consider the US an empire. You could argue they do have influence over regions they dont actually physically control. In terms of they dont actually own the land. Israel, Ukraine, they heavily listen to what the US wants them to do

I study this guy Structural realism in international relations. Living legend

When farming was the primary industry you needed to control the land. British Empire. With industrial revolution strength was controlling the resources. American Empire. Tool to fit the need.

The fact that controls the world currency makes it a empire in my mind

How can he say the Soviet Union is not an empire?

Industrial Revolution was no longer a revolution but a norm in Europe by 1850s. However, British continued to expand their empire afterwards as well. Because all manufacturing needs cheaper raw materials. And those raw materials were mostly in far away lands which need to be conquered to maintain a supply chain monopoly. So i don't agree with the argument that industrial revolution killed empire-building. Infact, in case of Britain, industrial revolution expanded the need for an empire. Because as manufacturing grew, so did the demand for cheap raw materials.

You also need international trade if you are big enough to be self sufficient in raw materials.

Germany and the Soviets were empires. Britain was still a peer power on the sea during the great Patriotic War. Also do not forget Japan. Without British colonial contributions, they would have been no base to launch an invasion of Europe from. I know that this is his opinion, but he seems to be a bit dim. I would like to see him debate Steven Kotkin.

I wonder if the UK would have had such a vast empire of the indigenous people had guns and cannons, empire the British were not.

Before mass communication, I would term it socially as gathered extended localism instead of nationalism because a royal-like structure of local empires/fiefdoms/markets(?) was a pretty common structure in a lot of the world. Static empires create resistence and a lot of extracted wealth for the holders, for a time. But, it never lasts because it costs too much to keep it going and people get sick of the control, or another tyrant takes over, and over, and over, again, and again and again. It gets complicated keeping the market power trip together for very long

It’s curious what he says here about empires being like an albatross around a country’s neck, because you could argue France still has an empire (it has military bases all around the world and controls much of French speaking Africa cause it literally prints its money, among others) and some people say the reason France is still a rich country despite its 30 hour work week (not kidding) I’d because of its ongoing exploitation of its (former) colonies. One thing that’s clear is that there is much more trade going on between countries that speak the same language, especially if there was formerly a colonizer-colony relationship. So like Mr. Mearsheimer’s friends I’m not sure I agree with him on this one.

the soviet union was theoretically a federation but in reality it was an empire

It's debatable to say that the Soviet Union didn't have an Empire. They ruled over numerous countries that were not Russian. Like Britain with India, only more so.

Your argument that Tzarist Russia and the USSR were not an empire is wrong.

Not the industrial revolution but the french revolution which changes the ideal values.

3:45 "Think of Theodor Hertzl." Wasn't he in "The Big Lebowski"?

And US isn't called an empire. However an argument could be made that US still incorporates regions around the world into it's sphere of influence economically? It has also replaced incorporating regions into it's sphere of influence with incorporating peoples from those regions into it's physical body. US is already absurdly large with vast natural resources, it does not necessarily need geographical expansion, but it certainly does benefit from resources brought to it from around the world and it is capable of immense power projection. US isn't a typical empire from the history, but it definitely is an empire, a new type.

It’s always the same: too many different nationalities and religions, elites and citizens got lazy because of wealth and lost their ethos. Better to trade and prosper

The British started the Industrial revolution as their empire grew. As for the Soviet Union, it was an empire of sorts.

The Industrial Age argument for the weakening of the very idea of empire makes a lot of sense, because it is clear that the first people to develop an Apache Helicopter wins, right? I mean, seriously. It would only take one of them a day or two to defeat the entire Roman Empire at its peak of power. I mean, just hover over them and drop rocks. They cannot hit you. LOL

What is occurring to the West atm is empire toppling 1 o 1. You load up the top of the tree so that it becomes so heavy that the base it is drawing on to sustain the canopy can no longer sustain the silly buggers at the top and it all comes crashing down. That's why you always need leadership to sort the stones, so that the path is free from obstacles and the field is mostly level so the little ones can still manage. The obstructions only get more severe and visible the longer it goes on until only those at the very top are still blind to it, only those that would wiggle their way through the rocks reach the top of the path, the top of their pile of rocks blocking the way. This only sustains until of course they fall from their great height and join the field where the tree once stood so that all might enjoy the sunshine again. It's not capitalism, it's not communism, it is responsible governance for an empire lol The poorest man in each kingdom should be able to sit with the richest and both look at each other and think, "Damn I wish I were you some days!". This by all rights should apply in companies too. And if they can't meet at that table without enmity they need to sort the wants of the richest man against those of the poorest man. That way the little guy can tell you what he needs and then the bigger guy can suggest his own wants so you find a happy middle. So yeah, you let too many stones grow along the path and you end up blocking the way eventually for everyone and everything. Animals included. In terms of the tree that is the US empire, you also have so many termites in the form of refugees eating at that weakened base now too 🙁 Not much to be done about it now because it is something that is noticed only from the base of the tree. Even if those at the bottom start yelling that there is a problem, those at the top still feel safe in their roost, not knowing, caring or even fearful because their corruption could be exposed by external forces that have a rope tied to the top of the tree to guide its fall. Once this occurs everyone in the field can once again enjoy the sunshine since they're all part of the field again

4:58 to be fair, the Soviet Union was the continuation of the Russian Empire, but yeah, I guess it's a matter of definition, as all of its territories were fully incorporated in the state.

And now as Nationalism results in isolationism, and industrialization becomes entrenched globally, both those factors are radically diminished. And that void becomes opportunity.

Thank you Lex.

In Daniel Immerwahr's book "How to Hide An Empire: The History of the Greater United States", he clearly demonstrates that the U.S. is, in fact, an empire. It is, at present, the only colonial empire left on Earth. The U.S. simply used their hegemony to hide themselves, both from the international community, as well as most Americans. Their "colonies" were simply renamed to "territories", and most people are never shown maps showing their existence, so most Americans don't even know about them. There are 14 U.S. territories, and 4.1 million people live in them. The U.S. Constitution does not apply to them, and some of them, such as in American Samoa, don't give the people American citizenship, despite how they are born in and live on American soil (creating a large amount of citizenless people). Lastly, the people in the territories, just like in colonies, cannot vote for people representing them in Congress; they cannot vote for the President, for Senators, and they get a single representative in the House of Representatives, who cannot vote.

Soviet Union wasn't an empire? Than why did it held so many ethnic groups by force? As soon as the force was a bit shaky, everyone who could succeeded. Russia, USSR's successor, is still an empire holding ethnic minorities by force. Think of Chechnya's struggle for independence for example. Then, oh, Palestinians. If they wanted a two state solution, they'd already had a state. The problem is that the only solution acceptable for them is one state, from the river to the sea, with no Jews in it. This dude named John is an expert in what exactly?

Very untrue that Russia did not have an empire. The Soviet Union was essentially a Russian empire. There never was any "union". Is was a series of proxy governments controlled from Moscow, and with the thread of the full force of the russian military if you did not obey. Also Russia certainly was an empire before the bolshevik revolution. Germany too had an empire with pretty big possesions in Africa, although relativly shortlived. This guy seems to have no idea what he is talking about.

Interesting, but Mearsheimer here forgets the fact that the industrialization of Britain was possible thanks to the exploits of the empire, that one went over his head. You can argue against the US being and empire in the classical sense, but let's concede that to him, although I think that if you analyze it carefully, you can make a solid case in favor of it. But, if you stick to the classical definition, both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were old fashioned empires. Both had a single ruler directly ruling over a considerable amount of different countries and nationalities, in the case of Nazi Germany, it disintegrated because they lost the war, in the case of the Soviet Union, due to internal and external problems, not because of the rise of nationalism. There's a lot more to be said about this issue, but every single case has to be analyzed separately.

According to the British. The British empire was a burden. From the 13 colonies to Hong Kong.

4:58 Russian Empire!!!??

Mearsheimer has often good points......but he he still an Anglo American deep inside.....

The USA IS empire. We marched on mexico city for half our continental holdings. We enacted policies like the monroe doctrine, and our founders regularly called their concept of the union empire. These folk who refuse to call the union empire have to ignor our history first. Empires tend not to resemble each other. The US is closer to the British empire in policy than the British empire compared with the Romans. This is not evidence that the US is not empire.

The US military bases built in other countries, is the land not purchased and therefore owned by the state like an embassy? Or are they leased liked the Russian base was in Crimea before the conflict?

But what about the empires before Nationalism - why did they collapse ?

The pages of our legacy, once filled with the ink of enlightenment, are now stained with the tears of the oppressed, a tragic manuscript written in the blood of the voiceless. Liberty, a ghostly specter, lingers amidst the ruins, mourning the betrayal of noble aspirations by the tyrants who cloaked themselves in its ephemeral shroud. The impending dissolution won't be random; it's the unfolding narrative of our own recklessness, a saga we seem destined to write. And as it quickly approaches, a twisted joy accompanies the realization that the shackles of imprudence are about to shatter.

What about Hitler and WW2 impact on European nations ability to hold on to their colonies?

He's right, the US is a mafia, not an empire. We offer protection which is much nicer than having to be responsible for the wellbeing of our subjects.

Dude says US is not an empire… then proceeds to describe the US when he defines an empire. “A country that incorporates territories from around the world in a giant sphere of influence without incorporating those territories into the state itself” Had to stop the video right there.

The Soviet Union was an empire in the 20th century! So was the United States. Just look at the banana republics in Latin America and Central America! The university of the Americas was the Imperial college of the Muricans……

Russia's heartland is east of the Urals and that's it. Everything else - the far north, Siberia, Vladivostok, the Caucasus, the Stans, Ukraine, Belorussia & the Baltics either are or were territories of Moscow's empire

The British simply ran out of money following the two world wars. They could no longer afford to have troops everywhere. On top of that, they lost interest in things foreign. Preferred to stay at home. Empire became so blase.

I would liked for him to have analyzed China. Very little in the way of looking for outside territories. Seems to have been self contained.

Oh the irony....all empires wax and wain.

1:38 it is an empire!

With that definition I dont see how we are not an empire..

America is 50 countries in 1 people forget this with a landmass bigger than Europe

Request: Can someone find me the audio from the Mearsheimer interview where he predicts that Russia will have more breakaway countries in the future?

Soviet was an empire… it concured a lot of east european countries…

How is this guy considered an expert? Wtf.

“I don’t believe the United States is an empire” proceeds to explain the United States empire lmaooo