If Russia hadn't sold Alaska- what Alaska would be today

 If Russia hadn’t sold Alaska to the United States…what an interesting question of alternative history. Russia sold Alaska to the United States to prevent the British from getting it. That was a good idea for Britain with Alaska in their royal swag bag could have attacked Russia through Siberia across the Bering Strait.

By the year 1867 Russia promyshlenniki had taken most of the valuable furs that were easily accessible. The United States with its victory over the confederacy was still young and energetic with an expanding economy. Russia ended its own slavery-like institution of serfdom right after the ending of slavery in the U.S.A., and Britain had supported the southern states in the U.S. civil war; since Russia couldn’t very well afford to defend on Eastern and Western frontiers the Tsar probably thought it was better to have an ally with the U.S.A. rather than an opponent or worse- Brits, on the Eastern front.

European history and politics of an alternative nature based on real history is beyond the scope of my comment. I am no expert on European history either. One observes the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 and the growing power of neo-Germany that might have been a concern of Russia that was not misplaced. Germany defeated the Tsar’s Russian army in 1914 rather swiftly in 1914 leading the way to end Russian aristocracy and enabling the rise of the Red Bolsheviki (if I may use that term).

England and Germany were great industrial powers presenting a grim specter to the west of dark clouds of war sometime in the future. France actually made and donated the Statue of Liberty during the 1870s after the loss to Prussia. Alaska was a better gift providing needed cash.

Russian entry into World War I

Russia entered World War I in the three days succeeding July 28, 1914 — beginning with Austria-Hungary 's declaration of war against Serbia , a Russian ally. Via St Petersburg , the Russian Empire sent an ultimatum to Vienna warning Austria-Hungary not to attack Serbia. Following the invasion of Serbia, Russia began to mobilize its very large reserve army. Consequently, on July 31, the German Empire in Berlin demanded Russian demobilization. There was no response; hence, on the same day, Germany declared war on Russia. In accordance with its war plan, Germany ignored Russia and moved first against France by declaring war on August 3, and by sending its main armies through Belgium to surround Paris. The threat to France caused Britain to declare war on Germany on August 4. The main belligerents had been established. (The Ottoman Empire soon joined the Central Powers and fought Russia along their border.) Historians researching the causes of World War I have emphasised the role of Germany and Austria-Hungary. Scholarly consensus has typically minimised Russian involvement in the outbreak of this mass conflict. Key elements were Russia's defence of Orthodox Serbia , its pan-Slavic roles, its treaty obligations with France, and its concern with protecting its status as a great power. However, historian Sean McMeekin has emphasised Russian plans to expand its empire southward and to seize Constantinople as an outlet to the Mediterranean Sea. [1] Archduke Franz Ferdinand , heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, was assassinated by Bosnian Serbs on 28 June 1914 due to Austria-Hungary's annexation of the largely Slavic province. Vienna was unable to find evidence that the Serbian state had sponsored this assassination but, one month later, it issued an ultimatum to Serbia , which it knew would be rejected and thus lead to war. Austria-Hungary deemed Serbia to be deserving of punishment for the assassination. Although Russia had no formal treaty obligation to Serbia, it wanted to control the Balkans, and had a long-term perspective toward gaining a military advantage over Germany and Austria-Hungary. Russia had incentive to delay militarization, and the majority of its leaders wanted to avoid war. However, Russia had the support of France and feared that a failure to defend Serbia would lead to the loss of Russian credibility, constituting a major political defeat in its goal of controlling the Balkans. [2] Tsar Nicholas II mobilized Russian forces on 30 July 1914 to threaten Austria-Hungary if it invaded Serbia. Christopher Clark stated: "The Russian general mobilisation [of 30 July] was one of the most momentous decisions of the July crisis ". The first general mobilization occurred before the German government had declared a state of impending war. [3] Germany felt threatened by Russia, responding with its own mobilization and a declaration of war on 1 August 1914. At the outset of hostilities, Russian forces led offensives against both Germany and Austr

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_entry_into_World_War_I

I don’t believe the history of Alaska reasonably could have gone another way than it did unless at some earlier time Napoleon and Suvarov and become one force with Tsarina Catherine the Great and Napoleon able to get along and together dominate all of northern Eurasia extending to North America destroying the British in the process and letting Canada join the U.S.A. as five or six new states. In that case Russia would have probably kept Alaska and built a bridge or Causeway long ago affecting global warming earlier by stopping the flow of cool Arctic water south in that part of the world. Instead Napoleon spent his time avoiding a battle with Suvarov (who retired undefeated) and the rest is history.

In reply to 'did capitalism build civilization?'

The historian Arnold Toynbee wrote that 23 civilizations have existed in world history. One could argue that some ancient ones existed for reasons other than monetary policy or the form of economy reasonably well in some of the ancient empires like that of Sumeria and Egypt, or rather, the form of social organization was more important than a free market. When kings, emperors and royals owned everything trade and work still occurred yet there was sometimes no middle class of capitalists building up their wealth ; many people were still slaves. Political liberation and freedom from idol worship needed to develop before people could conduct their lives in civilization with more autonomy.

One might alternatively argue rather realistically that capital is anything of value, so a social order that increases to reach a level recognized as a civilization implicitly had to build up capital in the form of structures, people, ideas, culture etc. The state and political economy may have many forms of production, ownership, political power, allocation of resources. Exclusivity can take many forms too- even socialism and communism have elements of exclusivity in economics.

Toynbee in his last major work wrote that there is just one world civilization today. It has a lot of capital.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2lJUOv0hLA fall of Summeria

Is the U.S.A. keeping up in the big weapons race for the assurance of mutual destruction

 So far as I know the U.S.A. has been developing rail-guns since 1990. The navy has some prototypes that are advanced.

The concept of big weapons does provide some amusing images to consider though. Imagine a vast rail gun of a thousand miles in length set against Chinese and Russian rail guns of a similar size and placed a few hundred yards apart pointing at one another- a speed-of-light blast when they went off with the logic of kings.

Hypersonic missiles? Who knows, the world may be saturated with self-driving drones able to deliver all manner of hurt one of these days, unfortunately. Getting to the point of empowerment fast is obviously prestigious- like winning an auto race where one can destroy the opponents- lasers are fairly quick too and can be repurposed as flashlights for energy efficiency.

Governments/organizations with the temptation to censor

 I believe governments tend to do what they want to do when they can get away with it. China for example has progressively rolled back Hong Kong’s political liberty giving it the coup de grace with the requirement that anyone running for office must be patriotic as defined, presumably by the CPC.

Beijing backs plan to tighten control over Hong Kong’s electoral system

National People’s Congress closes plenary session by approving changes that expand control of Beijing-friendly forces over Hong Kong’s political structure.

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/3125071/details-chinese-legislatures-changes-hong-kongs-elections

Governments are just social organizations, although Louis the XIV said L'etat c'est moi. Political organizations that really want something will cheat to get it, or whatever it takes. If suppressing free speech would help then they will repress free speech. What is compelling is defined sometimes by the organization with the compulsion.

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4175030 hotline to report cultural 'nihilism' on the internet in China

If the coconut cream pie cooling down that looks so fine is compelling enough someone may bust their budget to afford a slice. Power isn’t much use to some unless it is employed to procure advantage and more power. It is comparable to big body gravity that often will not quit harassing less quantitative clumps of mass.

If the Communist Party of China is increasing in power along with the economy and it has Corporate Plutocrat Collusion to in it each may find it useful to repress political speech that would differ, dissent or diverge from their corporate and collective agenda. So one must hope they are or become at least God-fearing environmentally minded tyrants if nothing else.

Illegal migration to the U.S.A. has been a problem for quite a few decades

 Immigration was an issue during the Reagan administration. Out of control borders concerned U.S. citizens even then- they make a mockery of political self-determination and make congressional controls over immigration irrelevant. Therefore the U.S. congress attempted without much luck to fix the problem in 1986 with legislation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986

I was concerned myself with the illegal immigration problem because I repainted home exteriors and illegal aliens were direct competition. U.S. winters put an end to painting seasonally in the north so I rode a bicycle across the southern states look for homes to paint.

I would see hundreds of illegal migrants on street corners in Phoenix and couldn’t get any work myself even at labor ready where I could sit around all day if I wanted. In South Carolina I repainted a home that had a new paint job on it the year before with the best Sherwin-WIlliams exterior paint (Duration I believe it was) that had failed and the paint peeled off in sheets. The problem was that a contractor had hired five illegal aliens to prep and pressure wash the structure that didn’t know what they were doing and worked cheap. They washed the building and it was smooth yet the heavily sub-oxidized dusty paint remained on the house and the contractor sprayed over that so it came off. I did all the work myself in fixing the mess, and used emulsa-bond paint additive to soak through the dusty paint and let new self-priming paint from Lowes that I used adhere well.

Illegal aliens were a problem going back at least to the 1980s when I worked for a while in Oregon and was a member of the national guard for a time. Down the highway in central America there was a civil war or two going on and the threat of communist travelling north was present. Of course President Reagan probably sought to balance the issue of allowing in communist guerillas to the U.S.A. through lax border security with the tradition wish of capitalists to make a profit exploiting cheap labor- and what is better than illegal labor that can’t agitate much for pay increases or unionizing.

Oregon was saturated with illegal aliens and ICE would make some large scale arrests now and then such as one underground mushroom growing factory that had 30 illegals arrested. There were sensational crimes such as when one illegal alien strangled to death a pair of nuns with their crucifixes that brought some public notice of the presence of illegal non-citizens free to wander across the border, commit crimes and disappear into the shadows and jungles of who knows where.

My concern today isn’t much about direct competition with illegal workers so much as the overpopulation of the nation (320 million). I remember when it had 160 million citizens and I liked it better. I had Mexican friends growing up in school and it really isn’t about racism with me at least- it is about too many people, too much cheap labor and the failure of the government to adapt to the declining ecosphere and limited natural resources and work for an ecological economic transformation to sustainability. There needs to be coordination with repairing the social structure of the nation so there are no people forever oppressed to live in poverty structurally without medical, dental or cheap patenting prospects.

I should stipulate that at this point in history I think that the U.S. democracy is largely dead. What seems to have replace it and made it into an economic platform without nationhood is the Chinese Communist Party and Corporate Plutocrat Collusion. Those CPCs pursue materialism in an inhuman sort of way with repression of civil rights and individualism useful tools for their empowerment.

The U.S.A. with protracted foreign wars and debt probably won't evolve like the F.S.U. did

 Probably not right away. The F.S.U. gave way to a new state named Russia and a few other independent countries yet interestingly hadn’t much public debt to complicate matters (I believe). The United States has a ton of public debt and if it went out of business it would have the opportunity to eliminate its debt directly without it passing on to a few new nations that emerge from the break-up. With global capitalism being what it is I am skeptical that investors in the debt would allow it.

There are challenging international issue that obviously present a cost to the U.S.A. Foreign wars have often been costly affairs that are harmful to national budgeting (for the British Empire for example in the war against the states). Conflict with China hasn’t much potential in conventional terms; in nuclear and other terms a war would be over quickly and probably destructively for demographics and economics- I think few who realize what that would be want it in China or the U.S.A.

The United States and China (as well as Russia) were more or less on the same side in the last great planetary war and will continue to find ways not to become as adversarial to one another as were the Nazis and Imperial Japan to all three. Since China is allowing a mixed economy and capitalism while Wall Street is heavily investing there as well the greatest battle probably will be in propaganda in the U.S.A. to divide the electorate upon itself so it can never reform economics far toward national ecospheric recovery, elimination of public debt or basic income, free education through graduate school and good public health care inclusively for all citizens.

China may have political leadership problems because of its rising standard of living and great population that drives it to seek to expand over proximal lands and nations that would require containment from the international community, yet it would be ore interesting to try rafting down the upper Yellow river than to watch news about drifting radiation clouds, contaminated areas and starving people, plagues and so forth.

The war in Afghanistan might evolve toward lower costs and military sustainability through various treaties and relationships that allow a continuing U.S. troop presence to defrappe tyranny. Radical Muslims that become terrorists because of hatred for the west have some extreme indoctrination yet also meaningful points in some cases concerning the excesses of decadence that typically emerge in a prosperous culture. There are also great cultural difference between Afghanistan and the U.S.A. that make social progress toward equalization impractical because of the limits of the Afghan economy. Afghan radicals would like the U.S.A. to equalize toward their culture and the U.S.A.- especially Democrats, would like Muslims to move toward their culture. Non-heavy lifting, non-college graduate full employment for females at at a high minimum wage with income equality between genders requires a very prosperous nation to achieve- some Americans don’t understand that and don’t realize the relationship between economics and culture forms well enough to avoid conflict sometimes.

Non-violent gender-based redistribution of income and female independence appear to be long term global trends that are simpler to achieve in corporate and communist bureaucratic economic systems, so I would think that various planetary struggles will flow in part at least stimulated by those policy conflicts. Environmental issues are another source of conflict, and free market disruptions to political ideology that might be regarded as in conflict with market efficiency may complicate the reasons why conflicts are occurring even to those abstractly in support of various conflicts.

Intelligent design of a new reform of government

 I.M.O. a reform of the existing democracy-capitalism synthesis that is heavily biased to ecological economics would be the better try. There may be continuing fusion of a few other systems that would lead to regular, classical economic continuity that likely will be maladapted toward future demographic and environmental challenges.

It could be that social organizations of scale at a certain size merge evolve toward a common form with similar sorts of personnel leadership. In the modern post-industrial economy the majority may value social position roles more than individual ability. That is one could be a great pianist, philosopher, humanitarian etc. yet what really counts is what one’s salary is and how many people one has below oneself as manager. A restructured capitalism with limits on the top % of a nation’s income one could own, and a return to free enterprise and individualism with a new foundation that seeks to actualize the potential intellectual production and creativity of every citizen could become an ongoing political-theoretical project useful for responding to worldly challenges.

Hierarchical organizations such as one find in the corporate world and vast bureaucratic government structures tend to become dominant social organizations difficult to reform and resistant to fundamental change. A practical example is the vast highway system and fossil fuel vehicles; there are newer alternative transport infrastructures possible yet with so many organizations bought into it the prospects for change are dismal and grim for restoring the global ecosphere to a healthy, sustainable degree.

Those with a rosy view from above can rationalize away poverty and the harm it does to individuals and society overall. Generally that is done with the belief that the present system is fine and not in need of radical change and that it will evolve and adapt existentially as if the corporate-government synthesis was the best of all possible worlds striving for perfection.

Capital is known to naturally increase faster than wages and has done so for centuries. Without substantial correction wealth concentrates so far that the individual enterprise of the masses becomes repressed or trickles up to the rich through a number of means including the better ability to afford patents, lawyers and patent defenses, relocate factories abroad for cheaper labor etc. individuals in a nation and culture are minimized in value to the government-corporate culture that also owns or controls mass communication media.

Some have written in support of a basic income for all U.S. citizens that would fade away if earnings surpassed a certain minimal threshold; that and free public education through graduate school, a reduction in the cost of patents and length of their exclusivity with 10% royalties to patent holders after three years in would alleviate some of the problems and structural impediments to individual actualization. A society that is 100% supportive of all humans to rise to their greatest potential in knowledge and creativity rather than the greatest place in a social organizational hierarchy might need to vet businesses that are allowed license to assure that they conform with ecological conservation criteria that aren’t harmful.

If corporate employment was limited to 30,000 employees maximum then more corporations could arise as need to generate extra production, yet also fade out without much social disruption if not needed and neither would they have such size as to compel their continuity with publicly less than optimally efficient products in regard to the environment.

I would think that ideally people of a nation would not be so desperate for a job or income that they would do anything or manufacture anything possible for income. That paradigm tends to reduce ethics and ration political choices from the ,marketplace of ideas. If society could afford to have more discrimination about what businesses do in economics so they can just allow ones that aren’t too harmful to the ecosystem to go forward, and they can afford to keep 20% of the population out of work and into non -profit self-employed research, education and so forth, the overall efficiency of a nation might increase a lot and reply to several ecological, economic and social challenges of the time.

Not all corporations are bad

 I do not have the opinion that all corporations are bad. Too large of corporations and networking have concentrated wealth and power. I would like to downsize corporate size and stimulate competition perhaps with more corporations.

Social organizations tend to develop characteristics at scale that brings them toward similar behaviors and personnel in my opinion. They exist and prosper because they have concentrated power and are overly determinative on national economics and political goals.

I have written elsewhere about new forms of government organization that would reform capitalism for the modern era so it functions well with democracy in a directed environmental economic paradigm. I have dismissed socialism and communism as other dysfunction social organizations that inhibit actualizing intelligence, innovation and free enterprise.

Governments and nations aren't useless though the USA supported people first and the F.S.U. the state first

 A reductio ad absurdam (arguing for the opposite to show enfilade the remainder) would indicate that all right-minded citizens should revolt against the state- any state, and destroy it so far as possible as the most evil oppressor of humankind. There should be a perpetual revolution against social organizations that have the potential to become states. Individuals should war ceaselessly and never give up, fighting against the slings and arrows of statism to their last breath. In every hollow and every nook and cranny let anarchy reign.

States are primarily at the start shared culture and value. The Soviet Union failed because it killed off Lenin with poison most likely causing him to have three strokes and out so he could kill off about all of the original communist revolutionaries in keeping up with contemporary social Darwinism theory. Tremendous subsequent purges and mediocre bureaucratic led industrialization coupled with a repressive state authoritarianism helped keep the multicultural society together than eventual happily broke apart without the governor of tyranny. Atheists and Muslims tend to be an antipathetic cultural mix.

The United States had a common culture to start with and repressed minorities outside of the political system although liberating black slaves as soon as it became practical. Different cultures have tended to war upon each other. As the United States brought in more people they tended to merge into a common national culture- today made more challenging because of the technological advances that allow people to keep in touch with their home cultures. In a sense immigration into the United States has stopped, although people keep arriving, because they can talk to home on a cell phone or have live internet face-to-face chat.

The United States had the blessing of developing in a sparsely populated continent with vast natural resources while the Soviet Union developed in a more modern era closer to nations that would war on it because of its political system. China was a problem to the east- forever eyeballing the vast underpopulated regions of Siberia, and of course the Nazis and Germany to the west were always trying to bite off the Ukraine or take the entire country altogether.

In a sense virtually all of the free world of capitalism were locked in a planetary ideological cold and hot war against the Soviet Union. The decline of the F.S.U. and victory of Wall Street is res judicata, stare decisis and all that. The west and capitalism out-produced the Soviet Union and in time made better weapons with deficit spending.

It is somewhat difficult to say though that the Soviet Union ‘lost’ if its people actually were inclined to improve their standard of living with a move toward free market economics. After the death of the Dictator Joseph Stalin the aborted socialist experiment killed by Stalin was on a clock ticking down to the end of its existence in my opinion. It wasn’t an easy course yet one that the hearts and minds of the people themselves probably moved toward.

Why and when America stopped being great

 President Ronald Reagan was the creator of the phrase ‘making America great again’. With the end of the Vietnam War a strong recession struck the U.S.A., unemployment was high and inflation rampant. Iran had seized the U.S. embassy in Teheran and held the Americans there as hostages. The price of oil was very high per barrel- the Carter administration had created a synthetic fuels pilot program at parachute Colorado that wasn’t yet productive; making America great again without debt and with the economy going well was an appealing idea that the great communicator sold rather easily.

President Trump exploited the Reagan slogan that few remembered to contrast himself with vast left-leaning changes the Obama administration brought, or at least perceived changes. Many of those changes were offensive to naturally conservative American blue-collar workers yet were fine with Democrats. So the phrase was naturally contentious to start.

It was a simple reply to the changes brought about by prior administrations that had exported U.S. manufacturing to China, permitted too lax of border security to prevent millions of illegal migrants to enter the nation, allowed legalization of dope in some states, created a number of ‘sanctuary from U.S. immigration law’ cities, piled up trillions and trillions of dollars of U.S. public debt, ended marriage as strictly heterosexual etc. The United States had allowed the 9–11 disaster to happen, had a perennial public debt, trashed its ecosphere and destroyed its wilderness areas generally, declined in its comparative international standing in education achievement by students. It had great military expenses and protracted foreign wars. In short there were many challenges that President Trump thought he could correct.

The total 90 pound weakling defense and restoration of wilderness- especially in Alaska, that Mr. Trump proved to be in regard to environmental protection made a few people disappointed with his ability to ‘make America great again’ On some other points he did work to return to a stronger America with a dose of nationalism. His lack of a savoir fare regarding education, philosophy, science and so forth were other disappointments with the Trump administration. Yet his one redeeming factor was making SCOTUS somewhat conservative again. It is too bad he did not make the Bush II court appointments.