A combination of low corruption, a strong economy where people have jobs and can afford to buy things, and political and social freedom. You might get the first two without democracy, but not the third.

Anyway as to the 'inevitability' question I don't know what that means. How long in the future are you talking about? 100 years? 200 years? 1000 years? It's impossible to make such projections. The "West" has been ascendant for 400+ years now, close to 500 really. I think in the next 100 years new individual rivals will appear, but the regional divisions and disparities outside the West are so great and European political and economic unity has such a headstart I don't see any other region supplanting the West anytime soon.

The only way that changes, as I see it, is if China or Russia conquers the other, combining the manpower of China with the raw materials and territory of Russia. If such an Empire forms, then yes the West will be surpassed/supplanted. Mackinder's prediction would come true.

I can't see Russia and China going to war any time soon. Hell, in 2001, they signed a Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation (not kidding, that's what it's called) which involves Russia selling China guns and oil, and not recognizing Taiwan as a state. They're definitely allied up now that the Soviet Union isn't around anymore.

Sure I didn't say it was likely. I just said it's the only way Western preeminence ends. Although China and Russia's friendliness is not deep. They don't trust each other and Russia complains bitterly about the Sinification of the Russian Far East, while China thinks Russia unfairly maintains possession of Manchurian territory.

True nuff, but they seem to be trying to move towards greater military cooperation, which would make them into one hell of a power bloc. I see those conflicts not so much as possible causes of war - China and Russia are both far too rationalist in their foreign policy for that - but as points of contention that prevent them from cooperating enough to form such a power bloc.

I think the west won't "decline" per se, only because increasing globalism will eventually eliminate the line between "East" and "West". We've already seen that with the end of the Cold War. Future generations won't care about history. Everyone will just be content with the lack of tension.

I'd also say I don't agree in the least bit with the idea that nationalism is dying. I think the Vietnam and Iraq wars proves that quite conclusively. People reflexively resist being ruled by foreign powers. Even small nonviable "nations" are forming their own "country" and oddly enough are being recognized by the international community. Dozens of newly independent countries don't have the administrative means to govern themselves, but would certainly resist being ruled by a foreign power.

Ask Americans what they think of the Mexican border situation and see if they think we should open up the border anytime soon. And witness the rise of nationalist parties in the EU, the supposed heartland of the "globalist" project. No, nationalism is very much alive.

It's not that nationalism is on the way out. In fact I agree with you that it's on e rise. But thats exactly why the nation-state must be on the decline. If every small nation gets it's own state, as the trend has been, then the states they control will be increasingly weak on the global economic stage. World-power states have to be market movers, not price takers. Nation-states as they are cannot play that role. They are increasingly dominated by corporate interests, in particular the small ones.

This trend will continue. He'll, even the united states won't stand up to major banks because the banks have grown too strong as international powers. But they are still 'western' in what I think is the relevant sense. Maybe that's what needs to be defined. 'western.' anyway china doesn't take that shit from markets or corporations. State control of capital means state control of ethics, of development. Hence it has been a countervailing development force in, for example, Africa, where the alternative is usually petrochemical exploitation. So that's the battlefield as I see it: the west - unfettered capitalists - and the east - semi authoritarian socialism, if it maintains that to any practical level. In that sense the decline of the west is a very open question: either side could falter or fail. Western governments have failed already, but western corporations are ready to fill the power vacuum.

I'm torn as to how I think "globalization" is trending. In one sense, you get the feeling that nationalism and patriotism hasn't wavered. As Putin pointed out, there are many examples of somewhat related modern demographics forming new 'nationalities' and there's no denying that, for example, American patriotism is still overwhelmingly strong.

However, socially and economically the lines between "East" and "West" certainly are blending.

So, to answer your question, I think that certain aspects of the "West" will decline. For instance, the military and financial power will at the very least even out somewhere in the future. However, I think globalization has provided a means for some Western Influence to transcend these declines and, in that sense, it will not decline.

@bbdaniels - I don't think the west is only represented by 'unfettered capitalists.' Although you may see America as is this there, there are social democracies in the West that may better described as 'fettered capitalists'

What is to prevent states in the West from implementing capital controls or highly regulated banking industries, like China? Is it a matter of the state not being *capable* or the state *not being willing* to control finance capital? I think it's a debatable point, but I think it's the latter. Canada for example has been hailed as the safest & most sound banking sector in the west, if not the world and not coincidentally it puts a lot of regulations of what kind of risky activities its banks can do. That to me suggests that finance capital's control of western governments, while very powerful, is not absolute.

Furthermore I'm not sure how corporations would replace the state, since the state is a territorial entity and corporations really aren't. How would corporations enforce law & order for example? Would law & order become increasingly privatized? How would they decide jurisdiction for imposing law & order without state boundaries? I mean we are seeing the rise of mercenaries and private defense forces and such, so this kind of privatization could occur. I just think this inevitable domination by global finance capital is a bit overblown. Some states in the globalist west won't even subject themselves to an international criminal court or extradite their citizens to foreign countries. As frustrations with the economy grow, capital controls will increasingly return, and the globalist project is going to suffer.

It would not surprise me, for example, if Greece is kicked out of the eurozone after it inevitable defaults. Other southern European economies might soon follow. The whole thing might quickly unravel.

Iceland's citizens stood up to the banks and refused to bail them out. If you haven't read about it do so.
Iceland's government bonds are rated as junk by Moody's and Standard and Poor's, but Iceland just sold $1 Billion dollars of bonds to private investors.
This is only three years after Iceland refused to bail out bank bondholders so that it would avoid a sovereign default.
That's the way capitalism is supposed to work.
Bondholders in bank that go belly up eat it.
Bravo Iceland, Bravo!
The refusal to bail out bank bondholders from Great Britain and the Netherlands allowed Iceland to keep its deficit at 1.3% of GDP.
Iceland's growth should be 2.2% this year as well.
Investors that invest in poor investments need to eat their losses in the capitalist system.
We certainly don't have one in the United States anymore in banking.

China is buying up the old Soviet Navy. No way Russia and China fight.
Taiwan is who better be worried, but the mainland will force Taiwan to unify sooner or later.

The West is a set of values not a physical entity. Those values, such as free speech are disappearing in Europe, but getting even stronger in the United States as long as we keep the socialist academics from destroying free speech.
It's so ironic that SDS started as a free speech movement at Berkeley and now Berkeley attacks free speech incessantly in the name of political correctness.

Uh, TC - you do realize that Iceland was bailed out by the IMF to the tune of $2.1 billion, right? You do realize this aid continues until August 2011, right? You also know that the government seized control of its banks, right?

You're so strange.

TC, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Stop embarrassing yourself. It's the conservatives who have implemented speech codes on a state-wide level to prevent professors from daring to say anything about their own political views, to the penalty of being fired. It's the conservatives who are implementing loyalty oaths in order to be employed as an academic.

Its so funny to watch Putin talk to himself. Cause I got TC muted.

@yonni, true, but the multinationals pick and choose their regulators to best advantage, then get away with just about anything. The trouble is that rEgulatory competition in this sense creates incentives for lax regulation, which unravels the whole system.

@Putin: law and order is not a hallmark of the emerging multinational system. States will still provide military order and basic police enforcement, but it will continue to become more targeted at minority working populations and not at the global class.

@thucy - one of your arguements appears to be that decline is inevitable because no group of people have ever reched the top and then stayed there. I think you said something like for the west to stay at the top would be an exceptional exception. But it is possible for groups of people to get to the top and remain there for thousands of years with no sign of their position being challanged. I'm thinking of men v women; white v black, straight v gay; abled bodied v the disabled. These group have got to the top and then used that position to keep themselves there. Decline is never inevitable if once at the top you can rig the system to help keep yourself there.

@Putin: "while China thinks Russia unfairly maintains possession of Manchurian territory."

"In 2004, Russia agreed to transfer Yinlong Island and one half of Heixiazi Island to China, ending an enduring border dispute." - wiki says

but it goes on to say:

"ome Chinese have criticised the treaty as an official acknowledgement of the legitimacy of Russian rule over Outer Manchuria, which was ceded by the Qing Dynasty to Imperial Russia under a series of Unequal Treaties"

that's an interesting one...

'How would corporations enforce law & order for example? Would law & order become increasingly privatized?' - jurisdiction would be determined by employment.

Think of a corporation as having control/ownership of it's employees in the same way a nation state has over it's citizens.

"Those values, such as free speech are disappearing in Europe" - i didn't see that in ireland. I know they just passed a blasphemy law, and it is a reminder that we need a cheaper way of altering the constitution.... but that's not going back to a less free time, it is updating our law to avoid a court case being overturned as unconstitutional (and thus bringing a constitutional referendum closer - and there is no doubt that the people of ireland will vote to remove any reference to 'blasphemy' from our constitution...)

as for the rise of nationalism in europe, it is no surprise that nationalism appears to be rising, because it is being opposed for the first time in decades. 'By opposing you make them stronger' - they become louder, more virulent, and by all means look better off, but nationalism is a thing of the past, and will hopefully continue it's decline in europe.

"Think of a corporation as having control/ownership of it's employees in the same way a nation state has over it's citizens."

That's a scary prospect. But in any case you still need the corporations to delimit land boundaries and whatnot. So all people who work for a particular corporation live in a particular area?

propeRty rights instead of any boundary is workable.

internal corporate security, and security barriers as they currently exist.

living quarters within corporate office space... who really wants to pay rent and own their own property when their job offers them the perk, along with free medical care...

Who wants to have the daily schedule of their lives controlled by a corporation when they can be in business for themselves, determine what medical plan they buy, etc.
Private property and individual freedom free the masses from the idiotic ideas of the self-proclaimed elite and government.
Is there anything more valuable in a free society than accountants and tax attorneys who foil the government's attempts to redistribute your productive income to someone else. God Bless America!

Orathaic: I really don't think many corporations would do such a good job with that. It's basically corporate feudalism, and I think we can expect conditions to suffer as the market continues to drive outsourcing, degradation of health care, and lower wages while enriching those in executive positions. I surely don't want that.

I agree with Putin. Nationalism is still very much alive. However, I think nationalism and globalism can coexist. The fall of the Iron Curtain is just the beginning. I think everyone is eager enough to forget about the bad old days. I hope and pray for a world where every nation can have its own distinct identity, but with global cooperation. Nationalism and globalism will both play a major role in the geopolitical status of the world in the future.