Post WWII Japan can be explained by the fact that the US destroyed nearly all of Japan’s industry and when invaded the main island of Japan, established whole new industrial bases which were the high of technological advancement of the time. Basically everything Japan got was brand new while the rest of Europe was dealing with aged/destroyed machinary.
Imperialism is a major drag on economic development. War is very expensive and the burden is born through taxes. A higher burden in taxes means that producers will tend to substituted present consumption and leisure for savings and future investment all other things being equal. Also expropriation, mercantilism, and slavery are never as productive as free trade and voluntary exchange since these are just forms of exploitation of foreigners and have the same effects on production for foreigners as is does for a domestic population. The hampering of the international division of labour reduces the reduces productivity of international trade to a greater extent than the benefits of exploitation in the long run.
So, if anything, Western imperialism has made the West even less wealthy than it would have been if it had never forcibly colonized the rest of the world.
It is most likely that the Western nations were able to abolish slavery was because of their economic, esspecially industrial, prosperity - they could afford the costly process while less developed nations that did not have the industry of the Western ones simply could not. Hence, I believe that you are reversing the causation: prosperity lead to the abolition of slavery.
In addition, focusing on Great Britain, the historical ties between the state, and property rights are of interest with respect to the enclosure movement, and the Poor Laws of the time - in The Great Transformation, the author’s, Karl Polyani, thesis, among other things, is that the industrial revolution in England, and Scotland was only possible due to the government’s seizing of commons, and the role that the Poor Laws had in easing the social repercussions of the enclosure movement.
I don’t think so. Slavery can only be sustained through political privilege in any economy. A poorer country can just as easily abolish slavery as a rich one.
You completely ignore the fact that slavery can often be an economic institution without which an economy cannot sustain itself. In a historical perspective, absolishing slavery is not as easy as just freeing the slaves; rather, a nation must have a way of sustaining itself without the use of slavery before it considers abolishing slavery, and this is seen in nations that have peacefully abolished slavery.
The capital required to equip a fleet of ships and operate them over the entire world points otherwise. This was the reason European companies could colonize any place in the world, while Zulus, for example, could only migrate around their homeland in Africa.
As of late, it seems that Lam’s hobby is to analyze politics from a materialistic point of view, and somehow justify slavery…cute.
As usual, Stranger is attempting to get free-enterprise and mercantilism confused.
But how do you explain the fact that slavery disappeared long before European countries started becoming prosperous?
I don’t think he is justifying slavery, but accurately portraying the evolution of a society, and slavery is a typical economic system that nearly every race and region has gone through at one point or another.
Yes! The evolution of society which is dictated by the material productive forces.
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm
No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself.
The capital was provided by [ directly or indirectly ] by the State apparatus in the hope to bring wealth to their homeland. It is mercantilism. Britian didn’t operate on anything else until the period of de-colonization.
Well an evolution of society would mean there is some kind of determined dialectic behind the progression. That would be called a ‘Whig’ theory of history.
True, and the Dutch East India company was granted a 21 year monopoly as the world’s first corporation. I would like to believe that western superiority was all capitalism, but even today, mercantilism (exploitation) in the 3rd world and imperialism are still a big reason for western domination.
I’m just basing this off several hundreds hours I have invested into CIV 4.
Exactly, I think that we are going to experience more mercantilist tendencies in the future for the reason that countries that we would formerly borrow from are reluctant to continue. Is it any suprise that we had that ‘buy American’ clause not too long ago? With this economic crises, the state is more then ready to rely on zero sum trade rather then positive sum.
I bet your icon is Gandhi [:P]
I’ve heard this before and don’t disagree with what you’re fundmentally saying, but I’m thinking in this case (the “age of imperialism”) the temporary European advantages in warfare actually may have made such wars and resource plundering profitable. Such a dynamic will probably never come about again, but I think it should be kept in mind during that period unless you have some historical evidence basically showing that imperialism was a failure.
As far as the modern age goes, I’m sure a true socialist or other loon would look at how western corporations set up operation in 2nd or 3rd world nations to “exploit their natural resources” and say that 1st world nations are taking advantage of those countries. I’ll have to think on this a little more but at the moment since the only benefit to the 3rd world nation is job creation, I’m not sure my counter argument is very strong.
Try this!
“Discover a strange and wondrous land in the uttermost East: the Orient!”
Enslave the Chinaman to highly addictive opium. Destroy social traditions that are deemed barbaric and odd. Conquer a whole nation and subject them to the ‘unequal treaties’ and what will be later called ‘the century of humility’.
Dawn of Discovery…where libertarians can BE the imperialists [:P]
As a side note, I wish games like this would allow for libertarian societies. Peaceable peoples only interested in trade and prosperity. I demand Anarchism in Dawn of Discovery and Civ 4!