What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Solmyr]

Yeah, talking about the effect of history on the present is why the right wins. Totally.

[Eddie Teach]

Explain what they're doing differently because of colonialism if you want that hypothesis to be taken seriously.

[Solmyr]

It's not my job to explain things to people who claim colonialism had no damaging effect on third world countries.

Anyhow, remember that all that vaunted development of Western civilization has led to the subject of this thread. So I wouldn't be too proud of our greatness.

[Berkut]

It's not my job to explain things to people who claim colonialism had no damaging effect on third world countries.

Well, at least you aren't going to have to engage in creating strawmen in that case.

[The Brain]

Ethiopia clearly shows how countries would be better if they just hadn't been victims of colonialism (and yes they were briefly occupied in the 30s/40s just like many European countries).

[Oexmelin]

It's quite a serious hypothesis. In fact, it's pretty much a non controversial statement. I mean, Euro-American imperialism very much shaped the world as we know it now. Ecological exploitation (leading to ecological catastrophes) is intimately linked to the industrial revolution, and the growth of global capitalism. In much of the world, the face of the industrial revolution, and of global capital, was Euro-American imperialism. Entire countries have been created around the need to exploit natural resources to fuel Euro-American industries, leading to wide-scale ecological devastations, monocultures, extinction of species, etc. It is, of course, possible to disentangle the two: in China, the physical imprint of colonialism has been relatively limited, and yet the ecological overexploitation is severe. In other spaces, like Senegambia, or Congo, the exploitation of the land cannot even be imagined without colonialism and its aftermath (considering the remaining presence of French, British, Belgian industrial and political interest). Ecological devastation, past and present, is just simply a matter of colonialism.  Cases such as the USSR are more complicated, because spaces like the Aral Sea, or Kazakstan, were linked to Moscow and Russia in a relationship very similar to European colonialism. 

These statements do no mean that pre-industrial people were virtuous, or superior, or incapable of transforming profoundly their environment. There were some pre-industrial instances of overexploitations, over hunting, etc. But the scale is orders of magnitudes inferior to what the Industrial Revolution brought about. Whether or not an Industrial Revolution taking place in the Islamic World, or China, or India, would have led to the same ecological outcomes is very much an ongoing debates among economic historians, and in no way as self-evidently stupid as you all appear to make it. 

[Solmyr]

Whether or not an Industrial Revolution taking place in the Islamic World, or China, or India, would have led to the same ecological outcomes is very much an ongoing debates among economic historians, and in no way as self-evidently stupid as you all appear to make it.

Well, we are watching right now China pushing its way to Western extent of industrial development. If they do it the same way the West has done it, we can pretty much kiss Earth goodbye. Ironically, at this point severe global state-imposed restrictions on CO2 emissions and consumerism are likely to be the only way to save the planet, and places like China already have that kind of state structure in place.

[Oexmelin]

Ethiopia clearly shows how countries would be better if they just hadn't been victims of colonialism (and yes they were briefly occupied in the 30s/40s just like many European countries).

What Ethiopia clearly shows is just how tightly, and densely, the world was interconnected by the 19th century.

[Valmy]

Whether or not an Industrial Revolution taking place in the Islamic World, or China, or India, would have led to the same ecological outcomes is very much an ongoing debates among economic historians, and in no way as self-evidently stupid as you all appear to make it.

Well, we are watching right now China pushing its way to Western extent of industrial development. If they do it the same way the West has done it, we can pretty much kiss Earth goodbye. Ironically, at this point severe global state-imposed restrictions on CO2 emissions and consumerism are likely to be the only way to save the planet, and places like China already have that kind of state structure in place.

Well yes all this is taking place in the 21st century and not the 19th century. Science and technology and state development have all come a long way. There is no need, in an interconnected world, to go over the same ground again. Which is why, in some ways, developing countries have a disadvantage. They can use the newest stuff instead of having the old infrastructure and ways of doing things around.

I don't get the claim that China's state structure is so advanced that only they can regulate those things. I mean China is pretty much the engine of consumerism these days and according to Mono they seem really big on consuming.

[Valmy]

There is no need to be flippant.

Yes but he was being flippant and continues to be so for the most part in his posts. He is very passionate though, which I guess I admire.

You seem to presume that cultures are just the expressions of contemporary laws, rules, norms, and artistic endeavors fostered by the countries associated with "the West". It is apparent that Solmyr rather associates the long history of capitalism with "the West". It's an argument that champions of "Western Civilization" once subscribed to themselves, and it used to be infused with all the triumphalism you can imagine. But it is also quite possible, with the same arguments, to trace the very real lineages of 19th century rival Nation-State and total war, dependency on growth, over-exploitation of resources to those same roots of "Western Civilization". Whether or not this is a fair characterization is not as self-evident as you seem to make it, and a lot of the argument relies on whether or not capitalism is inherently "Western", counterfactual history as to whether it would have developed from the Muslim world, or imperial China, or even if capitalism is the expression of a culture. It can be an interesting debate. That is, unless we prefer to stick to accusing others of being morons or trolls.

Well I don't think it would be an interesting debate because I don't think we could agree on the premises, which are essential to a good debate. I agree with Yi that the first Capitalist was the first farmer who saved grain for planting. It was not a system anybody invented but rather a philosophy that derived from observing what was already occurring. And I have the sinking suspicion just saying this will get me labelled a troll and/or a moron so I am not very hopeful about this being a fruitful discussion.

And I was only getting involved because I found his diagnosis of the problem of the current crisis facing the world a little odd. Not because I think 'West is Best'. I mean I am on record of loathing that sort of nationalistic type nonsense. I mean I think certain values of the west are pretty great, but whether or not it is overall best is...well a bit of a pointless 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' type question. I mean I consider 21st Century Germany to be a pretty awesome place. But such an endorsement would not mean I am endorsing Germany in all times forever. Back in the 1930s it was not such an awesome place.

Edit: One huge part of this is, of course, over-population. That is a huge problem as far as ecology is concerned even if the entire world consisted of nothing but zero growth economics regimes.

[grumbler]

Ecological exploitation (leading to ecological catastrophes) is intimately linked to the industrial revolution, and the growth of global capitalism.

No serious historian could possibly believe this.  This is either a troll, or you aren't a serious historian.  There were any number of ecological catastrophes in pre-industrial societies.  Look up what happened to the Harappan culture, or Chaco Canyon, or Cahokia, or the megafauna of North America, all off the top of my head.

Industrialization makes overexploitation easier (the Grand Banks fisheries couldn't have been wiped out by pre-mechanical-fishing methods, I don't think), but the argument that western culture is uniquely associated with over-exploitation is laughable.

[Oexmelin]

No serious historian could possibly believe this.  This is either a troll, or you aren't a serious historian.  There were any number of ecological catastrophes in pre-industrial societies.  Look up what happened to the Harappan culture, or Chaco Canyon, or Cahokia, or the megafauna of North America, all off the top of my head.

These statements do no mean that pre-industrial people were virtuous, or superior, or incapable of transforming profoundly their environment. There were some pre-industrial instances of overexploitations, over hunting, etc. But the scale is orders of magnitudes inferior to what the Industrial Revolution brought about.

As for being a troll, I'll leave that qualifier to those people incapable of engaging in contentious conversation without being major assholes.

[Oexmelin]

I agree with Yi that the first Capitalist was the first farmer who saved grain for planting. It was not a system anybody invented but rather a philosophy that derived from observing what was already occurring.

That would make the word capitalism meaningless, and cut you off from decades of extremely interesting and productive research on the specificity of pre-industrial production, and merchant exchange. To think that capitalism is a historically specific phenomena (that is, to think it has a beginning, and an end) doesn't automatically make it the deliberate invention of a single author. I understand why Yi, and others who want to buttress capitalism on an unchanging human nature, assert this, but it is a political point, not one of scholarship. For that mythical farmer never existed outside of a system of human relations - and those are the ones which determine the nature of production and redistribution.

Economic historians tend to reserve the label of capitalism for the global system of relationships around capital itself (a form of primarily pecuniary valuation that takes into account the future) that slowly emerges sometime in the early modern period, and really crystallizes in the 19th century. There are certainly markets, and venues for exchange in earlier times - and there are prices, coins, etc. but this doesn't make the economy to which they are tied capitalist. The inner workings of 16th century town markets, and valuation of goods, for instance, answers to different logic.

And I have the sinking su.spicion just saying this will get me labelled a troll and/or a moron so I am not very hopeful about this being a fruitful discussion.

I know you are neither. The reason I said that was because I thought the question: "or do you not know how this work" was uncharitable, and seemed to presume Solmyr to be incapable of thinking through his statement. The troll comment is as per grumbler's usual antics.

And I was only getting involved because I found his diagnosis of the problem of the current crisis facing the world a little odd.

I understood Solmyr's comment as being in the vein of precisely fighting the whole "West is Best" line of thinking. If we want to celebrate the West's achievements, it makes sense to understand the cost at which they were achieved. If, as you suggest, this whole line of inquiry is somewhat sterile (and I certainly agree), it still makes sense to understand the predicament we are in. However, whatever diagnoses we produce on it will have to reckon with strong political and philosophical stance, that will inevitably color the answer. If, for instance, we think capitalism is a universal, unchanging part of human nature, solutions that rely on the capitalist market are going to be good solutions (or anything that goes against it will be useless). If we think there are some fundamental aspects to the problem tied to capitalism, like, for instance, the dependency on growth, then the sort of solutions we may wish to enact may be more radical. 

[grumbler]

(snip) As for being a troll, I'll leave that qualifier to those people incapable of engaging in contentious conversation without being major assholes.

So the statement I objected to was a troll.  That's pretty much what I thought.  And I think that you can engage in contentious conversations without being an asshole, when you want to.  You have in the past. 

[DGuller]

(snip) As for being a troll, I'll leave that qualifier to those people incapable of engaging in contentious conversation without being major assholes.

So the statement I objected to was a troll.  That's pretty much what I thought.  And I think that you can engage in contentious conversations without being an asshole, when you want to.  You have in the past.

He implied the asshole was you.