Globalisation

[The Minsky Moment]

Plenty of people thought of abolishing slavery in 1776, including, surprise surprise, many slaves themselves (see Haitian Revolutions). Industrialization did not make slavery a relict: political oppositions of all kinds made slavery increasingly costly. It was still quite productive, and generated plenty of profits - including at the time of the British abolition of the slave trade in 1807, including at a time when mechanization concerned spinning and weaving, not growing. The Russian and Indian growers who took over the production of the American South did not employ hugely mechanized techniques and had rather their own systems of coerced labor, and Brazil's own production was obtained through... slavery. 

The argument that can be made is that industrialisation provided investment opportunities for merchant capitalists who had previously politically embraced slavery, and made them increasingly open to abandon their commitment to maintaining it (and maintaining peace at all cost, in the United States). The blow to that market, and the transformation of the United States into a free (or freer) labor entity had necessarily global repercussions for slavery elsewhere.

I'd be tempted to push the point farther - the industrial revolution gave a kind of second life to slavery in the US, because it increased the demand for raw material enormously.

In crude economic terms slavery is a kind of system of capitalized labor.  The plantation owner assumes certain fixed costs of acquiring, maintaining and coercing a labor force, but then saves in terms of variable cost of labor by not having to pay a free wage.  The economics of that kind of fixed investment work when there is a strong, reliable, and growing demand for the end product.  Textile industrialization supplied that in a big way.

Early industrialization also concentrates financial capitalism, with the rise of Wall Street dating from this period.  Political conviction is individual, but finance as a whole is blind and chases the best return.  A key political and economic dynamic of the antebellum period is the alliance between Southern plantation owners and New York-based merchant capital.  Again- with slavery from the plantation owner's perspective being a kind of capitalized labor that gives rise to returns over time, there is a nature demand for financing.  Not to mention the fact that the slave-produced cotton had to be sent to the mills up North, which of course meant building and financing ships and shipping lines, again dominated by Northern merchants, shippers and bankers.  The effect is that the old anti-slavery Yankee merchant types become increasingly implicated in the slave system at the same time that finance is becoming more institutionalized and concentrated. 

[The Minsky Moment]

More general point - technical progress in itself is indifferent to whatever social system seeks to exploit it.  Technical progress in the early 18th century was used to strengthen slavery in America, but that happened because there already was a very substantial political and cultural infrastructure to support slavery in the South.  Slavery was not eradicated because technology rendered it obsolete.  It was eradicated by force.  It is instructive that having been compelled to abandon slavery, the South immediately turned to yet another form of coercive labor relations, supported by elaborate political-cultural institutions, and enforced by organized violence or threats of violence. 

[Valmy]

I'd be tempted to push the point farther - the industrial revolution gave a kind of second life to slavery in the US, because it increased the demand for raw material enormously.

Well it certainly gave it a huge boost.

Which is why I am baffled by arguments that argue that the north was an industrial based economy and the south an agrarian one. How is growing cotton for industry not industrial?

But I thought the idea it gave it a 'second life' was based on the long since disproved nonsense that slavery was in economic decline prior to the 1790s. It's first life was still rolling along just fine. It was expanding and very profitable. But then it became super profitable.

[DGuller]

Yes, you (successfully) reproduce then you win. Doesn't matter if you and your progeny are miserable.

I wonder if parallels can be drawn between liberals and conservatives in the modern world.

[Valmy]

I also do not think serfs and peasants were all that badly off. They tended to be basically self governing in their villages, even if that sort of sounds like living under the Home Owners Association from hell. And if they were so desperately miserable then why were they so conservative and why was there so much moaning and gnashing of teeth when they had to leave their villages during industrialization?

[viper37]

And so...? I am unsure of what you want to say here: homicidal maniacs depart for the colonies?

People find a way to persue their hobbies.  In the case of an artist, he will try to move to the cities where there are more opportunities to be appreciated and develop his passion.  In the case of an homicidal maniac, he will go where he feels he can pursue his homicidal habits the best.  Wars are great exultory, especially if they are unconstrained by morality.  Raping and killing a Christian women in Spain or France would be reprehensible while doing so to an indian in the colonies might not be as reprehensible.  It might not be a conscious decision, but there tends to be a drop in local homocides during wars, wether it is simply due to having less people around or something else, I do not know.  All I know, is there seems to be some sort of link.

It's usually the reverse. War time unleashes violence, including between civilians: it's been the case after WWI (small increase) and after WWII (larger increase).

Yes, but it's not counted in local homicide rates.  And in the chaos of post WWII, it would be poorly documented, or excused as part of something else (retaliations against collaborators, punishment against ethnic germans, etc) and would likely not figure in regular statistics when we seek only homicide rates.

But you would know more than me, and I will defer to your expert opinion if you tell me these deaths were all counted in the official statistics for the Eastern and Western bloc immediatly after WWII.

[HVC]

I also do not think serfs and peasants were all that badly off. They tended to be basically self governing in their villages, even if that sort of sounds like living under the Home Owners Association from hell. And if they were so desperately miserable then why were they so conservative and why was there so much moaning and gnashing of teeth when they had to leave their villages during industrialization?

But could they watch porn on their phones? I rest my case.

[viper37]

To elaborate: I sometimes come across in Sweden the myth that social democracy created the wealth of the 20th century. It strikes me as bizarre. I don't see it when I look at Swedish history. Maybe I'm blind.

To play Devil's advocate, what is the counter argument? 

- Sweden wasn't destitute before WWII.  It used to be larger in the 17th-18th century, but it still benefited from large trade connections
- In a relatively stable country, wealth will appear despite any kind of government interventions, there will always be people who will find a way to earn more money, but there will be less than in a more open econimical system.  Richness is spread around so that no one starves, but that does not mean everyone is rich.
- In a social democracy, the gap between a more socialist county and a more capitalist one will be obscured in the general country's statistics.  You'd need to take a closer look at the economic activity of each of Sweden's areas and the various government transfers, direct or indirect going on to make a proper analysis of the effects, positive or negative of social democracy
- looking at Quebec in regards to the previous point, I see that the large cities, benefiting the most from government transfers are wealthier under a social democratic system, relative to the other areas, then they would be without it, benefiting from cheap resources production in remote areas and dependancy to finished materials from the cities, akin to the 3 way commerce system of old France and its colonies.  It used to be that people in the cities would starve while people in the countryside would never need worry about that, even when really poor.  Now, the cities never starve, but the regions are often left to fend for themselves, especially if there is more than one big crisis going on at the same time.  Well, actually, I can see it right now:  all the Federal and Provincial help go to Montreal and Ottawa/Gatineau area, while remote areas like Gaspesie had to find their own help, even if that means that people are dying.  A similar scenario happenned during the Lac Mégantic tragedy while the Partie Québécois let a huge chunk of forest burn in the lower Côte Nord area (Minganie) because the cameras were a lot closer to Montreal, and this was a prized destination for many Montrealers with cottages in the area, contrary to a more remote area, not even dignified of a Forest Minister attention while their homes were burning.

[viper37]

Which is why I am baffled by arguments that argue that the north was an industrial based economy and the south an agrarian one. How is growing cotton for industry not industrial?

my neighbours grow grass, wheat and other kinds of cereals.  Does it mean I live in an industrial area?  Afaik, "Avenue industrielle" is not where I live.  And there ain't any kind of culture in the place they call "Parc de l'innovation" either.  Yet, there are still fields there.  Is it an agricultural area because they depend on the wheat produced by the industrial wheat producers?

[Valmy]

Which is why I am baffled by arguments that argue that the north was an industrial based economy and the south an agrarian one. How is growing cotton for industry not industrial?

my neighbours grow grass, wheat and other kinds of cereals.  Does it mean I live in an industrial area?  Afaik, "Avenue industrielle" is not where I live.  And there ain't any kind of culture in the place they call "Parc de l'innovation" either.  Yet, there are still fields there.  Is it an agricultural area because they depend on the wheat produced by the industrial wheat producers?

The economy is based on industry, it cannot be described as being in opposition to industry when it is dependent on it. Especially not to the point it would result in a war. And the north was still overwhelmingly agricultural anyway, indeed the free soil platform was in service of agricultural interests not industrial ones.

Yet supposedly having these supposedly vastly different economies was the real cause of the war? Marxist nonsense. Granted nobody here was saying that but I just had to get that off my chest

[CountDeMoney]

Which is why I am baffled by arguments that argue that the north was an industrial based economy and the south an agrarian one. How is growing cotton for industry not industrial?

Because it's an agrarian raw material.

But I thought the idea it gave it a 'second life' was based on the long since disproved nonsense that slavery was in economic decline prior to the 1790s. It's first life was still rolling along just fine. It was expanding and very profitable. But then it became super profitable.

Certainly it was rolling along just fine; there was a philosophical belief by certain Founding Fathers that American political evolution would eventually cast off slavery as an antiquated concept--but that shit went out the window with the following generation, the cotton gin and the admission of new states.

[Valmy]

Sure. But there is this story that it was dying and in decline in the south before the Cotton Gin and that is simply not a true fact. Now maybe it might have died later but it was not like slavery needed cotton to thrive anywhere before or since.

The Cotton Gin was such a simply device that once people heard about it they were easily able to make their own. Whitney did not make a dime off it. I think any decent engineer would have come up with something similar if they thought about the problem. So, you know, not a huge deal. Also it occurred well before the cotton boom was even possible with all those pesky Creeks in the way.

[CountDeMoney]

Sure. But there is this story that it was dying and in decline in the south before the Cotton Gin and that is simply not a true fact. Now maybe it might have died later but it was not like slavery needed cotton to thrive anywhere before or since.

I'm not familiar of any story that it was "dying and in decline in the south before the Cotton Gin."  Is that what they teach down there to perpetuate Lost Cause mythology in the War of Northern Aggression?

The Cotton Gin was such a simply device that once people heard about it they were easily able to make their own. Whitney did not make a dime off it. I think any decent engineer would have come up with something similar if they thought about the problem. So, you know, not a huge deal. Also it occurred well before the cotton boom was even possible with all those pesky Creeks in the way.

Now you're just being intentionally obtuse.

[Valmy]

I'm not familiar of any story that it was "dying and in decline in the south before the Cotton Gin."  Is that what they teach down there to perpetuate Lost Cause mythology in the War of Northern Aggression?

No that was what Ken Burns said in his damn documentary back in 1990 and it has perpetuated ever since. That is also where people got the idea that the Supreme Court ruled against Lincoln in the Merryman case.

[CountDeMoney]

I'm not familiar of any story that it was "dying and in decline in the south before the Cotton Gin."  Is that what they teach down there to perpetuate Lost Cause mythology in the War of Northern Aggression?

No that was what Ken Burns said in his damn documentary back in 1990 and it has perpetuated ever since. That is also where people got the idea that the Supreme Court ruled against Lincoln in the Merryman case.

As I do not recall Ken mentioning that, please cue up the specific minute for me, Belvedere.