Is repairing the third-world feasible?

[Des-Bal]

Oh bull.

That's both a massive oversimplification and Marxist-inspired drivel.

European colonial systems and the impetus behind them changed and adapted over the course of the many centuries they were implemented. It wasn't some grand Machiavellian conspiracy to oppress and subjugate the world to Europa's whims.

In the vast majority of cases, colonies were established for two primary reasons:

1) To pursue mercantilist policies of monopolizing as many resources and as much trade as feasibly possible.

2) To civilize or uplift the natives.

The latter was a particularly prominent driving impetus of the British colonial administration in Africa, which, frankly, invested far more financially into its colonies than it ever got out of them. In fact, for most European powers, their colonies represented net monetary losses, with only the major plantation islands of the Caribbean and Dutch spice islands in the Moluccas having actually produced a consistent surplus.

To say the main goal of European colonialism was to "fuck things up" is an inordinately pretentious falsehood, especially considering how in many ways the colonial powers objectively improved local living conditions (improved infrastructure, public education, healthcare, etc.) Notably, the British in particular went out of their way to put an end to the African slave trade. Hardly the type of behaviour to be expected of evil bourgeois capitalist boogeymen with top hats and curly mustaches.

I'm not quite the polar opposite of a communist but I'm damn close, I understand arguing with imaginary marxist theorists might be easier but if that's the game you want to play there's really no reason to quote me.

Colonies were "improved" in the sense that stealing someone's shoes and helping them cross the street helps get them where their going. The apparent benefits are vastly outweighed by the damage done. I am not arguing colonies were efficient I'm arguing they were run in a way that fundamentally did not work. Their goal, regardless of what it was purported to be, was achieved singularly by fucking things up. If you build a hospital and replace all existing of government with a purely extractive state while creating nonsensical national borders and no national identity the result is not "improvement" it is putting a shine on the big fat turd you created.

The image of colonialism as "uplifting" might be serviceable jerk-off material but it's ahistorical.

[Estlobies]

Overall, no. I suggest just containing it and occasionally interfering for fun, similarly to the savage reservation in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

[Sanctissima]

To say the main goal of European colonialism was to "fuck things up" is an inordinately pretentious falsehood

What's pretentious about it?

It's indicative of an ignorant understanding of the history of colonialism and a knee-jerk reactionary desire to denigrate Western civlization.

I'm not quite the polar opposite of a communist but I'm damn close, I understand arguing with imaginary marxist theorists might be easier but if that's the game you want to play there's really no reason to quote me.

Mea culpa.

Colonies were "improved" in the sense that stealing someone's shoes and helping them cross the street helps get them where their going. The apparent benefits are vastly outweighed by the damage done. I am not arguing colonies were efficient I'm arguing they were run in a way that fundamentally did not work. Their goal, regardless of what it was purported to be, was achieved singularly by fucking things up. If you build a hospital and replace all existing of government with a purely extractive state while creating nonsensical national borders and no national identity the result is not "improvement" it is putting a shine on the big fat turd you created.

The image of colonialism as "uplifting" might be serviceable jerk-off material but it's ahistorical.

You clearly have not even done a rudimentary study of the history of European colonialism. At least, not in the context of the African continent, which seems to be your sole focus. The only instances where what you describe could be considered the norm were the Congo Free State and a few inland Portuguese holdings. In almost all other cases, the European colonial powers invested far more into their colonies than they ever got out of them, which renders the notion of colonialism in Africa being done for purely extractive reasons moot. Especially considering how heavily they invested infrastructurally and developmentally into the continent.

Had Europeans never set foot in Africa and left the continent to its own devices, it wouldn't be even nearly developed as it is today, with slaver states existing from the Sahel and Barbary Coast to Zanzibar, pock-marked with minor kingdoms and tribes here and there. Nevermind how unpopulated the damn place would be, with no access to the European medicines and healthcare that allowed the African population to boom in the first place.

Oh, and I might add that both culturally and ethnically the continent would by no means be substantially more harmonious, considering how the Zulu and Matebele in particular were well on their way to genociding every tribe that stood in their way from the Transvaal to the Zambezi before the British put a stop to that particular human rights travesty.

But do kindly go on about how the mean Euros drew artificial lines on a map and mined a bunch of gold and diamonds.

[Des-Bal]

It's indicative of an ignorant understanding of the history of colonialism and a knee-jerk reactionary desire to denigrate Western civlization.

You clearly have not even done a rudimentary study of the history of European colonialism. At least, not in the context of the African continent, which seems to be your sole focus.

What's the most tactful way to I say "I wrote a thesis on this and I'm enjoying watching you parrot the talking points that are sullenly enumerated under the heading 'common misconceptions' in any serious academic analysis of colonialism while try to paint me as an unthinking reactionary?" Is it a hypothetical question?

The only instances where what you describe could be considered the norm were the Congo Free State and a few inland Portuguese holdings. In almost all other cases, the European colonial powers invested far more into their colonies than they ever got out of them, which renders the notion of colonialism in Africa being done for purely extractive reasons moot. Especially considering how heavily they invested infrastructurally and developmentally into the continent.

You're elevating the importance irrelevant bits of data. The colonial states were designed around extraction, they lacked the organs necessary to serve other purposes. The measure of their success was their ability to extract resources, not their ability to provide for their population or to develop effective institutions. As a result when the colonial structure was gone you had ethnic tensions and a state that couldn't really do anything except feed itself raw natural resources.

Had Europeans never set foot in Africa and left the continent to its own devices, it wouldn't be even nearly developed as it is today, with slaver states existing from the Sahel and Barbary Coast to Zanzibar, pock-marked with minor kingdoms and tribes here and there. Nevermind how unpopulated the damn place would be, with no access to the European medicines and healthcare that allowed the African population to boom in the first place.

Your counterfactual supposes a world without international trade, the cold war, or the capacity of any state to engage in any non-colonial involvement. Since we are in the land of make-believe I'll point out that fairy dust would eventually have fixed everything.

Peace exists nowhere on earth, that said colonialism did nothing but exacerbate ethnic conflicts. The human rights travesty you're describing, while unpleasant, is pretty much how bellocentric state development works. It's sausage getting made, the alternative created by colonialism was essentially just sucking on sawdust for the indeterminate future. Instead of seeing wars that expand the state we see wars that weaken it and the same cycle repeating over and over.

[Sanctissima]

What's the most tactful way to I say "I wrote a thesis on this and I'm enjoying watching you parrot the talking points that are sullenly enumerated under the heading 'common misconceptions' in any serious academic analysis of colonialism while try to paint me as an unthinking reactionary?" Is it a hypothetical question?

It's curious that you learned so little in writing your thesis.

Oh well.

You're elevating the importance irrelevant bits of data. The colonial states were designed around extraction, they lacked the organs necessary to serve other purposes. The measure of their success was their ability to extract resources, not their ability to provide for their population or to develop effective institutions. As a result when the colonial structure was gone you had ethnic tensions and a state that couldn't really do anything except feed itself raw natural resources.

You seem to be under the impression that the European colonies never progressed being the pure mercantilist policies of the 16th and 17th centuries. As it so happens, they developed into considerably more than just mere trading operations. Which, as I've said multiple times, is abundantly obvious given net loss of the vast majority of them.

Unless you're suggesting that the Euros were simply terrible accountants with no sense of economic profitability, I'm inclined to say you're intentionally oversimplifying the entire paradigm.

Your counterfactual supposes a world without international trade, the cold war, or the capacity of any state to engage in any non-colonial involvement. Since we are in the land of make-believe I'll point out that fairy dust would eventually have fixed everything.

Peace exists nowhere on earth, that said colonialism did nothing but exacerbate ethnic conflicts. The human rights travesty you're describing, while unpleasant, is pretty much how bellocentric state development works. It's sausage getting made, the alternative created by colonialism was essentially just sucking on sawdust for the indeterminate future. Instead of seeing wars that expand the state we see wars that weaken it and the same cycle repeating over and over.

Ah yes, remind me how civilizations with minimal technological development magically get on par with their vastly superior neighbors through trade and diplomacy alone. You seem to be under the impression that a non-colonized Africa would have been anything other than an even more impoverished, disease-ridden, war-ravaged shithole than it already is.

[The of Japan]

Ending neo-colonialism would be step number one, but I doubt capitalism could survive that.

China is doing that the most recently.

[Erythrean Thebes]

What's pretentious about it?

It's indicative of an ignorant understanding of the history of colonialism and a knee-jerk reactionary desire to denigrate Western civlization

It's not unique to Western civilization, its a critique of all civilization: the impunity of using aggression and coercive force to forcibly define the condition and the life circumstances of fellow human beings. That claim is true of colonialism in Africa like it is of very many political activities independent of specific times and places

[Des-Bal]

It's curious that you learned so little in writing your thesis.

Oh well.


You seem to be under the impression that the European colonies never progressed being the pure mercantilist policies of the 16th and 17th centuries. As it so happens, they developed into considerably more than just mere trading operations. Which, as I've said multiple times, is abundantly obvious given net loss of the vast majority of them.

Unless you're suggesting that the Euros were simply terrible accountants with no sense of economic profitability, I'm inclined to say you're intentionally oversimplifying the entire paradigm.


Ah yes, remind me how civilizations with minimal technological development magically get on par with their vastly superior neighbors through trade and diplomacy alone. You seem to be under the impression that a non-colonized Africa would have been anything other than an even more impoverished, disease-ridden, war-ravaged shithole than it already is.

And it's not at all curious that you haven't developed an opinion more complicated than "Hooray Europe." The model of colonialism as uplifting is nothing less than delusional.

You should repeat that a few more times and see if it matters, the fact that these enterprises weren't profitable doesn't change their nature. Colonial states were good at nothing except resource acquisition.

You have, at this point, once again descended into arguing with people not party to this conversation and I will not deign to defend points I've never asserted.

Non-Colonized Africa, regardless of it's flaws would have states that served their purpose because prior to colonization they did. It doesn't matter that they were furnished with infrastructure, it doesn't matter that they were exposed to new technologies, the governments created by colonialism were governments that could not function as governments and between the structures and divides created by colonialism their fucked from top to bottom. It is better for a state to lack medicine and roads than to lack the ability to advance.

[Pearl of Cathay]

Ideally open border will eliminate global poverty, although long-term institutional issues might as well offset if not outright reverse the problem and making the condition worsen for everyone. The thing is that most of what was Third World in 20th Century is presently repairing itself through pro-market reforms - institutions and policies are far more important than paternalist aid accumulation, regardless of whether the man in charge is a white governor or a Hakka man from Sichuan.

[Oil exporting People]

To say the main goal of European colonialism was to "fuck things up" is an inordinately pretentious falsehood, especially considering how in many ways the colonial powers objectively improved local living conditions (improved infrastructure, public education, healthcare, etc.) Notably, the British in particular went out of their way to put an end to the African slave trade. Hardly the type of behaviour to be expected of evil bourgeois capitalist boogeymen with top hats and curly mustaches.

When one looks at the data, they find that the more extensively colonized a nation was, the better off it is today.

[Oil exporting People]

1 example isn't a reflection on the whole.
It's a known fact that colonialism is a really bad and wrong part of the colonizer's and colonized's history, and has detremental effects in the long run.

Only if one believes in a Marxist narrative, but reality says firmly to the contrary.

[Des-Bal]

When one looks at the data, they find that the more extensively colonized a nation was, the better off it is today.

No, they find that indirect rule is consistently associated with lower state capacity and poorer prospects for modernization. Areas that were settled tend to do better off but that's not the magic power of colonialism it's the difference between creating a functional government and shitting all over everything.

[USS Monitor]

Ending neo-colonialism would be step number one, but I doubt capitalism could survive that.

China is doing that the most recently.

China is capitalist.

[Great Kauthar]

Absolutely. There's one simple way to do so: a Marshall Plan for Africa, just as Merkel and the CDU endorse.

China is doing that the most recently.

China is capitalist.

No, it's Socialist with Chinese Characteristics

[Crockerland]

China is doing that the most recently.

China is capitalist.

lol

[Aboim]

China is capitalist.

lol

Almost all capitalist dictatorships supported by US during the Cold War were precisely that: multiple state companies, opulent nomenklaturas, private property and free market only for friends of regime, heavy taxes to subsidise the free market of regime’s friends; And they were capitalists, only a little statists, or weren’t they?

[Great Kauthar]

China is capitalist.

lol

I agree it's not capitalist but having a lot of state-owned enterprises doesn't refute that, it is after all a huge country and many western countries have state-owned enterprises

[Crockerland]

lol

I agree it's not capitalist but having a lot of state-owned enterprises doesn't refute that, it is after all a huge country and many western countries have state-owned enterprises

The vast majority of western countries are mixed-market, not purely capitalist, societies. The United States, for example, has policies of a planned economy when it comes to the postal service, passenger rail, etc. in contrast to the general support for market economics.

lol

Almost all capitalist dictatorships supported by US during the Cold War were precisely that: multiple state companies, opulent nomenklaturas, private property and free market only for friends of regime, heavy taxes to subsidise the free market of regime’s friends; And they were capitalists, only a little statists, or weren’t they?

A "free market only for friends of the regime" is not a free market at all, what you're describing is more akin to the economic policies of Fascism than of Capitalism.

[Kavagrad]

Almost all capitalist dictatorships supported by US during the Cold War were precisely that: multiple state companies, opulent nomenklaturas, private property and free market only for friends of regime, heavy taxes to subsidise the free market of regime’s friends; And they were capitalists, only a little statists, or weren’t they?

A "free market only for friends of the regime" is not a free market at all, what you're describing is more akin to the economic policies of Fascism than of Capitalism.

The US spent 4 years putting down fascists, then the next 45 propping them up. Something about "Better dead than red".

[Navulva]

China is capitalist.

lol

Socialism is not when the state owns everything or anything.

[Summertimequestionswine]

We should cease the foreign aid and instead air drop bootstraps into third world countries.

[Darussalam]

China is capitalist.

lol

All these things are relative - the bulk of China's enormous growth and subsequent wealth came from a considerably drastic institutional change from Maoism to Dengist market reforms, specifically the SEZs. All things considered it's fairly capitalist and a market success story, but China is hardly a rich country. A more capitalist China is a wealthier one: Taiwan.

[Nihon koku]

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Stop wasting money and resources.

This.

[Des-Bal]

This.

That would assume that the third world is made of a different material than the rest of the world. It is not. It is literally the same substance.

[Jackania yugo]

Do we fix the third world by making it more or less capitalist?