Sorry Brian, your questions are too difficult for me. I surrender unconditionally to your superior intellect.

freediver wrote on Nov 5^th, 2013 at 8:39pm:


Lol and WWI had nothing to do with that initiation right?

freediver wrote on Nov 5^th, 2013 at 8:39pm:


No, the Australian whites were able to trade with Europeans because they terrorised, slaughtered and practically wiped out the Aborigines.

freediver wrote on Nov 5^th, 2013 at 8:39pm:


The bit where the Australian Aborigines (for example) benefited from mutual cooperation and free trade between them and the White settlers, as opposed to, you know, getting annihilated as a cultural entity and forcibly assimilated into the dominant white culture. How about the blacks in South African and Rhodesia? Indians in North America? Just one big utopia of harmonious free trade right? 

freediver wrote on Nov 5^th, 2013 at 8:39pm:


In a way, imperialism still thrives amongst the capitalist powers,  - as stated in one of my first posts - and so does retribution against states who dare try and assert their economic independence. Just ask Iran and Libya.

freediver wrote on Nov 5^th, 2013 at 8:39pm:



You're not making any sense at all. The British were plenty aggressive - as aggressive as they needed to be. In India they needed over 100 000 soldiers to conquer and maintain their hold their, in Australia they wiped out or effectively neutralized the Aborigines as a threat from the best areas with no more than a few hundred soldiers.

But as you should have picked up on by now, this is not just about the British - they were only one player in a large capitalist system, and *ALL* players directly benefited from slaughtering, subjugating and marginalising natives in order to profit in the system - and this included European spinoffs in the new worlds.

freediver wrote on Nov 5^th, 2013 at 8:39pm:


The only nations that have anything remotely resembling an empire today are the western capitalist powers - who routinely go around attacking or marginalising (directly or indirectly) nations who show any hint of pursuing an economic path that is outside those nation's sphere of influence - especially if such a pursuit risks causing a flow-on effect with neighbouring countries. But it is not "imperialism" in the old "occupy and subjugate" manner of the Romans or the British in the 19th century.

freediver wrote on Nov 5^th, 2013 at 8:39pm:


Define "less aggressive". Its neither here nor there. Do you simply mean a lower scale of actual physical violence? If so, that completely misses the point - by having such overwhelming techological and economic superiority as Britain had, you are able to minimise actual physical violence because a) most of your subjects are sensible enough not to commit suicide and b) even if they do take the British on, defeat will be swift, with no chance of protracted fighting.

But this has nothing at all to do with whether or not Britain was "aggressive" or not. Overtaking half the world with minimal resistance is still aggression - in fact its an aggression that every single imperial power would dream of. Moreover, it is a logical fallacy to say that this seeming lack of "aggressiveness" necessarily meant that Britain "foresaw a mutually beneficial transition to free trade". You have to demonstrate that Britain was actually implementing policies that adhered to this (not just talking about it). Yet the evidence in terms of the expeditions of conquest and subjugation I have referred to repeatedly - coupled with the steadfast refusal of Britain to tolerate independent economic development (eg Boxer Rebellion), indicates the exact opposite.

Quote:


Is this a trick question? Or this this just another version of your stupid argument that unless Britain extended the same standards to Australian Aborigines as it did to France at the same time then it did not adopt those standards?

Quote:


I was hoping that was not your actual argument. So free trade between independent nations did not actually replace imperialism because it is imperialism? Free trade is really no different to warmongering?

Quote:


LOL - that is all about economics?

Quote:


They were as aggressive as they needed to be to avoid invading their neighbours - their economic and military peers. No other empire in history did that.

Quote:


It's funny how common sense kicks in when there is a bit of perspective hey? Are you saying that "populated land mass" is not a reasonable gauge of imperialist aggression?

Quote:


Hitler was aggressive. Do you see the difference, or do I need to explain it?

Quote:


They had no such advantage over all their close neighbours. Most empires exploit some kind of technical advantage.

Quote:


Of course it does. It means they had already ruled out invading their peers. The transition had already been made in Europe and North America. There is a clear historical trend that you attempt to deny by making excuses every single time it actually happened.

Quote:


This is a great example of your rejection of the overwhelming evidence. Britain gave up the entire empire with relatively little effort to hold on by any objective historical measure. They did this at the same time as the debate over free trade vs traditional imperialism was happening. Modern economics was literally born while the American war of independence was raging. All the evidence is there Gandalf. You just have to open your eyes.

freediver wrote on Nov 5^th, 2013 at 10:41pm:


Yet you continue...   

Quote:


Gandalf, in case you are still confused, this iw how it started:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 2:00pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 5:37pm:


Capitalism is not reliant on imperialism in any way, and it is pure delusion to think otherwise. In fact the system has only grown stronger as the last vestiges of imperialism are discarded. The modern economy is in not reliant on the exploitation of third world countries. The rise out of poverty of countries like China is a boon for us.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 10^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:


Earth to Gandalf: many of the new world colonies became independent prior even to WWI.

Quote:


So the fact somehow does not exist that European countries were giving up territories prior to WWI, often without any kind of fight at all?

Quote:


That is not my theory. My theory is that it began in Europe. Then it was extended to the new world colonies. Then to the old world colonies and the rest of the world. This was a continual process. There was no fundamental change in how it happened before and after each of the world wars.

You are inventing imaginary discontinuities in a clear historical trend, then insisting there is no contrary evidence - in doing so rejecting the entirety of the historical evidence.

Quote:


I have, over and over and over again. You just cover your ears and chant "you have no evidence".

Quote:


That's great Gandalf. You pick a point in history prior to something happening, then pretend it proves something that there was no evidence that it was going to happen. This is the most elaborate game of shifting the goal posts I have ever seen. Your argument is nothing more than increasingly idiotic versions of "the transition was a gradual transition rather than an overnight change, therefor it was not a transition, and every stage in the transition is therefor also evidence that the transition was not a transition, therefor there is not even any evidence for the transition".

Quote:


Duh. That's what a transition is. Can you explain how this contradicts anything I have said? Australia was only given independence around this time. Are you saying they would have to grant India independence prior to Australia for you to believe that it happened? As I have pointed out a dozen times, it makes perfect sense for them to extend it to Europeans and most heavily "Europeanised" colonies first. None of this contradicts the existence of the trend. I have pointed out to you many times how stupid this argument is, but you just keep dreaming up different ways of saying the same thing.

Quote:


It is not my only argument Gandalf. I have highlighted plenty of times that in addition to the transition actually happening, there was active debate about whether they should go down that road. It is all there, should you wish to simply open your eyes and see what is right in front of you.

Quote:


So you argue both that capitalism depended on imperialism, and that imperialism depended on capitalism?

You are right in this point though. Capitalism is one of the reasons why Europe at the time continued to advance so quickly ahead of other nations and regions. However you are dead wrong when you take that absurd backflip and argue that capitalism within Europe somehow depended on third world nations, just as you are dead wrong when you argue that it still does today.

Quote:


Let me guess, every country that contradicts your absurd argument is an "offshoot" and therefor does not contradict your absurd argument? You seem to be trying to argue that no evidence exists to support my case by dreaming up a special excuse for every bit of evidence there is.

Quote:


Yes it does Gandalf. At some point your attempts to make a special case for every event in history becomes an insane rejection of reality.

There is a clear and undeniable historical trend of a transition from classical imperialism to free trade between independent nations. There was a real debate raging about whether this was a path to prosperity. This was the birth of modern economics. Modern capitalism is not somehow dependent on the imperialism of the past or the modern remnants of it that you imagine are propping up the economy. It is a rejection of the imperialism of the past. You can only delude yourself otherwise by somehow rejecting, one case at a time, the entire history of this transition, while at the same time ignoring the existence of the intellectual debate. Your argument is a stubborn, willful, elaborate exercise in self delusion in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I can only imagine that this self delusion is somehow necessary to allow for the replacement of the global economy with a throwback to 7th century arabian style warmongering and Islamic "economics".