There was a time when trading with neighboring countries on a permanent basis, rather than temporarily until you can go in and take it all, was a novel idea. Building an empire was a tried and tested way of achieving economic prosperity. Breaking down trade barriers without killing people is fragile and cumbersome by comparison.

Quote:


It was global. Even the Americas has their own little evil empires. It's not like there was a separate age for Europe to do it.

Quote:


I see you are from the "make it up as you go along" school of history. Even Muhammed's empire benefited from international trade.

Quote:


Sure it would. Capitalism starts at home. It was not invented to deal with a sudden influx of wealth. People have been squandering and hording windfalls since the age of empires began. Capitalism is actually far more useful in dealing with shortfalls. It is Australia's easy wealth for example that allows us the luxury of all our expensive social safety nets. Our wealth did not "allow" us to go from socialism to capitalism, it allowed us to drift the other way. If life get's tough for any reason, we will be forced to abandon many of these luxuries, not rely on them. Likewise for poor countries, socialism (in all it's guises) is not a way out of poverty. It is a poverty trap.

Quote:


Capitalism is actually the natural state of affairs. Ever since there were two or more unrelated people with different sets of resources it has been the natural, default mechanism of exchange. It's not like you get two tribes coming together, agreeing to mix up their herds and other possessions, then let *someone* decide for them how to redistribute it. It will not fail if the resource pool shrinks. It will grow stronger. It is not by exploiting third world countries that our "system" is propped up. Our economy will grow stronger as those third world countries become richer and develop their own demands. Our economy did not crash because the Chinese stopped being a source of cheap labour and plastic trinkets. The rise of China, India, then other poor countries behind them will be an enormous boon for the world economy, as long as we don't get idiot communists or Muslims deciding they have to destroy "the system" because it will inevitably fail without their intervention.

Brian Ross wrote on Oct 16^th, 2013 at 11:49pm:




You silly old Muslim duffer, you. Go for a walk. Your brain is completely addled. Have a break, we all need it.



Insh'allah buzz'mallah allam duddillah diddeler schoo-bi doo'd' allah.

Quote:


That does not make any sense at all.

Quote:


No it doesn't. Quite the opposite. You are highlighting the correlation between the end of the age of empires and the rise of (state-endorsed) capitalism, and insisting that because they happened at around the same time there is no causation. You got it all backwards.

Quote:


It was an alternative to building militant empires (eg Hitler, Muhammed, Khan etc). Hence the ability for the British empire to dissolve without weakness and collapse. Quite the opposite - it flourished. To this day London still enjoys enourmous economic benefit from being a major centre in the trade of money. At the time this was happening the debate was still raging about alternative strategies - free trade by owning the entire global economy (or as much as you can get and hold onto), or free trade by agreement between independent nations. It was actually a fairly close call in the end. In fighting a loosing battle against the American independence movement, the British were very careful not to burn their bridges, and it got even easier from then on. By the time Australia's turn came the Brits were eagerly pushing us out the door. Had the British not believed in the economic merits of free trade between rival nations, it would have been a very different story.

Quote:


So, it dissolved because of something that happened a century or so after it dissolved? Would you mind highlighting which countries were still effectively ruled by the UK in WWII?

Quote:


Can you please explain how you went from "losing battle" to "peaceful and mutual realisation"?

Quote:


Obviously the Muslims were all violent. In the non-Muslim parts of the world it went comparitively peacefully after the American war of independence.

Quote:


Thanks, that's a great example. Can you give any examples of say, Muhammed or Ghenghis Kahn allowing a conquered country to force them out by passive resistance because they saw the benefit of a long term economic relationship?

Quote:


Just like NZ?

Quote:


And struggling with competing strategies of free market capitalism and old fashioned militant expansionism. I get your point. I was merely highlighting the fact that it contradicts what you are saying.

Frances wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 7:21pm:


As-salam alaykum sister Frances. You must now prostrate yourself in a suitable area and a punishment will be delivered unto thee. Go in peace.

Remember this brothers and sisters: Halla considered that coffee was a concoction made by the devil.

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 7:11pm:


LOL are you serious??

How about India (the keystone of the British empire), Egypt, Palestine, Sudan, Kenya, Rhodesia, South Africa... just off the top of my head.

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 7:11pm:


Except for Palestine (the violence against the British occupation came from the jews - see king David Hotel bombing), Greek Cypriots in Cyprus, the Chinese communist uprising in Malaya, the Mao Mao uprising in Kenya...

I really don't know which statement is more stupid - that only muslims resisted violently to British colonialism, or that British colonialism ended 100 years before WWII. 

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2013 at 7:11pm:


What does it contradict?

Either way, I think we can see how absurd the claim that capitalism caused the death of colonialism is. Colonialism fed capitalism, and capitalism fed colonialism. And making claims like British colonialism ended some time in the 1840s, or that only muslims resisted violently to British rule does nothing to your argument but make your look ridiculous.