[RD] Surrender Summit

[innonimatu]

Third world countries are third world countries because they were ravaged by colonialism and imperialism, not because they are "not innovating." There is a metric ton of innovation and inventors in Africa, for example, but think about the history of Africa: during the Atlantic Slave Trade, people were extracted from the continent, and once slavery was outlawed in Europe and America, Europe turned to Africa for its raw resources, like diamonds, sugar, salt, cobalt, aluminum, iron, cocoa, silver, gold, uranium, etc.

Keeping poor countries poor is a great economic scheme: you force them to extract their resources to make money, and you can also outsource and use their cheap labor to manufacture goods and get raw materials. Anglo-Saxon economists like Adam Smith, Karl Marx, or Milton Friedman, of course, did not have to concern themselves with such insignificant matters, so they could only judge economies in a vacuum, as if they existed outside of time and space and were never a consequence of political forces.

Anyway, African countries have shown the largest development growth in the world over the past couple of decades — you know, some time after they gained full independence from Britain, France, Belgium, and others.

Actually Smith and Marx noticed that. It was Ricardo who made up fairy tales about everyone benefiting from trade. And by extension Empire, others would claim.

Africa was extremely backwards, nearly as much (not as much because they already worked iron...) as America, back in the 16th century. It was the fact that europeans did not (could not, diseases, and would not, little wealth to be had compared to America and Asia) conquer and colonize it until the 19th century that kept it backwards. Its interior was hard to penetrate, thus inventions failed to spread quickly into there. Can't blame the Atlantic Slave Trade for that, it was backwards before that trade existed.

There is innovation. But there is not general prosperity. And that comes from there being less innovation.

And I'm not denying that imperialism held these countries back for a long time. But there are many nations which have been independent far longer than it would take to become upper-middle income nations. Yet they haven't. Why? Because the leaders of those countries like to keep them poor.

I'd say that there is little innovation in those countries. Wealth matters, infrastructure matters. They're in a bad position to "innovate" much. And especially the tool of "intellectual property" has recently been deployed against them, to justify monopolies and future attacks should those be broken.

Leaders can make some difference, but before the mid-20th century there was also another big factor at play; geography. And the natural resources available in each zone of the planet. Africa, its is claimed, is big. That is true, the second-largest continental mass. It is also claimed to be wealthy: that is not true. Much of the continent is unsuitable for agriculture, unlike Europe, (south) Asia,or North America. Even South America was far better: it has hard mountains and jungles, but also huge tracts of fertile land, which Africa only has in its southernmost, narrow point. Modern agriculture can overcome some difficulties, but before these last few decades Africa was very much at a disadvantage, in an era when agriculture was the basis of most of human society.

Africa also lacked the concentrated resources for what was the first industrial revolution, iron and coal. Good reserves were eventually found, but late. And not conveniently combined and accessible, as in some places in Europe and North America.

 

[Farm Boy]

Edit: nevermind. Not worth it.

 

[Berzerker]

coal built America, not cotton

 

[Sommerswerd]

corn built America not coal

 

[Ironsided]

Starvation victims, sexual deviants, petty criminals and slaves built America.

 

[Cutlass]

I mean, that's not only the same argument that Republicans use to dismiss Jim Crow as a cause of black poverty, it's working on pretty much the same timescale.

What in the ever-loving-frak would make you think that Jim Crow has ever really ended? In all the years I've known you, that's about the dumbest thing I've ever seen you say.

The difference between a decolonized nation and the majority of African Americans is that for a decolonized nation no one outside their nation is imposing the restrictions on them that would prevent them from becoming more developed. You cannot make the case that this is true with African Americans. Conservatives claim that it is not true of African Americans. But they make that claim at the same time they legislate unequal access to education and government support programs of all kinds, law enforcement and prison sentencing, even where most African Americans get to live. They have to be subtler about it than used to be true. But they never stopped doing it.

The oppressions have eased. This has allowed a substantial number of African Americans to do far better than their parents and grandparents. But to say that they live in the same world that white Americans do, and have the same life experiences and economic opportunities is something only a conservative would claim.

And it isn't just the African American community which is the poorer for it. It is the United States of America which is the poorer for it. Even if you took a person like me and that person didn't give a damn about the fate of African Americans, even if that person cared nothing about fairness or justice, but that person was just a F*** Yea America person like me, they'd still want this changed, because holding back the prosperity of 13% of the total nation holds back the prosperity of the nation 13%.

The patriotism or nationalism which doesn't embrace liberty and justice for all isn't really patriotism or nationalism at all. It's just selfishness. The difference is that for many progressives I can say that 'what is best for all of us is best for me. But for all too many conservatives they say 'what is best for me is best for all of us'. And the latter is both fundamentally selfish, and fundamentally untrue.

That's all completely besides the point. The claim was that the Deep South was incapable of innovation because it was economically dependent on slaves, that only a society based on free labour can successfully innovate. That claim has yet to be substantiated.

Innovation is more likely when people can see the benefit of their work, for sure. But that doesn't require that most or even many people be free, only that those innovating are free, or even just free enough to enjoy the benefits of their work. Most actual innovation in a capitalist society is carried by a relatively small strata of technicians, engineers and managers. Most workers are given very little input into their work process. They may be asked for feedback, but they have little or nor say in actually alternating that work, nor are they likely to see any direct compensation for increased efficiency resulting from that feedback. This is all possible under slavery, this is all possible under wage-labour, this is possible under debt-peonage. When a majority of workers function in a purely executive role, their freedom or unfreedom isn't of direct consequence to the efficiency of the whole system.

In both a plantation and a factory, the majority of human workers have historically acted as machines. They perform tasks which are either slightly too complicated to leave to machines, or which they can perform more cheaply than machines. They are more efficient insofar as they are more cost-effective, not because they bring some spark of innovation to the process. To the extent this is not longer the case, it is because they have been totally supplanted by machines, proving quite finally that the human element was never necessary to the process, and the extent that is, an ever-shrinking number of technicians are quite capable of meeting that need.

The argument essentially boils down to, in a society in which all human beings are white collar technicians and managers, freedom is important to ensure efficiency and innovation. And that might be fine as far as it goes. But it has very little relevance for the nineteenth, twentieth or even early twenty-first century.

The problem with this argument is that it is the argument for holding back potential growth. Not for creating it.

 

[Lexicus]

To the extent that the Southern planter economy was uninnovative, it was less clearly to do with unfree labour, and more to do with the political and business culture of the Old South, of absentee planters with aristocratic pretensions.

The characterization of the Southern planter economy as not innovative is simply false, as recent scholarship has showed magnificently.

That's a different question. In the 19th century capitalism was overwhelmingly small firms. Manufacturing was overwhelmingly small firms. Innovation was overwhelmingly small firms. This is where the growth of the economy comes from.

This doesn't even pass the smell test. In the first half of the 19th century "capitalism" was overwhelmingly small firms. The major technological advances started coming in the second half of the century, when the big trusts and large capitalists were in the process of consolidating their control over the economy.

That's all completely besides the point. The claim was that the Deep South was incapable of innovation because it was economically dependent on slaves, that only a society based on free labour can successfully innovate. That claim has yet to be substantiated.

That claim is decisively falsified by one of the books I posted in this thread, actually.

What in the ever-loving-frak would make you think that Jim Crow has ever really ended? In all the years I've known you, that's about the dumbest thing I've ever seen you say.

And what the ever-loving frak would make you think that imperialism ever really ended? You don't really believe that the US is not an empire, do you?

The oppressions have eased. This has allowed a substantial number of African Americans to do far better than their parents and grandparents. But to say that they live in the same world that white Americans do, and have the same life experiences and economic opportunities is something only a conservative would claim.

But you make the exact same claim about African nations today despite that it is also only something a conservative would claim.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

Africa was extremely backwards, nearly as much (not as much because they already worked iron...) as America, back in the 16th century. It was the fact that europeans did not (could not, diseases, and would not, little wealth to be had compared to America and Asia) conquer and colonize it until the 19th century that kept it backwards. Its interior was hard to penetrate, thus inventions failed to spread quickly into there. Can't blame the Atlantic Slave Trade for that, it was backwards before that trade existed.

I am not sure what you mean by backwards or by Africa, for that matter. Africa in general is a vast and diverse continent: Egypt is literally one of the first and at some point the most technologically advanced civilization, Carthage and later Islamic caliphates beat Europeans in the Mediterranean due to military technology advantage, Ethiopia beat Europeans who came to colonize it, Kilwa Sultanate was pretty powerful, as were the Kingdoms of Mali and Songhai. Europeans were also pretty backwards at that time and before printing press and gunpowder traveled to Europe from China. China itself, after exploring into India and Africa, decided to burn its fleet and enter a period of isolationism, even though they could have their hegemony over everyone.

It's true, of course, that the transfer of knowledge was largely impeded by the difficult landscape of Africa: a huge Sahara desert and then thick jungle and then Kalahari desert. The knowledge between Europe and Near East traveled fast and horizontally because there were no impassable natural obstacles, so I agree with that. But again, I wasn't talking about African tribes in the deep jungle who weren't reached until late 19th century.

Which is also kind of ironic because the sustenance farming these kingdoms had is really sustainable in the long term, while technological inventions are literally ruining and polluting the planet we live on.

 

[Berzerker]

yes, living within their means is considered backward by people ruining the world with their pollution

 

[innonimatu]

I am not sure what you mean by backwards or by Africa, for that matter. Africa in general is a vast and diverse continent: Egypt is literally one of the first and at some point the most technologically advanced civilization, Carthage and later Islamic caliphates beat Europeans in the Mediterranean due to military technology advantage, Ethiopia beat Europeans who came to colonize it, Kilwa Sultanate was pretty powerful, as were the Kingdoms of Mali and Songhai. Europeans were also pretty backwards at that time and before printing press and gunpowder traveled to Europe from China. China itself, after exploring into India and Africa, decided to burn its fleet and enter a period of isolationism, even though they could have their hegemony over everyone.

It is doubtful that the emperor's fleet visited Africa at that time. China's central government also had plenty of internal issues to contend with, sue to the sheer size of the empire at the time. Its decision to limit expansion for the sake of stability may have made sense at the time.

Africa was backwards in terms of lack of stable institutions, lack of technology, and lack of resources. In the 16th century Europe (which includes the Mediterranean shores of Africa) was covered with universities and schools, some were already centuries old by then. Its states, though constantly warring, were by then relatively stable, already busy amassing archives, statistics, knowledge, that endured until today. Whereas the polities of Africa were still in the "dark ages/frequent collapse" stage.
Sub-Saharan Africa lacked those institutions. And what craftsmen or missionaries got sent there and might have carried technology that the african polities might further develop quickly died due to the local diseases. They had iron working, writing, masonry, etc. But all that remained at a very rudimentary level compared to what was going on in Asia and Europe - the technology gap was huge. That is what I mean by backwards.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

It is doubtful that the emperor's fleet visited Africa at that time. China's central government also had plenty of internal issues to contend with, sue to the sheer size of the empire at the time. Its decision to limit expansion for the sake of stability may have made sense at the time.

Do you think I am just making this up? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_treasure_voyages

Sub-Saharan Africa lacked those institutions.

How do you know that? The only reason why we know what happened in the past is because things were documented in writing, which just so happens to be a part of the European and Chinese cultures. Other peoples in the world relied on oral tradition and did not need to write things down, which does not mean they had no institutions on their own. Plus, like I pointed out earlier, Africa is rich with natural resources, which is something you can google yourself at this point.

I don't disagree that there were large cultural differences and disparities, but that is only if Europe is your point of reference and if you measure the rest of the world by European standards.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't disagree that there were large cultural differences and disparities, but that is only if Europe is your point of reference and if you measure the rest of the world by European standards.

In the 16th century Europe was a barbarous backwater compared to the Ottoman Empire let alone Ming China.

How do you know that? The only reason why we know what happened in the past is because things were documented in writing, which just so happens to be a part of the European and Chinese cultures. Other peoples in the world relied on oral tradition and did not need to write things down, which does not mean they had no institutions on their own.

Inno is overstating the lack of state institutions and written records in Sub-Saharan Africa, but he's not wrong that those states were fairly ephemeral by the standards of early modern Europe, China, India, or the Near East. State formation in the Sahel was driven mostly by charismatic leaders motivated by Islam, and few of these states survived long past the death of their founder. Though it is worth mentioning Mali and Songhai as exceptions; in the 13th and 14th centuries Mali was quite a bit richer than Europe was at the time, and the rulers of Songhai patronized a network of (religious) schools.

Whether we refer to this as 'backward' or not it is obvious that there is an actual reason why Africa was conquered by Europeans, and not the other way around. One reason that sub-Saharan Africa fell behind, so to speak, is geographical barriers to cultural exchange. Europe, as we know, benefited tremendously from cultural exchange with the Near East and with China and India.

 

[Verbose]

Europe, as we know, benefited tremendously from cultural exchange with the Near East and with China and India.

So did east Africa, What then happened was that the Europeans turned up, and starting nicking and breaking things (the Portuguese more specifically).

 

[Berzerker]

gunpowder doomed people all over the world

 

[Sommerswerd]

gunpowder doomed people all over the world

Meh... fireworks are delightful and a net-gain to humanity I'd say... It was the guns that did us in... not the gunpowder.

Also... I'm sure someone here might make the argument that wars became less bloody and less frequent once guns arrived.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm sure someone here might make the argument that wars became less bloody and less frequent once guns arrived.

Eeehhhh. Is it better to fire, spit, gut, and rape a subjugated city or to gunpowder explode it with bombs and then do the rest with the leavings. Gunpowder made the horrors of war and combat somewhat more egalitarian I suppose... An artillery shell doesn't discern quite like a spearfight whether or not you spent your childhood steeped in warrior mythos and privilege.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Meh... fireworks are delightful and a net-gain to humanity I'd say... It was the guns that did us in... not the gunpowder.

Also... I'm sure someone here might make the argument that wars became less bloody and less frequent once guns arrived.

I don't think the evidence would support that, but I don't think technology is the driving force behind why wars have got larger, bloodier and involved civilians more. Nationalism and the power of the state are behind that. Technology just makes the consequences worse.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I should have italicized "someone"

 

[Broken_Erika]

Eeehhhh. Is it better to fire, spit, gut, and rape a subjugated city or to gunpowder explode it with bombs and then do the rest with the leavings. Gunpowder made the horrors of war and combat somewhat more egalitarian I suppose... An artillery shell doesn't discern quite like a spearfight whether or not you spent your childhood steeped in warrior mythos and privilege.

Instead they explode it with bombs and then do the rape and pillaging. It's the best of both worlds!

 

[Verbose]

Eeehhhh. Is it better to fire, spit, gut, and rape a subjugated city or to gunpowder explode it with bombs and then do the rest with the leavings. Gunpowder made the horrors of war and combat somewhat more egalitarian I suppose... An artillery shell doesn't discern quite like a spearfight whether or not you spent your childhood steeped in warrior mythos and privilege.

Actually there is a concept for what the advent of firearms outside its main points of original development (east and west), and that's "gunpowder empires". They cropped up in West Africa, to help supply the European demand for slave labour, and in North America, to help supply the European demand for furs (beaver in particular).