Quote:


It makes no dent in my actual argument. You keep assuming that I am claiming some kind of deliberate, planned transformation of the world by the British (and therefor any "deviation" from that imaginary plan contradicts my argument). I am not. The British were transformed. They were part of the argument. They were not one side of the argument. It was an argument, not some kind of new rule suddenly imposed from above. Smith's ideas were controversial. They are now largely taken for granted, and this can lead to people underestimating the significance of what went on. The fact that the standards promoted by Smith were not extended to the entire world at the same time to create an overnight politico-economic utopia does not undermine my argument at all - it merely highlights your continuing refusal to see it for what it is. The British did not all suddenly change their mind on imperialism vs free trade at the same time. It happened gradually, in the real life messy political context of running an empire, and the influence of Smith's ideas grew slowly. It makes perfect sense that they were first applied where it was most convenient and last where it was most difficult, and these criticisms you keep making miss the point completely.

Quote:


It was only "more" if you use wholly inappropriate measures. In military and economic terms, it was a step up from conquering the Aborigines and American Indians, but by the standards of classical imperialism it was a step down. The step up merely reflects the fact that they ran out of "new world" so went for something not quite as easy. It was still the same approach in the sense that they avoided all-out war with their economic and military peers and went after easy options, even if the value of what they were conquering was far less than the potential in conquering their peers.

Quote:


It started in earnest with the publication of Adam Smith's book, which was during the war. However there was sufficient "interest" to have some influence on the outcome of that war (not who won, but how it was fought and for how long). The British still had in mind continuing economic relations with the Americans, even while they were at war with them.

Quote:


The ceding of Australia and NZ was part of the process and happened prior to WWI. Not establishing a new empire within Europe was part of the process. And remember, part of the process was the change in attitude. You see what happened, but you fail to see the significance of what did not happen. Ghandi for example could not have pulled off what he did if that revolutionary intellectual change had not already happened. The British were not too weak from WWI to slaughter a bunch of uppity pacifists in India. They chose not to, because they were playing a different game.

Quote:


It was an opportunistic sideshow. It was possible because the Europeans were vastly more wealthy, but did not cause that wealth.

You see the move out from Europe as an expansion of imperialism, but it was the opposite. It was the relegation of imperialism to places in the world that mattered far less in both economic and military terms. It was the establishment of the new order within Europe. And it was followed by the establishment of the new order in the remaining colonies and the rest of the world.

Gandalf, the trend is undeniable. You attempt to excuse every step in the transition as an exception to the rule, when it is clearly part of a clear global transition.

Quote:


That's what traditional imperialism is all about, and it was a proven path to wealth if you could pull it off. Just ask Ceasar, Muhammed, Ghenghis etc. Even Napolean had an empire, though short-lived. WWI and WWII were actually the exception, not the rule.

Quote:


Only to the extent that it was a partial transformation to the modern model. You are arguing that it is imperialism because you only see the imperialism outside of Europe. What you seem incapable of seeing is the end of imperialism within Europe and North America, and the wealth and power accumulated within Europe as a direct result of this. Your argument relies on passing off the global economic powerhouse of Europe as dependent on the old world colonies, when the reality is that those colonies were an opportunistic extension of the power of the independent European nations.

You see the result, and label it the cause.

You even take it to the absurd length of arguing that the modern global economy is a "smarter" version of imperialism. It is not. It is the modern alternative to imperialism. When it happened withing Europe, Europe benefitted. When it happened globally, the entire world benefitted.

Quote:


I never said it was. Europeans engaging in free trade with Europeans was edging them closer to free trade within Europe. Global free trade did not happen until they started engaging in free trade with non-Europeans. This all seems pretty straight-forward. I have explained to you plenty of times that I am not claiming some kind of planned transformation of the world by the British, yet at every step you claim I am wrong because it does not fit that model. At every step I explain to you what my argument actually is. Time and again it goes straight over your head.

Quote:


At first. This is all very simple Gandalf. It happened within Europe first, then the new world colonies, then the old world colonies and the rest of the world. The fact that it did not happen in any other order does not somehow disprove the claim that it happened in that order.

They incorporated fellow Europeans and their immediate descendents first. As I keep pointing out - that is exactly what you would expect. Then they incorporated everyone else.

Quote:


But there was no failure. This is you replacing reality with your imagination. You have argued both that European capitalism was dependent on the old world colonies, and that it could not afford to maintain them. If Britain had been motivated by the same mentality that fueled every other empire in history, they would have held onto those territories.

Quote:


Like I keep explaining, your inability to see the evidence right in front of you does not prove it isn't there.

Quote:


What they did was hand over territories with barely a fight, by the standards of classical imperialism. Again, you can only see what imperialism remained, no matter how shrivelled and small, but you are incapable of seeing the undeniable trend of diminishing imperialism. That is why you absolutely refuse to discuss rational measures of the scale of imperialism, because your argument only holds up while you disallow any reasonable context or scale. 

That is why you end up in the absurd position of arguing that the modern global economy is dependent on the exploitation of third world economies.

Quote:


Yes. In the context of classical imperialism it is. The bulk of the global economy at the time was within Europe. There is no historical precedent for what happened. No other empire in history was like it. For any historical empire, it would have been suicide to leave powerful competitors on your doorstep while you went to the end of the world in search of an easier target. The reason is obvious, if you would acknowledge all that evidence you keep insisting does not exist - the world was in the process of transitioning to free trade between independent nations. The Europeans looked down on the old world colonies as "not worthy" because in economic and military terms they simply weren't. Many of them even saw it as the establishment of a civilised society with which to trade - a subtler version of the terra nullis view they took of Australia.

Quote:


Take India for example. The claim that the UK gave it up because it was "crippled" by either world war (you have attempted to attribute it to both) is an outright rejection of the reality. It was too long after WWI, but began before WWII. One of the key reasons for the early loss of effective power was the difficulty in recruiting English people into the Indian public service. This is a problem faced by wealthy nations, not poor empires on the brink of collapse.

Another example: Australia. You made two claims:

1) It was handed over so Europeans in Australia could be part of the free trade system.

- Duh. That is my argument.

2) It was handed over to facilitate the exploitation of aborigines and was thus actually some kind of increase in imperialism.

- That is just stupid. It made no difference to the treatment of aborigines and was in no way an increase in imperialism. This is just as stupid as saying that a man's home is his castle, therefor we have more imperialism because we have millions of little empires all over Australia. In fact this seems to be some kind of theme of yours. At the start of the thread you even argued that the global economy was somehow dependent on the exploitation of third world economies, and that this was further imperialism.

You not being able to see the evidence for what it is is not the same as me not presenting it.

Quote:


One more time for Gandalf - I have never argued that Britain deliberately set out to do this. This is your fantasy, constructed so that you could delude yourself into thinking you were winning the argument. They did not want their empire to dissolve. But their preference for free trade between independent nations over the traditional course of imperialism undeniably affected how they conducted themselves. That is why the handover of power in India in the face of PACIFIST resistance is unprecedented. I am not sure how to dumb this down any further, but I know you will lay down the challenge.

Quote:


Earth to Gandalf: that is not my argument. One more time: please respond to what I actually post, rather than replacing it with your absurd little fantasies.

Quote:


OK Gandalf, now explain for everyone why a transition would not be marked by both happening at the same time. Is it only a transition if it happens everywhere, all at once?

You appear to be inventing a backwards argument that a transition is not a transition if it happens one step at a time and is not controlled by someone.

Quote:


Long after. WWI was not the cause, and you must reject reality to claim otherwise.

Quote:


That's capitalism for you. The transition of power began in earnest after the major economies had emerged from the great depression.

Quote:


No Gandalf, that is simply the reality. There was no sudden change at WWI. The British were also totally belligerent towards Australians of British descent and slaughtered them. Then they turned around and granted them independence. This was before WWI. Despite your attempts to excuse every piece of evidence, the trend is undeniable.

Quote:


Get a copy of Smith's book from your local library. That's exactly what he did, and many after him.

Quote:


No Gandalf. This reasoning you project onto them is pure fantasy on your part. It made them wealthier, but it was not necessary for capitalism to flourish, and today we are even better off because the transition has been almost completed.

Quote:


This requires you to put it in context - a skill you have systematically refused to deploy in this thread. Today's global economy is the polar opposite of a world cursed by militant imperialism. You are either incapable of seeing this for what it is, or choose not to in order to continue to delude yourself. You even point to the few remaining pockets of exploitation and insist they are the cause of our great wealth. An actual failure of the capitalist system would have been a reversion to militant imperialism - eg if Hitler had won the war. Instead you flip reality on it's head and attempt to attribute major steps in the growth of the capitalist system to the 'failure' of the capitalist system.

Quote:


I am not explaining it away. I am saying there was an undeniable (by rational, honest people) transition, and what we see today, with aborigines participating in our economy on an equal footing is the completion of that transition.

Quote:


It might indeed make it easier for you to understand, because you prefer to argue in absurdly simplistic generalisations, but it is still not my argument.

Quote:


Can you explain how fighting a war to prevent the loss of America is deliberately setting out to lose America? I honestly have no idea how you could misunderstand anything to such an extent.

Quote:


The Hungarians were unable to openly stand up to the Austrians (passivle), because they would have been slaughtered, as they had been until then. Your article points out:

"In Hungarian historical context, therefore, the meaning of the term passive resistance is slightly different than in other contexts. Passive resistance, including in the forms practised in Hungary in this period, represents one form of the broader phenomenon of civil resistance."

They did do a terrific job of "white-anting" the empire in a somewhat organised manner, but it was in no way the same thing as what happened between India and the UK. The British ceding of India in the face of pacifist resistence in unprecedented and is yet another expression of the fundamental change in attitude.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1394832229

Why is Australia not an emerging second world economy??