Quote:


Except of course that the transition had already begun within Europe.

Quote:


Wrong again. In fact, the American war of independence had just started the year before. Adam Smith's ideas influenced how the British handled that war and the aftermath.

Quote:


Yes I noticed you avoided that question. First it was land mass. Then it was population. Then it was populated territory. Then it was "I don't want to talk about it anymore". There is nothing in history that is anything like what the British and other European countries did. The way the British allowed the territories to be lost was also unprecedented. I know I have asked you before and that it is probably futile, but can cite any precedent that is even remotely similar to what Ghandi did? Can you explain why you are unable to? Was it typical of historical empires to give up their prize territories at the request of non-violent protestors at a time when they really needed the money?

Quote:


Oh yes, please explain how that worked in the "jewel of the empire". You cite exceptions and pretend they are the rule.

Quote:


Shifting the goal posts yet again I see. You seem to change your argument with every single post, and insist it was the same all the way through.

Quote:


But it was completely different from the historical model of imperialism, wasn't it? Let's get this right. First you acknowledge that capitalism replaced militant imperialism within Eruope. Then you acknowledge that the same change occured in the "new world" territories. Then you are one step away from agreeing with me.

Quote:


Except that they did not actually rely on it. They took advantage, but the reality was that the colonies were the economic fringe while they remained colonies. The colonies were let go as they become economic powerhouses.

Quote:


There is plenty of evidence. You just cannot see it for what it is. You even cited the evidence yourself. This is the history - free trade among independent nations was establsihed first in Europe, then in the new world colonies, then in the African and Asian colonies, until the entire world economy came to be based on it. Somehow you manage to twist this undeniable trend by making excuses for ever single instance where it happened, to the piint that you delude yourself into believing that there is not even any evidence that it happened.

Quote:


That's because you get it wrong every single time. That is not obfuscation. That is me patiently explaining to you, over and over again, that you do not even understand what I am saying.

Quote:


Right. First it was WWII. Then when I pointed out that the evidence didn't back you up, you decided to throw in WWI also. Plenty of colonies were ceded before WWI. But you have endless excuses for why the evidence that contradicts you is not actually evidence, right?

Quote:


Good point. You only create strawmen whenever you try to describe my argument.

Quote:


Oh look, Gandalf has changed his argument yet again. Pretty soon you will be telling us that "all along" it was you who insisted that capitalism lead to the end of the age of empires.

Quote:


Ah yes - the old "empires are a drain on the national purse" argument again. It is funny to watch you throw this one out in the same post that you insist that the European economy was also dependent on these colonies.

freediver wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 11:58am:


This is FD debating 101. Entirely lose track of what we are debating, take individual comments in isolation so they make no sense, and turn this into an inane "I win because I've picked up an 'inconsistency' in your argument" exercise. Note how when FD pulls out his "shifting the goal posts" trump cards, he never bothers to explain how he thinks I have done that, but merely seeks to derail the debate by throwing the accusation out there - as if the accusation itself would be enough to throw off any casual observer.

Now I'm not normally one to stoop to FDs level and partake in his games, but purely for the benefit of anyone that might have stumbled upon this thread and got taken in by FDs obfuscations, I feel it only fair to straighten the record...

In one of my first posts in this thread I set out my position plainly and clearly:

Quote:


To take the cases of Australia, Canada and New Zealand, they were settled by British, for British interests. British white colonists created nation states from these territories, who were culturally and economically entirely on the same page as Britain and British interests.

Now FD attempts to construct this "shifting the goal posts" claim based on the belief that incorporating these white colonies into the European capitalist system, is part of the process of Britain ceding its empire in the interests of "free trade", and that it necessarily contradicts my overall argument that Britain was in fact aggressively expanding her empire at the time free trade principles were being implemented in the capitalist system.

My first point about this is, white Australians and Canadians and New Zealanders themselves were imperialists - conquering and effectively wiping out native cultures and claiming the territories for themselves specifically in the name of capitalism. And importantly, this imperialism was done either directly in the name of British imperial interests, or the interests of making profits in the European capitalist system (where do you think sheep wool that was grown on conquered land was exported to?). Hence this is entirely consistent with my point that "Of course Britain believed in and promoted free trade between the "civilized" nations, but not the rest of the world" - given that these new territories were created by whites, for white interests - and were part of the "civilized" European world in every sense except in the geographic sense.

Perhaps FD could explain how the actual native Aborigines and Indians and Maories fitted in with this free trade transition while they were systematically being slaughtered, driven off their lands and subject to forced assimilation. In fact the same principle applies to the United States who had fought off British control - but who were subsequently welcomed into the European capitalist system while they were busily slaughtering and driving off native Indians from their land. Culturally European nations - who themselves were systematically engaging in aggressive imperialism against the native non-whites - were welcomed into the European capitalist system, just as traditionally rival continental nations like Germany, France an Britain were too. And good old fashioned military imperialism - by both the whites at "home" and the whites in the provinces, was a) in an extremely healthy state during the rise of the capitalist system in Europe, and b) an essential part of sustaining the capitalist system.

The issue of the white colonies actually proves my  point on the *ORIGINAL* point of contention - which of course FD has completely forgotten - that "imperialism is part and parcel of capitalism, and without it, the system would have failed long ago." - which I stated in my very first post of this inane argument.

freediver wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 11:58am:


um no, it was stated in my very first post on the subject. European "civilized" states were to trade freely with each other the spoils of their empires. Thats how the capitalist system worked, and it only encountered failure when the participants of this system committed the cardinal sin of waging war on each other.

freediver wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 11:58am:


fixed.

freediver wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 11:58am:


*faceplam*

err yes FD, the local economy of the zulu or the Australian aborigines totally powered European Capitalism - as opposed to bypassing those economies altogether and simply take the resources for themselves.

freediver wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 6:37pm:


As opposed to invading, slaughtering, subjugating and quashing any independence movements in the rest of the world. You seem to have gone from "no, the British didn't *REALLY* slaughter and subjugate and be all imperialistic in the non-European world during the 19th century" - to "well actually, lets forget about that, and emphasise the fact that Europeans created a viable and profitable capitalist system between themselves - even though it conforms exactly with Gandalf's argument, as expressed consistently from his very first post".

Quote:


Right, so pointing out in very simple English that Britain had the biggest empire the world had ever seen, which was mostly acquired after the war of independence is not quite clear enough for you? Would you like the exact amount of territory in kilometres square? Well sorry, I don't have it. Sorry for being "silent" on that issue - but all you need to worry your little self about is that it was a hell of a lot more than they, or any other power had ever had. But I did give you the number of people who came under British control after the war of independence - around 400 million. Thats 400 million who were *NOT* part of the European capitalist/free trade system, and whose exploitation *DIRECTLY* facilitated the growth and maintenance of that capitalist system.

Hows that for "quantifying"?

freediver wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 7:16pm:


I admit it is a little hard - first it was the British empire had already "dissolved" 100 years before WWII, then it was merely in some state of transition. That Britain was somehow in the process of dismantling its empire because of what Adam Smith had wrote, even though they were ramping up their subjugation of the non-European world at the same time. That Britain had ceded "many" of its colonies in the non-European world - even though you can't name a single example, and that the economic devastation of WWI and WWII had nothing whatsoever to do with the dismantling of the British empire - and its pure coincidence that it all happened straight after those wars. And endless obfuscations about me changing my argument, changing your argument and "shifting the goal posts" - as is your tried and true method.

'Bout sums it up I reckon.

But I'll tell you what my argument is though, as stated from the very beginning: capitalism was a critical component of, and rose in sync with, the greatest imperialist age the world has ever seen. My argument is that capitalism was *NOT* - (wait let me be be very careful here and quote your exact words) "largely responsible for the end of the age of empires" - and that such a claim is completely lacking in basis, and flys in the face of all the historical evidence - something you would prefer didn't exist.

freediver wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:


So you never said that the the British empire "dissolved" 100 years before WWII then? Or that Britain had ceded "many" of its territories before WWI (and after the war of independence) without being able to name a single example?

freediver wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:


This is fascinating. Who would have thought explaining that it was the largest - in both land mass and subject people - empire the world had ever seen was somehow unclear.

Quote:


"Greater" in terms of physical size and people under its control - biggest, largest, highest in size, I can't think of any more adjectives - is it still unclear?

freediver wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:


For crying out loud 

Here's what you said when I pointed it out to you last time:

Quote:


Presumably you meant "dissolving", but the point is I didn't make it up when you said, in your own words, "it dissolved a century or so before WWII". Its not my fault you don't know your present and past tenses.

freediver wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:


WWI I meant - which is entirely consistent with my argument that European imperialism didn't start to decline until they started destroying each other in the world wars - consistent with my very first post on the subject:

Quote:


In any case the amount of actual territory lost after WWI was negligible, and South Africa isn't even relevant to this argument  since the colony itself was an imperialistic player, who subjugated and marginalised the native blacks in the name of capitalism  just like any other member of the exclusive capitalist-imperialist club.

freediver wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:


Not really. All the evidence I've seen suggests that before WWII Britain had every intention of holding on to India in one form or another - even though their grip on India had undeniably weakened. Whats a more relevant question though is what caused this weakening of British control. Was it, as you claim (but will no doubt deny), the result of Britain "believe[ing] in the economic merits of free trade between rival nations" - hence enabling Britain to dissolve its empire "without weakness and collapse."? Of course it goes without saying that there is no shred of evidence to support this view - given that everything that Britain ceded to the Indians was in a climate of waning British power due to the world wars, and as responses to Indian acts of resistance to occupation - whether violent or non-violent.

freediver wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:


They are obvious examples - of European spinoffs who engaged in their own imperialism against their native populations and participated in the European capitalist system as a direct result. Please do keep bringing up examples of European imperialism facilitating and coinciding with the rapid success of the capitalist system.

freediver wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:


Do feel free to once again review, and preferably comprehend my very first post on this discussion - and then explain to me how I have shifted the goal posts.

freediver wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:


Feel free to point out exactly where I said any of those things.

Feel free also to comprehend the veeeeeery simple point that Britain was the greatest - as in largest - empire the world had ever seen in terms of both land mass and population under its control - and that this is extremely valid when talking about whether Britain was a committed imperialist during that time, or thinking that actually, this imperialism thing isn't as good as trading freely with these guys under our control.