|
|
Post by sandypine on May 18, 2023 13:50:33 GMT
where the Empire was, in my view, on balance, something to be proud of? Why do you believe the Empire was something to be proud of 'on balance'? Is it because you believe it brought democracy to nations that would not have it otherwise? In order for that claim to hold water, you must demonstrate that democracy has not developed in other countries that were not occupied by Britain. If it is demonstrated that countries can develop into democracies without having it imposed upon them by an outside source such as the UK, your argument fails, as there is no reason to believe that, say, India would not have developed democracy of its own accord. If you wish to say that it brought a stop to the practice of thuggery and the killing of wives on their husbands' death, you must demonstrate that that actually happened in reality (that it wasn't just the case that a small dent was made in the practice in those areas where the thinly strected British forces had a presence) and you must establish that India would not have brought it to an end of its own accord. If you wish to argue that it would only have happened later if India had done it of its own accord (with many dying in the meantime), you must show that those numbers are greater than those we know to have died as a direct result of the Empire (those who died of starvation, were turned into junkies, etc.). I've used the word 'must' a lot in this post. It goes without saying that you don't have to do anything. Of course, you are not even compelled to reply. The British Empire campaigns against Sutee, Meriah and Thuggee are well documented in the literature of Empire and in histories devoted to that subject. Do you ask for proof that we stopped burning witches or do you accept that history tells us that parliament enacted legislation that banned it. What we have to consider is what happened under Empire and forced to happen by Empire not what may have happened without Empire as that way lies an impossible task and is always pure conjecture. The legal, educational and governmental legacy of Empire can easily shown to be such as they bear great similarity to the UK and little similarity to that which was in place before Empire. You are now in the realm of comparing numbers the details of which for both are a matter of conjecture. The whole thing is complicated by local help and corruption most especially in China. How is Pakistan doing in terms of the rule of law and its adherence to the Ulema in Islam? In other words they had democracy but decided their cultural beliefs were more important. Their choice but at least we know where they stand as regards what Empire brought. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 18, 2023 13:51:52 GMT
Are you seriously saying that the conditions of early capitalism weren't imposed? Do you expect us to believe that entire nations willed large swathes of their population being turned into junkies, or that people willed living in slum conditions or working as slaves on cotton plantations? I never suggested otherwise . Capitalism has never been an experiment by fantasist’s. It has been an exercise in cold cynicism. However it has adapted and it only survived, it’s spectacularly successful. Communism is a failed experiment that adopts some of capitalisms worst features as soon as the fantasists impose their fantasies on the public . Capitalism has been spectacularly successful? What planet are you living on? Capitalism has caused famines and world wars. It is arguable it is the cause of the climate crisis. We're being constantly warned that we're on the verge of a recession, the likes of which has never been seen. Successful? You might want to set your sights a little higher, Benny. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 18, 2023 13:54:07 GMT
Why do you believe the Empire was something to be proud of 'on balance'? Is it because you believe it brought democracy to nations that would not have it otherwise? In order for that claim to hold water, you must demonstrate that democracy has not developed in other countries that were not occupied by Britain. If it is demonstrated that countries can develop into democracies without having it imposed upon them by an outside source such as the UK, your argument fails, as there is no reason to believe that, say, India would not have developed democracy of its own accord. If you wish to say that it brought a stop to the practice of thuggery and the killing of wives on their husbands' death, you must demonstrate that that actually happened in reality (that it wasn't just the case that a small dent was made in the practice in those areas where the thinly strected British forces had a presence) and you must establish that India would not have brought it to an end of its own accord. If you wish to argue that it would only have happened later if India had done it of its own accord (with many dying in the meantime), you must show that those numbers are greater than those we know to have died as a direct result of the Empire (those who died of starvation, were turned into junkies, etc.). I've used the word 'must' a lot in this post. It goes without saying that you don't have to do anything. Of course, you are not even compelled to reply. The British Empire campaigns against Sutee, Meriah and Thuggee are well documented in the literature of Empire and in histories devoted to that subject. Do you ask for proof that we stopped burning witches or do you accept that history tells us that parliament enacted legislation that banned it. What we have to consider is what happened under Empire and forced to happen by Empire not what may have happened without Empire as that way lies an impossible task and is always pure conjecture. The legal, educational and governmental legacy of Empire can easily shown to be such as they bear great similarity to the UK and little similarity to that which was in place before Empire. You are now in the realm of comparing numbers the details of which for both are a matter of conjecture. The whole thing is complicated by local help and corruption most especially in China. How is Pakistan doing in terms of the rule of law and its adherence to the Ulema in Islam? In other words they had democracy but decided their cultural beliefs were more important. Their choice but at least we know where they stand as regards what Empire brought. In other words, you accept that colonisation by the UK is not a requirement for a country to develop democracy. There goes the main plank of your argument that the Empire was 'beneficial'. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 18, 2023 13:58:23 GMT
The communist experiment has failed wherever it was attempted. The fantasy has to be imposed by the fantasists. Imposing it by the gun, famine and gulags failed spectacularly. Todays fantasists may not be clever enough to get a degree in science or maths but they are smart enough to know that. So the strategy is to impose it through the arts , media and university woke Madrasas . It has failed because of historical contingency. Capitalism had a head start by more than a hundred years. Capitalism had amassed wealth to itself that communism simply did not possess at the time it developed. Capitalism developed by historical accident. There is no reason why it should have occurred before communism. It was pure chance. If chance had gone the other way, communism would have developed first and it would have destroyed capitalism in its infancy (by forcing it to spend all its wealth on weaponry, as the Russians were forced to do). And communism isn't a finished story. As you know, Marx claimed that all societies evolved along a socialist trajectory. His theory holds that capitalism will evolve into socialism and socialism into communism. The conditions under which 'communism' existed in Eastern Europe and the Far East are so far removed from those envisaged by Marx that many simply don't accept that the world has seen a communist state yet. So, it's very difficult to see how something that hasn't come into existence yet could have failed. We've already had this discussion once, Benny. Do you have anything new to add? You’ve already tried to excuse the complete failure of communism by claiming it’s wasn’t proper communism Darlene . Have you have anything new to add? Communism fails because it is based on a false premise ..that of an equal society . It morphs into a totalitarian dystopia as soon as the fantasists try to impose it on the masses. Whatever utopia todays woke fantasists think they can impose on the masses is doomed to fail . Sorry Darlene . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 18, 2023 14:03:05 GMT
I never suggested otherwise . Capitalism has never been an experiment by fantasist’s. It has been an exercise in cold cynicism. However it has adapted and it only survived, it’s spectacularly successful. Communism is a failed experiment that adopts some of capitalisms worst features as soon as the fantasists impose their fantasies on the public . Capitalism has been spectacularly successful? What planet are you living on? Capitalism has caused famines and world wars. It is arguable it is the cause of the climate crisis. We're being constantly warned that we're on the verge of a recession, the likes of which has never been seen. Successful? You might want to set your sights a little higher, Benny. Capitalisms success is all around us Darlene. China became a quasi Capitalist society and millions of Chinese are better for it. Much better than the basket case communist society under Mao. Todays recession means bring slightly less rich than we were a year ago . Don’t exaggerate. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 18, 2023 14:04:34 GMT
The British Empire campaigns against Sutee, Meriah and Thuggee are well documented in the literature of Empire and in histories devoted to that subject. Do you ask for proof that we stopped burning witches or do you accept that history tells us that parliament enacted legislation that banned it. What we have to consider is what happened under Empire and forced to happen by Empire not what may have happened without Empire as that way lies an impossible task and is always pure conjecture. The legal, educational and governmental legacy of Empire can easily shown to be such as they bear great similarity to the UK and little similarity to that which was in place before Empire. You are now in the realm of comparing numbers the details of which for both are a matter of conjecture. The whole thing is complicated by local help and corruption most especially in China. How is Pakistan doing in terms of the rule of law and its adherence to the Ulema in Islam? In other words they had democracy but decided their cultural beliefs were more important. Their choice but at least we know where they stand as regards what Empire brought. In other words, you accept that colonisation by the UK is not a requirement for a country to develop democracy. There goes the main plank of your argument that the Empire was 'beneficial'. What? I accept that there was no requirement of any country to have good roads but it was the Romans that showed the way and often when they left the roads fell into disrepair. People can be shown things but not always take it to heart. Pakistan is an example of how even Empire could not drag those who had other views kicking and screaming into acceptance. Perhaps you have examples of democracy arising where the situation was not influenced by either the British or a European Empire? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 18, 2023 14:28:04 GMT
It has failed because of historical contingency. Capitalism had a head start by more than a hundred years. Capitalism had amassed wealth to itself that communism simply did not possess at the time it developed. Capitalism developed by historical accident. There is no reason why it should have occurred before communism. It was pure chance. If chance had gone the other way, communism would have developed first and it would have destroyed capitalism in its infancy (by forcing it to spend all its wealth on weaponry, as the Russians were forced to do). And communism isn't a finished story. As you know, Marx claimed that all societies evolved along a socialist trajectory. His theory holds that capitalism will evolve into socialism and socialism into communism. The conditions under which 'communism' existed in Eastern Europe and the Far East are so far removed from those envisaged by Marx that many simply don't accept that the world has seen a communist state yet. So, it's very difficult to see how something that hasn't come into existence yet could have failed. We've already had this discussion once, Benny. Do you have anything new to add? You’ve already tried to excuse the complete failure of communism by claiming it’s wasn’t proper communism Darlene . Have you have anything new to add? Communism fails because it is based on a false premise ..that of an equal society . It morphs into a totalitarian dystopia as soon as the fantasists try to impose it on the masses. Whatever utopia todays woke fantasists think they can impose on the masses is doomed to fail . Sorry Darlene . That rather misses the point that Maoism wasn't Marxism. At this point, I should correct an error I made earlier. I mistakenly said that communism could easily have preceded capitalism. I think that's a mistake. At least, I believe Marx's communist state was required to be preceded by a capitalist state, or at least a state in which there was an advanced industrial economy. Of course, none of these conditions existed in the Far East or Eastern Europe. It is, of course, the case that capitalism is evolving along a socialist trajectory. Anyone who does not see that late capitalism affords significantly greater benefits to workers than early capitalism is either blind or in denial. Undoubtedly, Doc and Benny will be along to tell us that shorter working hours, safer working conditions, the NHS, etc., were all the result of market forces. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 18, 2023 14:48:34 GMT
Perhaps you have examples of democracy arising where the situation was not influenced by either the British or a European Empire? I imagine every democracy will have been influenced by ancient Greece. I don't find it in the least bit difficult to imagine that democracy could have taken root in many countries in which it is now established if the British Empire (or any other empire, for that matter) had never existed. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 18, 2023 15:48:33 GMT
You’ve already tried to excuse the complete failure of communism by claiming it’s wasn’t proper communism Darlene . Have you have anything new to add? Communism fails because it is based on a false premise ..that of an equal society . It morphs into a totalitarian dystopia as soon as the fantasists try to impose it on the masses. Whatever utopia todays woke fantasists think they can impose on the masses is doomed to fail . Sorry Darlene . That rather misses the point that Maoism wasn't Marxism. At this point, I should correct an error I made earlier. I mistakenly said that communism could easily have preceded capitalism. I think that's a mistake. At least, I believe Marx's communist state was required to be preceded by a capitalist state, or at least a state in which there was an advanced industrial economy. Of course, none of these conditions existed in the Far East or Eastern Europe. It is, of course, the case that capitalism is evolving along a socialist trajectory. Anyone who does not see that late capitalism affords significantly greater benefits to workers than early capitalism is either blind or in denial. Undoubtedly, Doc and Benny will be along to tell us that shorter working hours, safer working conditions, the NHS, etc., were all the result of market forces. I think you are missing the point that Maoism is the result of imposing idealistic collectivism on the unwilling masses. Plan A doesn’t work so the narcissist fantasist convinces themselves that it didn’t work because they weren’t leading it so they try plan B . Another parallel to religious establishments . Both are born out of idealism and end up becoming the thing they claimed to hate . Unions were originally craftsman who created guilds to protect themselves not because of some fantasy about a new utopia . The fantasy of an egalitarian society was injected into guilds later on . Craft guilds were around before Marx. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 18, 2023 16:38:52 GMT
If taxpayers are not going to foot the bill who is? - perhaps the EU could chip in.. Perhaps, it was unreasonable for the wealthy elite to expect the poor and the descendants of the slaves to pay them vast sums for the emancipation of people they enslaved while paying the slaves themselves nothing. What do you think? Do you think what happened reflects well on early capitalism? If you take someones property away then they deserve to be compensated. Otherwise you have anarchy. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 18, 2023 16:43:46 GMT
That rather misses the point that Maoism wasn't Marxism. At this point, I should correct an error I made earlier. I mistakenly said that communism could easily have preceded capitalism. I think that's a mistake. At least, I believe Marx's communist state was required to be preceded by a capitalist state, or at least a state in which there was an advanced industrial economy. Of course, none of these conditions existed in the Far East or Eastern Europe. It is, of course, the case that capitalism is evolving along a socialist trajectory. Anyone who does not see that late capitalism affords significantly greater benefits to workers than early capitalism is either blind or in denial. Undoubtedly, Doc and Benny will be along to tell us that shorter working hours, safer working conditions, the NHS, etc., were all the result of market forces. I think you are missing the point that Maoism is the result of imposing idealistic collectivism on the unwilling masses. Plan A doesn’t work so the narcissist fantasist convinces themselves that it didn’t work because they weren’t leading it so they try plan B . Another parallel to religious establishments . Both are born out of idealism and end up becoming the thing they claimed to hate . Unions were originally craftsman who created guilds to protect themselves not because of some fantasy about a new utopia . The fantasy of an egalitarian society was injected into guilds later on . Craft guilds were around before Marx. I see you've decided to maintain the fiction that the people of early capitalism (slum dwellers and slaves on cotton plantations, etc) willed their circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 18, 2023 16:48:55 GMT
Perhaps, it was unreasonable for the wealthy elite to expect the poor and the descendants of the slaves to pay them vast sums for the emancipation of people they enslaved while paying the slaves themselves nothing. What do you think? Do you think what happened reflects well on early capitalism? If you take someones property away then they deserve to be compensated. Otherwise you have anarchy. What? Are you seriously saying it was right that the already impoverished ordinary Brit should have had to pay his wealthy overlord to release his slaves? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on May 18, 2023 16:50:51 GMT
You’ve already tried to excuse the complete failure of communism by claiming it’s wasn’t proper communism Darlene . Have you have anything new to add? Communism fails because it is based on a false premise ..that of an equal society . It morphs into a totalitarian dystopia as soon as the fantasists try to impose it on the masses. Whatever utopia todays woke fantasists think they can impose on the masses is doomed to fail . Sorry Darlene . That rather misses the point that Maoism wasn't Marxism. At this point, I should correct an error I made earlier. I mistakenly said that communism could easily have preceded capitalism. I think that's a mistake. At least, I believe Marx's communist state was required to be preceded by a capitalist state, or at least a state in which there was an advanced industrial economy. Of course, none of these conditions existed in the Far East or Eastern Europe. It is, of course, the case that capitalism is evolving along a socialist trajectory. Anyone who does not see that late capitalism affords significantly greater benefits to workers than early capitalism is either blind or in denial. Undoubtedly, Doc and Benny will be along to tell us that shorter working hours, safer working conditions, the NHS, etc., were all the result of market forces. There is actually some truth in that in my opinion, at the moment the Capitalists are desperately trying to return us to a cold war situation, the biggest problem with that is one mistake along the way and its curtains. For them as well as everyone else. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum and mostly always have been. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 18, 2023 16:52:22 GMT
If you take someones property away then they deserve to be compensated. Otherwise you have anarchy. What? Are you seriously saying it was right that the already impoverished ordinary Brit should have had to pay their wealthy overlords to release their slaves? That is the rule of Law - nobody can be arbitrarily stripped of their property. Well it is the rule of Law in the UK - I dont know what the situation is in your country. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 18, 2023 16:55:58 GMT
What? Are you seriously saying it was right that the already impoverished ordinary Brit should have had to pay their wealthy overlords to release their slaves? That is the rule of Law - nobody can be arbitrarily stripped of their property. Well it is the rule of Law in the UK - I dont know what the situation is in your country. Doc, most people would say forcing the poor to pay the rich to release their slaves was arbitrarily stripping the poor of their property. Besides, if arbitrarily stripping the slaves of their liberty didn't cause the collapse of society, I don't see how failing to reimburse the wealthy for discontinuing a highly immoral practice could do so. |
|
