Jill Stein

[Strike For The South]

Open borders and a welfare state are planks in her platform. How would this work?

[Snowhobbit]

Open borders and a welfare state are planks in her platform. How would this work?

It would cause either a collapse of the welfare system or the nation defaulting on their debts after x amount of years of racking up loans. Currently in Sweden we have border controls yet we still have to finance the refugee systems with massively increasing government debt and cuts in most sectors of the welfare system. People who advocate open borders on the right wing usually want the dissolution of the welfare state. People who advocate open borders and a welfare state on the left side of the spectrum are simply financially illiterate.

[Tuuvi]

Her website doesn't go into much detail, but I suppose she wants to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and cut spending on prisons and the military.

[Snowhobbit]

Her website doesn't go into much detail, but I suppose she wants to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and cut spending on prisons and the military.

Even doing that will not solve the issue of welfare state+open borders. Compare US taxes on the rich with Swedish taxes on the rich. You cannot raise taxes high enough without causing the people you tax to leave. A welfare state requires a relatively wealthy society so that they can pay for the welfare state.

[rory_20_uk]

As the EU is finding, free movement is a lovely idea as long as everyone agrees they won't move.

Socialism often remembers the "to each according to his needs" but forgets "from each, according to his abilities". So everyone should do work that they are able to do (and very few people are so crippled by chronic illness they can do nothing).

Free movement will unsurprisingly end up with the wealthier countries reaching the point that people want to live there as much as they do elsewhere due to crime / overcrowding / pollution / tax being as bad as the local problems.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Her website doesn't go into much detail, but I suppose she wants to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and cut spending on prisons and the military.

So she is yet another in the long line of those folks who believe that corporations and other businesses pay taxes? And that the wealthy will simply smile and pay more without opting out in some fashion? How quaint.

[Yoyoma1910]

I pop in after all these years, just to see you're still here keeping the poor man under your thumb.

Every man a king, but no one wears a crown. - the Kingfish

[Beskar]

As the EU is finding, free movement is a lovely idea as long as everyone agrees they won't move.

Socialism often remembers the "to each according to his needs" but forgets "from each, according to his abilities". So everyone should do work that they are able to do (and very few people are so crippled by chronic illness they can do nothing).

Free movement will unsurprisingly end up with the wealthier countries reaching the point that people want to live there as much as they do elsewhere due to crime / overcrowding / pollution / tax being as bad as the local problems.

~:smoking:

Problem with the EU is not people moving, it is the displacement from mass moving and settling down else where due to the economic inequality in some regions. Thing is, they would continue to move without the free access anyway, we have 200,000 Americans living in the UK for example, and we don't see people at the pickets because of them. Likewise, a lot of Brits live aboard themselves.

A solution to this issue could be tackling inequality elsewhere in the world, so people don't have a reason to move enmass and resettle elsewhere.

[Greyblades]

Sadly as colonialism is frowned upon these days that is no longer possible to induce artificially.

[Husar]

Sadly as colonialism is frowned upon these days that is no longer possible to induce artificially.

I agree, if only I could rule the world I could make sure everything works the way I want it to.
We'd all be better off.
Make me king of the world, bow before me now before it's too late!

[Greyblades]

Well I do enjoy being under powerful men... ahem.

Back on topic: raising a third world nation to western levels in any reasonable amount of time requires a massive influx of capital. They wont get that for nothing; the charity we give them is basically piss in the wind as far as industrialization goes and we cant spare more without impoverishing ourselves.

Were they to in exchange allow us to exploit the resources on their lands they are largely incapable of using themselves, well that capital would be a lot more forthcoming as we'd be getting something out of it to offset our loss; we cant sell the warm fuzzy feeling of charity but we can sell iron, copper, precious metals, cashcrops etc.

The chinese are doing it right now, the main things keeping us from joining in is a) some of the local's unwillingness and b) our inability to admit (or in some cases concieve) that these arrangements can be, and have been, done without fucking over the natives.

[Tuuvi]

Well I do enjoy being under powerful men... ahem.

Back on topic: raising a third world nation to western levels in any reasonable amount of time requires a massive influx of capital. They wont get that for nothing; the charity we give them is basically piss in the wind as far as industrialization goes and we cant spare more without impoverishing ourselves.

Were they to in exchange allow us to exploit the resources on their lands they are largely incapable of using themselves, well that capital would be a lot more forthcoming as we'd be getting something out of it to offset our loss; we cant sell the warm fuzzy feeling of charity but we can sell iron, copper, precious metals, cashcrops etc.

The Chinese are doing it right now, the main things keeping us from joining in is a) some of the local's unwillingness and b) our inability to admit (or in some cases concieve) that these arrangements can be, and have been, done without fucking over the natives.

Now that the economy has been globalized isn't this already happening to a large degree? Either way I'm skeptical that exploiting third world countries for their labor and resources will somehow lift them out of poverty, they already used to be European colonies after all.

And besides that no one should ever be forced to accept an economic arrangement they don't want.

[Greyblades]

That would be the attitude that I was describing in my last sentance: beleiving that colonialism by definition cannot exist without systematic exploitation of the natives.

The nations of africa used to be european colonies, then they were left to fend for themselves due to a multitude of reasosn but only a minority prospered once bereft of support. Most were half finished constructs with some of the trappings of modernity but bereft of the infrastructure to maintain it. Others hadn't been imprinted with the cultural experience and tradition needed to keep a liberal democracy intact and slumped or fell to bits.

Global markets will exploit the resources but they will not help the people; they will pay the bare minimum in wage and tax both of which are determined by the somewhat notoriously unreliable and corrupt native governments. The power and ideals (in some cases replaced by self flagellating guilt. Hey, whatever works) of a western nation state can ensure fair wages are paid and taxes get where they are needed and not end up in the pocket of the local governer.

Of course attempting to impose the western model upon a mostly unwilling populous would be futile; cooperation being a determining factor and invasions generally reducing such sentiment. Sure there's the odd junta that could be toppled for the appreciation of the locals but to produce the best results most of it would have to be a voluntary and temporary (though long term) return to the fold by a people willing to swallow their pride for a better standard of living for their children.

Combine fair wages, proper use of taxation, education updates and reforms and a controlled devolution to develope cultures willing to resist dictators and corruption, and we could produce much stabler and prosperous nations. Or we could just sit back hope they do all that by themselves, maybe they'll be done in under a millenium.

[Husar]

That would be the attitude that I was describing in my last sentance: beleiving that colonialism by definition cannot exist without significant exploitation of the natives.

The nations of africa used to be european colonies, then they were left to fend for themselves due to a multitude of reasosn but only a minority prospered once bereft of support. Most were half finished constructs with some of the trappings of modernity but bereft of the infrastructure to maintain it. Others hadn't been imprinted with the cultural experience and tradition needed to keep a liberal democracy intact and slumped or fell to bits.

Ethiopia was only very briefly colonized and seems to be a relatively functional democracy. Several other non-European countries developed or adopted democracy before we destroyed it again. Iran was a republic with elections IIRC before the British decided they'd rather have a shah because the elected government made decisions the British didn't like etc.
Chile was a democracy before the US allegedly decided it was not a democracy to its liking and helped a dictator stage a coup and so on.
The idea that democracy can only be spread by European export, basically through subjugation and education of the natives who cannot adapt it on their own for whatever reason is rather "racist" or condescending and disrespectful, although I don't think you meant it that way.

And when you leave a mess behind and then advocate your half-arsed ideas, maybe it's not surprising that some people reject them because they only saw the worst of it so far.


Global markets will exploit the resources but they will not help the people; they will pay the bare minimum in wage and tax both of which are determined by the somewhat notoriously unreliable and corrupt native governments.

And there is nothing we can do? Long live Panama!?!

[Tuuvi]

That would be the attitude that I was describing in my last sentance: beleiving that colonialism by definition cannot exist without systematic exploitation of the natives.

The whole purpose of a colony is to extract wealth from the colony for the benefit of the colonizer isn't it? I don't see how this could be anything other than exploitative.


The nations of africa used to be european colonies, then they were left to fend for themselves due to a multitude of reasosn but only a minority prospered once bereft of support. Most were half finished constructs with some of the trappings of modernity but bereft of the infrastructure to maintain it. Others hadn't been imprinted with the cultural experience and tradition needed to keep a liberal democracy intact and slumped or fell to bits.

My understanding is that most former colonies fought for independence because they didn't like the way they were governed by their European overlords.


Global markets will exploit the resources but they will not help the people; they will pay the bare minimum in wage and tax both of which are determined by the somewhat notoriously unreliable and corrupt native governments. The power and ideals (in some cases replaced by self flagellating guilt. Hey, whatever works) of a western nation state can ensure fair wages are paid and taxes get where they are needed and not end up in the pocket of the local governor.

Like Husar mentioned Western governments have colluded to destabilize and topple governments which elect socialist politicians or attempt to nationalize resources. Another thing worth pointing out is that working conditions were as terrible in the West during the industrial revolution as they are today in the third world. Things we take for granted today like a minimum wage, the 40 hour work week, and clean and safe factories had to be fought for by labor unions.

Governments and business elites work together to create the best environment for maximizing profits and keeping wages low is in their interest.


Or we could just sit back hope they do all that by themselves, maybe they'll be done in under a millenium.

I think people are perfectly capable of managing their affairs by themselves, and it would be arrogant for us to assume we know what their needs are better than they do.

[Brenus]

"The whole purpose of a colony is to extract wealth from the colony for the benefit of the colonizer isn't it?" Not entirely. Two kind of colonisation: One as you describe (for France: Indochina), one for population (for France: Algeria, New Caledonia). The second one, to be successful, has to kill, deport or marginalise the natives... The most successful and well know samples of the second type being North and South America...

[Papewaio]

Third world a issue of colonialism or believing in fairy tales?

Compare and contrast the wealth of Singapore with Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei.

[Husar]

Third world a issue of colonialism or believing in fairy tales?

Compare and contrast the wealth of Singapore with Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei.

Or Monaco and Australia while you're at it: http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/AU/MC

Or Monaco and Germany: http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/DE/MC

Or Monaco and Singapore: http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/SG/MC

Clearly all countries would be better off if they were more like Monaco.

Point being that small city states often fill niches that can make their relatively small population rather wealthy and that bigger countries cannot always afford to fill. Which makes the comparison somewhat unfair because these countries do not have to deal with the same issues and never had the same options.

Look at food for example: http://www.ava.gov.sg/explore-by-sections/food/singapore-food-supply/the-food-we-eat


With little farming land and limited fishing grounds, Singapore imports over 90% of the food consumed in the country.

If you import 90% of your food, that means the relatively badly paid agricultural workers are all outsourced to other countries such as Malaysia, the one you want to compare it with....

Of course this is also true for every other country to some extent if it engages in global trade. The point being that not all countries can be like Singapore or Monaco because if all countries employed only rich people and bankers and imported 90% of their food, then who would produce all that food?

[Greyblades]

I didn't know you could get a headache from eye rolling, learn something new every day.

Ethiopia was only very briefly colonized and seems to be a relatively functional democracy. Briefly colonized then spent 30 years under a buffoon king and 25 years a communist dictatorship. It's functionality as of now is officially democratic, though questionable in legitimacy. Sadly they are still poor and reliant on oil.


Several other non-European countries developed or adopted democracy before we destroyed it again. Iran was a republic with elections IIRC before the British decided they'd rather have a shah because the elected government made decisions the British didn't like etc. Which time? When we occupied it in agreement with the Russians to end the great game, when we helped them fight off ottomans, or when the shah we imposed turned against us and didn't let us send supplies through them to the USSR when they were about to be overrun by Nazi Germany?

Not that it matters, Iran's status was complex but it was never a colony, we didn't even pretend to be interested in uplifting them.

Chile was a democracy before the US allegedly decided it was not a democracy to its liking and helped a dictator stage a coup and so on.Again, not a colony.


The idea that democracy can only be spread by European export, basically through subjugation and education of the natives who cannot adapt it on their own for whatever reason is rather "racist" or condescending and disrespectful, although I don't think you meant it that way.
A German thinking something racist is like a Frenchman thinking someone inferior; they do it many times a day and are often wrong.

Undeserved jabs aside, I never said it could only be exported I said it was the fastest way to get the effect.

By all means you can let them muddle through on their own. Let them have their religious, then national, then ethnic massacres to cultivate their own culture of telling their kids not to hate people for their god/king/race. Let them suffer under dictators kings and emperors until the breaking point and then pay the blood price of a revolution so they learn to appreciate the democracies they have.

I am sure the fact that they came to the same conclusions through African experience instead of European education will make the mountain of corpses easier to bear.


And when you leave a mess behind and then advocate your half-arsed ideas, maybe it's not surprising that some people reject them because they only saw the worst of it so far.
We wouldn't have left a mess if you're fathers hadn't decided to force us to instead spend our efforts cleaning up another one of your culture shaping massacres.

Additionally, most of them never really saw the worst. They wouldn't have stayed in the commonwealth if they had.


And there is nothing we can do?
Pretty much, it's out of our hands and we are too whipped to even consider making more than a token gesture in their general direction.


The whole purpose of a colony is to extract wealth from the colony for the benefit of the colonizer isn't it? I don't see how this could be anything other than exploitative.

My understanding is that most former colonies fought for independence because they didn't like the way they were governed by their European overlords.

Such a simplistic incomplete view.

Colonization was done for many reasons and represented many things to many different people, to the businessman it was an opportunity or an investment, for the colonist it was a chance for a better life or a refuge from the last one, for the missionary it was a chance to spread the word of god or spend their lives helping people. Each nation had different reasons and ways of doing things as did each colony, each only as cruel and benevolent as the people partaking in it.

And like those people they liberalized as time went on, to the point where near the end some of the British and French colonies were true nation building efforts. Efforts that had to be cancelled; we withdrew in a two decade collapse and attempted make stable liberal countries before what little money and enthusiasm left over from the second world war ran out. Some succeeded, many slumped some collapsed completely.



Like Husar mentioned Western governments have colluded to destabilize and topple governments which elect socialist politicians or attempt to nationalize resources. Another thing worth pointing out is that working conditions were as terrible in the West during the industrial revolution as they are today in the third world. Things we take for granted today like a minimum wage, the 40 hour work week, and clean and safe factories had to be fought for by labor unions.
Governments and business elites work together to create the best environment for maximizing profits and keeping wages low is in their interest. Your point? People are pricks, nation states are giant ones, the west have come to be pathologically obsessed with maintaining the facade of benevolence and civility, but act or not it makes them act much kinder and fairer than any nation that came before and their experiences with national development make them more effective than the young nations of Africa.


I think people are perfectly capable of managing their affairs by themselves, and it would be arrogant for us to assume we know what their needs are better than they do. Arrogant, but in a lot of cases: true.

[Husar]

Which time? When we occupied it in agreement with the Russians to end the great game, when we helped them fight off ottomans, or when the shah we imposed turned against us and didn't let us send supplies through them to the USSR when they were about to be overrun by Nazi Germany?

Not that it matters, Iran's status was complex but it was never a colony, we didn't even pretend to be interested in uplifting them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Early_modern_period


In 1951, Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected as the prime minister. He became enormously popular in Iran, after he nationalized Iran's petroleum industry and oil reserves. He was deposed in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, an Anglo-American covert operation that marked the first time the US had overthrown a foreign government during the Cold War.[130]

Good to know that you never wanted some countries to work though, civilized superior values at work.


Again, not a colony.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Chile

:inquisitive:

[Greyblades]

Not an american colony, making the mention of the US backed coup moot... What was the point you wanted to make again?

[Husar]

Not an american colony, making the mention of the US backed coup moot... What was the point you wanted to make again?

That the influence of western countries on other countries can even have detrimental effects on these countries while you seemed to be arguing that it is mostly positive. If western countries are willing to ruin other countries for their own gain, then you have to explain what they gain from making their colonies more like them. For isolated ones it may pay off to develop them further, but why would a western country build lots of industry in a colony for example if that industry would then rival the one at home?

[Pannonian]

That the influence of western countries on other countries can even have detrimental effects on these countries while you seemed to be arguing that it is mostly positive. If western countries are willing to ruin other countries for their own gain, then you have to explain what they gain from making their colonies more like them. For isolated ones it may pay off to develop them further, but why would a western country build lots of industry in a colony for example if that industry would then rival the one at home?

In the case of Sierra Leone, Britain intervened after a British officer visited the place and saw amputee children that were the result of a recent rebel operation and decided to return with troops, government backing or no government backing (our foreign minister on his visit decided to push things even further). Things aren't perfect, but at least the Leonians now have peace (which they're grateful for), and the Leonian government has been importing a British professional strata to provide expertise that the country is lacking. The country itself is, of course, the result of resettling slaves captured by the West African squadron. Could you point out where the exploitation is?

[AE Bravo]

Colonization was done for many reasons and represented many things to many different people, to the businessman it was an opportunity or an investment, for the colonist it was a chance for a better life or a refuge from the last one, for the missionary it was a chance to spread the word of god or spend their lives helping people. Each nation had different reasons and ways of doing things as did each colony, each only as cruel and benevolent as the people partaking in it.

And like those people they liberalized as time went on, to the point where near the end some of the British and French colonies were true nation building efforts.
Your grounded view of colonist life doesn’t change the power relations of the colonial experience. These were nation-building efforts, to some extent, that did not heed the needs of the colonized. It involved economic servitude to the motherland for the colonizer and subjugation of the private sphere. A colonist's livelihood depended/depends on the subordination of his/her counterpart. Subjugation of any form is not a true nation building effort, however cruel or benevolent the people partaking in it are. Colonial experiences intrinsically involve the robbing of dignity and self-determination, both prereqs of real nation-building.

[Pannonian]

Your grounded view of colonist life doesn’t change the power relations of the colonial experience. These were nation-building efforts, to some extent, that did not heed the needs of the colonized. It involved economic servitude to the motherland for the colonizer and subjugation of the private sphere. A colonist's livelihood depended/depends on the subordination of his/her counterpart. Subjugation of any form is not a true nation building effort, however cruel or benevolent the people partaking in it are. Colonial experiences intrinsically involve the robbing of dignity and self-determination, both prereqs of real nation-building.

And yet Sierra Leone and Somaliland are asking for more British involvement than we can afford, even decades after they'd had their independence. And on the other end of the prosperity scale, Hong Kongers despise the mainland Chinese and prefer the days of British governance. Even after the British had been every bit the arrogant Imperial during their days there.

[AE Bravo]

And yet Sierra Leone and Somaliland are asking for more British involvement than we can afford, even decades after they'd had their independence. And on the other end of the prosperity scale, Hong Kongers despise the mainland Chinese and prefer the days of British governance. Even after the British had been every bit the arrogant Imperial during their days there.
Lesser evil.

[Tuuvi]

Such a simplistic incomplete view.

Colonization was done for many reasons and represented many things to many different people, to the businessman it was an opportunity or an investment, for the colonist it was a chance for a better life or a refuge from the last one, for the missionary it was a chance to spread the word of god or spend their lives helping people. Each nation had different reasons and ways of doing things as did each colony, each only as cruel and benevolent as the people partaking in it.

Colonizing efforts were often justified as being a missionary endeavor but the main goal was to extract wealth and resources, that was what really drove European nations to establish them.


Your point? People are pricks, nation states are giant ones, the west have come to be pathologically obsessed with maintaining the facade of benevolence and civility, but act or not it makes them act much kinder and fairer than any nation that came before and their experiences with national development make them more effective than the young nations of Africa.


You claimed that the power and ideals of western nation states could help protect the peoples of developing countries from the exploitation of the global market, so I was demonstrating that western nation states don't care about protecting people from the global market, their goal is to make the global market more favorable towards western multi-nationals.



Arrogant, but in a lot of cases: true.

How so?

[Pannonian]

Colonizing efforts were often justified as being a missionary endeavor but the main goal was to extract wealth and resources, that was what really drove European nations to establish them.

You claimed that the power and ideals of western nation states could help protect the peoples of developing countries from the exploitation of the global market, so I was demonstrating that western nation states don't care about protecting people from the global market, their goal is to make the global market more favorable towards western multi-nationals.

How so?

See the last case of Britain treating another country like a colony.

[Papewaio]

Or Monaco and Australia while you're at it: http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/AU/MC

Or Monaco and Germany: http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/DE/MC

Or Monaco and Singapore: http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/SG/MC

Clearly all countries would be better off if they were more like Monaco.

Point being that small city states often fill niches that can make their relatively small population rather wealthy and that bigger countries cannot always afford to fill. Which makes the comparison somewhat unfair because these countries do not have to deal with the same issues and never had the same options.

Look at food for example: http://www.ava.gov.sg/explore-by-sections/food/singapore-food-supply/the-food-we-eat



If you import 90% of your food, that means the relatively badly paid agricultural workers are all outsourced to other countries such as Malaysia, the one you want to compare it with....

Of course this is also true for every other country to some extent if it engages in global trade. The point being that not all countries can be like Singapore or Monaco because if all countries employed only rich people and bankers and imported 90% of their food, then who would produce all that food?

Compare Brunei's fortunes as it has gone more fundamentalist.

Or Pakistan vs India vs China.

Chose a country and if it has vast mineral and oil wealth the poorer the median person, the less is invested into education and more likely a fundamentalist dogma is used to keep the poor in check. Take away easy wealth and the countries that do well have more money invested in education, less fundamentalists and generally less corruption/oligarchs. There are exceptions to every rule.

[Husar]

In the case of Sierra Leone, Britain intervened after a British officer visited the place and saw amputee children that were the result of a recent rebel operation and decided to return with troops, government backing or no government backing (our foreign minister on his visit decided to push things even further). Things aren't perfect, but at least the Leonians now have peace (which they're grateful for), and the Leonian government has been importing a British professional strata to provide expertise that the country is lacking. The country itself is, of course, the result of resettling slaves captured by the West African squadron. Could you point out where the exploitation is?

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/235_sleone.htm


Compare Brunei's fortunes as it has gone more fundamentalist.

Or Pakistan vs India vs China.

Chose a country and if it has vast mineral and oil wealth the poorer the median person, the less is invested into education and more likely a fundamentalist dogma is used to keep the poor in check. Take away easy wealth and the countries that do well have more money invested in education, less fundamentalists and generally less corruption/oligarchs. There are exceptions to every rule.

That may well be, nothing to do with Britain making its colonies so great then I guess.

If you look at India vs China, it seems like China is quite a bit better off than India. Despite being a communist country and not having been a British colony the way India was. http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/CN/IN

It's just way too simplistic to say colonialism is usually a force of improvement or whatever exactly the original point was.

[Pannonian]

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/235_sleone.htm

That may well be, nothing to do with Britain making its colonies so great then I guess.

If you look at India vs China, it seems like China is quite a bit better off than India. Despite being a communist country and not having been a British colony the way India was. http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/CN/IN

It's just way too simplistic to say colonialism is usually a force of improvement or whatever exactly the original point was.

China benefited from having a doctrinal technocrat as its head, who trained a cadre of technocrats who've since succeeded him, on the basis of nationalistic ideology and a doctrine of whatever works is good. The mix is probably the best formula there is for palpable improvement, but it too has led to various problems due to not having considered all parameters when assessing whether something is working or not.

[Papewaio]

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/235_sleone.htm



That may well be, nothing to do with Britain making its colonies so great then I guess.

If you look at India vs China, it seems like China is quite a bit better off than India. Despite being a communist country and not having been a British colony the way India was. http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/CN/IN

It's just way too simplistic to say colonialism is usually a force of improvement or whatever exactly the original point was.

Colonialism is not a key factor in long term. Singapore and all its neighbors were colonies at one point.

Pakistan and India were both GB colonies. India which is less fundamentalist is doing better then Pakistan.

China is doing better than India over the last few decades. India's rising Hindu fundamentalists will possibly dampen the economy to. However right now India is surging ahead so it might be a blip or more likely the years of investing in engineering and IT are paying long term dividends above the encumbrance of more traditional detractors.

Key is if you want a middle class service and engineering based economy you need an educated populace.
If your economy relies on outside expats digging out ore or oil you can keep an under educated fundamentalist population.

[Idaho]

As the EU is finding, free movement is a lovely idea as long as everyone agrees they won't move.

Socialism often remembers the "to each according to his needs" but forgets "from each, according to his abilities". So everyone should do work that they are able to do (and very few people are so crippled by chronic illness they can do nothing).

Free movement will unsurprisingly end up with the wealthier countries reaching the point that people want to live there as much as they do elsewhere due to crime / overcrowding / pollution / tax being as bad as the local problems.

~:smoking:

Classic conservatism. Freedom of movement, but only for rich people.

Also classic conservatism blaming the poor and jobless for their lot, when employers are finding ever more clever ways to reduce the payroll and keep wages down.

You can't have it both ways... although as a conservative you can and do.

[Greyblades]

That the influence of western countries on other countries can even have detrimental effects on these countries while you seemed to be arguing that it is mostly positive. If western countries are willing to ruin other countries for their own gain, then you have to explain what they gain from making their colonies more like them. For isolated ones it may pay off to develop them further, but why would a western country build lots of industry in a colony for example if that industry would then rival the one at home?
I have not at any point denied that previous colonial efforts have caused damage. People died, hell was imparted both intentionally and unintentionally, there have been those lessened or destroyed by the experience. I have argued that it was rarely a one sided endeavor and as time progressed the colonies lot improved; the colonizers softened, their actions became more benelovent and their intentions increasingly went from "make a profit and kill the native savages if they get in the way" to "we can make make money and make these people as enlightened as us at the same time"

Had the colonial project continued to completion instead of being cancelled half way I dare say the prosperity of those that reached dominion status would be the norm among post colonial nations, not the exception. The intent could have fully transitioned into "we're here to uplift them and make them worthy of being our equals" but the wars at home made that impossible.

It is true that Colonial nations were unwilling to create compettitors to themselves but the industry of a colony did not have to compete with the ones at the homeland. Indeed it largely was developed to complemented them; There are materials that can be extracted in the colonies that cannot be found easily in europe, plants that can be grown that cannot survive in our climate, livestock not suited to digest european vegetation. Once a colony finished development and became independant it could choose to expand to compete with the industry of the motherland, it was be their perogative after all, but they were still benefited by the development of the colonial industries, particularly by the infrastructure left behind.


Your grounded view of colonist life doesn’t change the power relations of the colonial experience. These were nation-building efforts, to some extent, that did not heed the needs of the colonized. It involved economic servitude to the motherland for the colonizer and subjugation of the private sphere. A colonist's livelihood depended/depends on the subordination of his/her counterpart. Subjugation of any form is not a true nation building effort, however cruel or benevolent the people partaking in it are. Colonial experiences intrinsically involve the robbing of dignity and self-determination, both prereqs of real nation-building. Can workers and servants not have dignity now?

Self determination... on the personal level it is allways limited in the name of law and order regardless of the nation type, many colonies gave the former lowest strata more freedoms than the nation it replaced and sometimes more than the ones that followed.

As for the national level; self determination is only as worth respecting as it's results. The results of the un colonized were medieval at best, often outright savage and barbaric. The spanish for all their faults did not raise the native people as chattle with intent to leave them to starve on a mountain after all, and the african slave trade was rampant long before the Europeans came and went on uninterrupted until the interferance of later Europeans.

Self determination is a result of, not a requirment for, nation building and the best dignity comes with knowing you dont need help anymore, which the devolution process provides.


Colonizing efforts were often justified as being a missionary endeavor but the main goal was to extract wealth and resources, that was what really drove European nations to establish them. The main goal differed between participants and the greed of the merchant did not often prevent those missionaries from working and their efforts did help the locals; the famous Ghandi and Mandela were able to become western trained lawyers after all. At the end of the colonial era there were more europeans in africa inclined to the missionary's goal than merchant's.


You claimed that the power and ideals of western nation states could help protect the peoples of developing countries from the exploitation of the global market, so I was demonstrating that western nation states don't care about protecting people from the global market, their goal is to make the global market more favorable towards western multi-nationals. It is not the governments but factions within with that goal, factions with frequently fluctuating degrees of control that right now are in a downturn.

The west has higher standards of labour rights already in place and while not perfect it has had a much more effective performance fighting corruption than most of africa has had. In several places a western nation's administration would ensure much more of the wealth generated by multinationals would reach the locals, it certainly would ensure more of the foreign aid did.


How so? ...are you really so ignorant of the situation in africa? The oppression of zimbabwe, the chaos of somalia, the famines of south Sudan? You think that would happen were they subjects of a modern first world country? They werent ready to be left unsupported, they didnt have the money or motivation on their own to sustain a liberal democracy and so they fell into poverty and tribalism once left to their own devices.

[Greyblades]

whatever exactly the original point was.

My point was that the only proven way we as outsiders can "tackle inequality elsewhere in the world, so people don't have a reason to move enmass and resettle elsewhere" is colonialism.

We cant do that because we are crippled by a glut of people who have come to denounce any old method of doing things that isnt completely rainbows and sunshine, regardless of effectiveness or benefit, without realizing that such perfection is almost completely impossible. Often their complaints are outdated, pointing to problems that were solved hundreds of years before, "it does not matter if they improved: they were bad once thus they must allways be bad". The alternatives that these same people have come to espouse are almost invariably either snake oil doomed to fail or are flawed in ways that they are often unwilling or incapable of recognizing.

So unless these people were to grow a brain our best course of action is to wait, throw a bit of money at what few missionaries still venture into the brush and hope the locals figure it out on their own without causing too many genocides that would have been avoided in the first place, if we hadnt been forced to spend our efforts instead putting down some insecure men with mustaches, twice.

[Pannonian]

My point was that the only proven way we as outsiders can "tackle inequality elsewhere in the world, so people don't have a reason to move enmass and resettle elsewhere" is colonialism.

We cant do that because we are crippled by a glut of people who have come to denounce any old method of doing things that isnt completely rainbows and sunshine, regardless of effectiveness or benefit, without realizing that such perfection is almost completely impossible. Often their complaints are outdated, pointing to problems that were solved hundreds of years before, "it does not matter if they improved: they were bad once thus they must allways be bad". The alternatives that these same people have come to espouse are almost invariably either snake oil doomed to fail or are flawed in ways that they are often unwilling or incapable of recognizing.

So unless these people were to grow a brain our best course of action is to wait, throw a bit of money at what few missionaries still venture into the brush and hope the locals figure it out on their own without causing too many genocides that would have been avoided in the first place, if we hadnt been forced to spend our efforts instead putting down some insecure men with mustaches, twice.

See the claim in the Europe thread that Britain doesn't have the right of freedom from slavery. Whatever theoretical rights Britain has or doesn't have, Britain created the practical right of freedom from slavery for humanity. Flagellants rarely think about the practicalities of the moralities they preach about.

[Husar]

Apparently a lot of US politicians agree with Britain being better off without the EU: http://news.sky.com/story/1691180/trump-says-britain-is-better-off-outside-eu

[Greyblades]

Well he's consistent at least.