neo-colonialism

[WordInterrupted]

I'm responding to 6's neo-colonialism post here because the original thread has degenerated into holocaust denial.

Honestly? Some form of neo-colonialism, with First World countries providing the resources these countries need to bring themselves to a standard of living on par with our own, but only in return for a shared-ruling scheme that would eventually be relinquished when a true democractic attitude has been instilled in the populace.

Even if we set aside ethical considerations, this plan is not feasible. The U.S. is neither willing nor able to commit the necessary resources. The cost of Iraq and Afghanistan have blown out huge deficiets, yet Bush still insists that we need to cut taxes (and you seem to agree with him.) If we're not able to pay for the takeover of just two countries, how are we going to pay for the massive commitments you describe? An ideology that demands both costly foriegn engagements and lower taxes is incoherent and untenable. You can't borrow from the Chinese forever.

Even if you could find funding, full-scale colonialism would require a much larger military. As it is, our armed forces are overextended and not meeting recruitment goals. If the military can't grow through voluntary recruitment, the only other option is a draft. Again, even if we set aside the ethical problems of forced military service, it's not politically possible. Very few people would support a draft for the purpose of worldwide nation building.

The problem of resources seems insurmountable, but an even more obvious obstacle is that nobody wants to be a colony. It's unrealistic to expect that any nation--much less a middle eastern nation--would give up its soveriegnty to the U.S. The only way the U.S. is going to gain control of other nations is by forcibly removing governments, as it did in Iraq. Even in the case of Iraq, the U.S. stated explicity that it would turn over full soveriegnty to the Iraqi people as soon as possible. If it had instead taken the position you advocate and tried to establish itself as a long-term colonial power, the entire country would have been in revolt. Starting long, bloody wars will not facilitate economic and political development.

Finally, this notion that colonialism facilitates economic development was championed by none other than Karl Marx (see "The British Rule in India") He argues that even if colonial rule is oppressive, it benefits the colonized nation by establishing economic infrastructure and expanding economic capacity. Like most of Marx's economics, his theories about colonialism are now considered wrong. Many of the most serious problems in the developing world--civil wars in Africa, facism in South America--are the historical consequences of inept, predatory colonial administration.

 

[headvoid]

I disagree with the idea that colonialism has to be expensive. You are using Marx as an idea when going back to the Roman model could provide a good solution.

The Roman model was to have actually a very small army, conquest was quick and followed by installing a local government of non-Romans. The Roman Army was tiny in comparison to it's population. The locals were won over by commerce. Sound familiar?

A key example of why I see the "Empire Strikes Back" as a valid system is the failure of the West African Middle Class. They have consistently failed to govern an area fantastically wealthy with raw materials, mainly through corruption. This is one of the biggest crimes on the globe. The controlling power is now multinational corporations anyway - but if an empire had been in place then the governance of this area would have been secured.

I have no problem with neo-colonialism, it's just the Americans aren't very good at it.

 

[Lord Raffles]

All Marxist interpretations on history are chaff.

Rome shows the way; don't be afraid of the truth. I understand the difficulties of accepting this fundamental truth, by embracing Nieztche while sodomizing the rest of the world.

But trust me, he who is right profits not a whit - only the strong determine the fate of the world.

Might therefore makes right, and under this we are able to mould the world in our image as we see fit, for the historical precedant allows us to do so. If it where not true, there would be nothing of cultural value. Art would succomb to 'majority decisions', as would science, literature, theatre, architecture, etc. There would be no value in anything, as the greatest examples would be put on a level with mediocre majority talant.

All examples of great cultural advancemnts in the human race have been the sole creation of individual genius, not the work of a majority.

Mankind has an obligation to be colonial, imperialist & fanatical in it's apporach to the world. And if it so happens that the Western World has been the only civilization with merit enough to have the Japanese wearing suits & ties, then destiny dictated it so.

The eternal laws of nature decree that only the strong inherit this earth, therefore it's the right of the strong to take it.

 

[Number_6]

I never said my solution was an easy or even practical one. But it's the only one I can see that stands some chance of working.

Simply pouring money into countries run by corrupt and ineffective governments isn't working. And the power vacuum left by the departing Europeans did not morph into democratic self-governance, but dictators of various ideological stripes.

As for Western governments not supporting a draft for such an undertaking, tough shit. It was Europe that left this mess to be cleaned up, and it's the West that has the resources and the experience to solve the problem.

We need to think long-term, because in the long-term, if we can't get the Third World to develop socially at the same rate that they are developing technologically (whether borrowed or home-grown technology), then we're fucked.

 

[WordInterrupted]

it's the West that has the resources and the experience to solve the problem.

I don't think history supports this claim. The most successful developing nations--such as Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore--acheived spectacular growth in the late 20th C. not by asking Western nations to solve their problems, but by developing their own approach independent of the West. Countries that have followed the recomendations of Western governments and institutions--whether by pursuing import substitution in the 70's or radical free market reforms in the 80's and 90's--have not faired well. The successful East Asian countires were able to strike a successful balance between protectionism and open markets that nobody in the West had even thought to recomend, and they did it with extremely corrupt governments. The notion that the U.S. is a wise, ominpotent force for good that needs to save the Thrid World savages from themselves is mostly a myth, and not a very useful one at that. There are things we can do to help development along, but the best solutions are almost always indigenous.

 

[Number_6]

Yes, but a lot of countries in Asia have had something resembling national governments for centuries.

The countries we're talking about, in Africa and the Middle East, and, to a lesser extent, Central and South America, have historically been tribalistic, and this appears to be one major source of the problems they have had building successful governments, beyond the corruption of said governments.

As far as the West being a wise, omnipotent force, it managed to keep the lid on a hell of a lot of shit for a few centuries there. The problem was that permanent solutions were not being sought--no one was bothering to change the underlying sentiment of tribalism in these countries, because while they were there, their occupation was sufficient to keep it under wraps, and were they to ever leave, well, then it would be someone else's problem.

You can bash Western civilization all you want, and there are points to your critique that I agree with, but the Islamic world in particular needs desperately to go through an Enlightenment. And soon, before they develop the capability to destroy what we've built.

 

[WordInterrupted]

Yes, but a lot of countries in Asia have had something resembling national governments for centuries.

The countries we're talking about, in Africa and the Middle East, and, to a lesser extent, Central and South America, have historically been tribalistic, and this appears to be one major source of the problems they have had building successful governments, beyond the corruption of said governments.

Both Korea and Taiwan were subject to foriegn rule by the Japanese and Chinese, and both suffered internal conflict. South Korea fought what amounts to a devastating civil war with the North, and Taiwan saw bloody conflict between Chinese emigres and native Taiwanese after WWII. None of these conflicts, or indeed any third world conflict to date, was nearly as devestating as the U.S. Civil War--which began as the U.S. was industrializing, and gave rise to over a century of racial and regional conflict. Social fragmentation certainly affects economic development, but many deeply divided countries have been successful economically.

To overcome such divisions, governments must have a basic capacity to enforce their own laws. As supposedly essential U.S. allies during the cold war, East Asian nations recieved billions in economic aid with no strings attached. As I note above, these governments were extermely corrupt and some of the money enriched the ruling class, but much of it also went to build state infrastructure, a capacity to establish and enforce laws and regulations. Most other Third World nations didn't recieve nearly as much aid, and most of what they did recieve was in loans. They didn't have the luxury of spending hundreds of millions to build up a strong central government.

I agree with you that we need to be careful about handing out money and try to combat corruption, but we should keep in mind that neither internal divisions nor corruption prohibit development.

You can bash Western civilization all you want, and there are points to your critique that I agree with, but the Islamic world in particular needs desperately to go through an Enlightenment. And soon, before they develop the capability to destroy what we've built.

It was not my intention to bash Western Civilization, mainly because I have a hard time understanding what Western Civilization is. The history of the West is fraught with so many contradictions and polar opposites that any attempt to shoehorn it all into a single tradition seems doomed to incoherence.

My point wasn't that the West is bad and evil, but that there are limits to what Western governments can do. Amidst the celebration of our prosperity and freedom, we sometimes forget that we can't change the entire world just because we want to. If we want to be effective, we need to appreciate our constraints.

 

[WordInterrupted]

Hmm, this talk of the Enlightenment and constraints on U.S. power has reminded me of one of my all-time favorite descriptions of the Bush administration. From Ron Suskind's 10/17/04 NYT article:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

The Enlightenment isn't in such great shape in this country either.

 

[The Question]

LOL@"reality-based community". Interesting term for those of us who see things for what they really are.