Joe Rogan's Podcast

[One Brow]

This is one of those ideas that I think is both monumentally stupid and preloaded for a bait-and-switch. In reality capitalism is about PRIVATE ownership of the means of production while colonialism is nearly always a STATE initiated endeavor. Colonialism is a thing. Capitalism is also a thing. In my experience, those two things are most commonly linked by yarn strings on cork boards strewn with photos and newspaper clippings in the same minds believing real socialism has never been tried.

If they are so distantly connected, perhaps you could point to the strong, capitalistic economies that were not buoyed by colonial expansion, nor by close trade ties to colonial powers?

 

[NAOS]

If they are so distantly connected, perhaps you could point to the strong, capitalistic economies that were not buoyed by colonial expansion, nor by close trade ties to colonial powers?

He can’t, of course. Or, rather, he can only point to the magical drive of pure capital as something which is innately good; history is about it being sullied by one compromise or another with some something impure.

Until philosophy leaves Plato behind, we’ll keep hearing this kind of false-distinction insanity.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

If they are so distantly connected, perhaps you could point to the strong, capitalistic economies that were not buoyed by colonial expansion, nor by close trade ties to colonial powers?

Having close trade ties does not make a nation colonialist. That you want to play six degrees of Kevin Bacon with your condemnations lets me know you see the holes in your own argument. The main gripe here seems to be that capitalism is such a massively more productive and innovative economic system as compared to the old feudalistic or socialist economies that any nation employing a system that doesn’t adopt at least some measure of capitalism crumbles, dies, and is supplanted by a more capitalist culture. Non-capitalist nations get out-competed. Sometimes that involves a change in the land area of a nation and sometimes it doesn’t.

Earlier in this thread I posted an article showing that for the first time in human history, the majority of people on planet Earth were now middle class or rich. That post-WWII global ramp to prosperity is the direct result of ever more nations embracing capitalism. There is no correlated rise in colonialism in the past 70 years because colonialism and capitalism aren’t linked.

If only a list will make you happy, then search for names of countries that have abandoned communism since WWII. All went to capitalism and I can’t think of a single one that suddenly developed colonial aspirations in tandem with their economic restructuring.

 

[One Brow]

Having close trade ties does not make a nation colonialist.

Nor did I say it did. In fact, what I said bears so little resemblance to this that it leads me to think you are trying to distract from the point rather than discuss it.

Having close trade ties to a strong economy strengthens the trading partner. I know you do not disagree there.

That you want to play six degrees of Kevin Bacon with your condemnations ...

I did not make any condemnations. Again, this reads more like an attempt to distract than respond.

The main gripe here seems to be that capitalism ...

I had no gripe. My main point is that the economies you think of as wildly successful and capitalistic have also benefited to a very large degree from colonial exploitation to jump-start the process. Do you have a counter-example, or not?

Sometimes that involves a change in the land area of a nation and sometimes it doesn’t.

That's an interesting way to refer to a military invasion.

If only a list will make you happy, then search for names of countries that have abandoned communism since WWII. All went to capitalism and I can’t think of a single one that suddenly developed colonial aspirations in tandem with their economic restructuring.

Which of these countries would you call economic powerhouses?

 

[NAOS]

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Do you have a counter-example, or not?

Sure. Off the top of my head, how about the 6th largest economy in the world: India? There is also 10th largest economy South Korea who has never colonized anyone. Indonesia and Switzerland are both in the top 20.

 

[NAOS]

Let’s just skip to the present day, built-up version of capital, eh? Lol. No need for history.

(Check out South Korea’s short history with a fossil fuel based economy if you want to see something amazing.)

 

[One Brow]

Sure. Off the top of my head, how about the 6th largest economy in the world: India?

2nd largest population. They are underperforming, and poverty is rampant. For centuries, they had something not far off from a slave caste.

There is also 10th largest economy South Korea who has never colonized anyone.

Deep trade ties to the US, and supported by massive US military presence.

Indonesia and Switzerland are both in the top 20.

Switzerland has deep trade ties to colonizing powers.

Indonesia has the 4th-largest population, so again is underperforming.

Keep digging. I'm sure you'll reach gold soo.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Let’s just skip to the present day, built-up version of capital, eh? Lol. No need for history.

The last 70 years of Pax Americana in which capitalism has taken over as the dominant economic ideology is history as much as what happened centuries ago when feudalism was the dominant economic ideology. Correlations require taking into account the full suite of observations rather than making excuses like “that’s the built up version of capital so we don’t count it”.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Keep digging. I'm sure you'll reach gold soo.

The question isn't if you are able to run around the field moving the goalposts or if you can throw mud. It is about an intrinsic feature of capitalism being colonialism. Not a single thing you just wrote speaks to that.

 

[NAOS]

The last 70 years of Pax Americana in which capitalism has taken over as the dominant economic ideology is history as much as what happened centuries ago when feudalism was the dominant economic ideology. Correlations require taking into account the full suite of observations rather than making excuses like “that’s the built up version of capital so we don’t count it”.

Wut?

If you can please provide some peer-reviewed justification for why you can think of history in these smooth and slide-able terms (rather than as an always-different and -differing, never exactly comparable anywhere or anytime, always site-specific terms) then please let me know.

 

[NAOS]

Claiming that the history of the build-up of capital doesn’t matter to the discussion of capital (in any given location) is ****ing ridic. Obvi.