0 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 23h \ parent \ on: Why Marx Was Wrong about Workers and Wages econ
Don't miss the forest for the trees. Lots of nations seek a dominance strategy and only those that first became rich are able to do so. I also remain unconvinced that geopolitical dominance is even worth what it costs.
KISS, freedom leads to prosperity.
Have you ever lived in a nation on the wrong side of global resource dominance?
Only those who take for granted their relative wealth and privilege would wish to discard it.
That is the privileged and naive viewpoint of Libertarians.
The wealth of The West and the 'freedoms' and 'rights' claimed and enjoyed by those who live in Western nations have been built upon and remain built upon the enslavement subjugation, rape, pillage and theft from all others.
This is the continuation of the struggle for domination of resources that has been the driver of evolution since life began. Nation states now represent the largest most competitive conglomerations of living entities competing in that struggle. To dismiss the nation states crucial strategic role in this natural market competition for resources is to dismiss the reality of life and competition for resources which it creates.
reply
Every culture did all of those terrible things. It's a complete cop-out to attribute western prosperity to things that were universal.
The accounting also doesn't even remotely add up. There wasn't enough prosperity in the world to support your claim. The west generated wealth far in excess of what it expropriated.
reply
The national borders of Africa were drawn up in the power centres of Europe.
European imperialism absolutely trashed Africa and major to the success of that process was dividing Africa up into 'nation states' composed of entirely incompatible racial/cultural groups. This enabled Europe to divide and rule and continues to this day.
In Latin America the native cultures were brutally murdered and subjugated for their land, produce gold and silver. S.E. Asia was mostly carved up into European possessions with few areas escaping complete subjugation. Japans complete humiliation not occurring until 1945. China being humiliated much earlier in 1840. Thailand escaped outright capture by ceding more than half its territory and eventually serving as a neutral buffer state between British Burma and French Cambodia/Laos.
Australia, New Zealand and Canada simply seized the land of native peoples and eventually became tribute states to the current global hegemon, USA, serving its 5 eyes surveillance/military and banking networks which are purposed to this day in continuing its global resource hegemony. The Wests relative wealth and privilege is absolutely based upon the subjugation of other territories and this continues. While leadership in technology has been important, it is not the sole factor in creating the relative wealth of The West. There is no way the simplistic notion of free markets and enterprise can be isolated from the crucial and overriding factor of nation state military, resource, institutional and protocol capture and control.
Australia, New Zealand and Canada simply seized the land of native peoples and eventually became tribute states to the current global hegemon, USA, serving its 5 eyes surveillance/military and banking networks which are purposed to this day in continuing its global resource hegemony. The Wests relative wealth and privilege is absolutely based upon the subjugation of other territories and this continues. While leadership in technology has been important, it is not the sole factor in creating the relative wealth of The West. There is no way the simplistic notion of free markets and enterprise can be isolated from the crucial and overriding factor of nation state military, resource, institutional and protocol capture and control.
reply
None of that is unknown to me and none of it is relevant to what I said.
reply
Nonsense- it is a direct response and refutation of what you said - your assertion that The Wests wealth and power do not derive from state sponsored resource hegemony.
reply