7 ms·
Many of these great "empires" were simply extended looting machines, once they ran out of looting opportunities they collapsed in the same way that a Ponzi coll
by dagaci 8y ago
Many of these great "empires" were simply extended looting machines, once they ran out of looting opportunities they collapsed in the same way that a Ponzi collapses when it run out of new "investors". While things were good, it was all golden, glitter and glam, and many tall buildings.
Loot of course takes many forms, gold, silvers, the work of serfs, the work of slaves, monopolies on trade routes, monopolies on trades itself and of course looting of weak environments itself.
The aftermath is what is sustainable, but this difference between the glitter and the sustainable is very boring and what the historians call a dark age or dark period because its not newsworthy even thought it is actually the origin of the next age of expansion.
- Jedi72 8y agoI think this is a fantastic point, but it leads to the next question which is that are the current world powers any different?
- Fordec 8y agoSee: > looting of weak environments itself
- eeZah7Ux 8y agoLooting for oil thanks to a powerful army, increasing inequality and oligarchy, environmental degradation, climate change. ...it rings a bell.
- tim333 8y agoThere's less looting these days and more making stuff.
- bilbo0s 8y ago>more making stuff... Well, they must make stuff out of other stuff. Those raw materials have to be extracted from Mother Earth at some point I'd imagine.
- dalbasal 8y agoThe bronze age civilisations of the middle east (Akkad, Hati, Egypt) didn't follow this pattern. Egypt, for example, was a Nile + delta empire for most of the three kingdoms/periods. It's only towards the end of the new Kingdom that they expanded into nearby Canaan, and fought frontier wars against hittites along the Phoenician coast (eg, the famous battle of kadesh). Rome definitely did have an expansion imperative. Land grants and the slave trade were to legions what exits are to tech startups. Most ancient (and into modernity) armies did self fund by looting though. Even looting fallen enemies for weapons was a substantial motivator. Even in the Roman period, owning a helmet, shield and such equated to moving up a social class.
- dagaci 8y agoEgyptian Civilization was sustained because of the Nile delta productivity. Literally all the nutrients gathered over 1/4 of the of the African continent are deposited nowhere else along the river route but in Nile delta, this unique phenomenon of nature meant this area is extremely resilient and can withstand any level of exploitation. Egyptian Civilization continued for over 3000 years (what we know about) which is ridiculous. Egyptian Civilization lasted so long only because of the Delta productivity and ended when Greek and Roman conquest resulted in Egyptian grains being wholesale shipped northward out of the country by force ending the trade southward probably causing famine, and destroying the internal economy and culture which was centered there.
- gerbilly 8y agoIt's a good thing they dammed (damned?) the Nile then, to keep that rich alluvial soil away. :-)
- shadowprofile76 8y agoDammed*.though i'm pretty sure they also partly damned the river's ecosystem with millennia human presence.
- dagaci 8y agoLook closely at the ruling classes and then you wont be so surprised by these strategies
- viach 8y ago>> Loot of course takes many forms, gold, silvers, the work of serfs, the work of slaves Gas, oil, fresh air, ...
- gerbilly 8y agoWater, lumber (formerly known as trees), open land, furs, fish ...
- boudin 8y agoAnd cheap labour in countries with lower worker/human right standards
- shadowprofile76 8y agoLow paying jobs in developing economies have to be considered in the context of existing alternatives. If a Vietnamese rice farmer's son previously had only daily hours of backbreaking labor to look forward to on his father's paddies for what amounts to a dollar worth of earnings per day (only paid when they can finally sell the rice after many weeks of toiling) and then one day American McShoe Factory opens in the nearest city offering 3 dollars a day paid biweekly, this is a move up in the world. He'd willingly redirect his physical capacity for the job and trade it voluntarily for the money. Is this ideal? No, and to the labor market sensibilities of people in developed countries it could be seen as "looting" of workers but in relative terms, it's a previously unavailable, voluntarily chosen improvement for the farmer's son. Yes, human rights have to be seriously improved in many countries and many companies offering jobs in developing markets really need to clean up their worker rights standards, but on a fundamental level, we can't simply compare a given economic change to our ideal of how things should be (because ideals are not limited by any practical constraints). We have to compare it to existing and previous alternatives.
- gerbilly 8y agoI love this kind of reply. To me it's like that rabbit duck optical illusion[1]: when seen one way it seems reasonable, even almost inevitable, and then it suddenly flips and sounds like smarmy weasel words excusing exploitation. Here's my suggestion, why not pay the former rice paddy worker 50$/day and improve human rights at the McShoe Vietnam factory? It's still an awesome bargain by western standards. Oh and the money is there, just cut the seven figure salaries of all the C level executives back at McShoe headquarters. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit%E2%80%93duck_illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit%E2%80%93duck_illusion
- stanfordkid 8y agoI think that's a bit reductionist. Highly recommend reading the Muqaddimah (one of the first sociology books) which talks of a natural cadence to power: http://www.politics.ankara.edu.tr/dergi/pdf/39/1/13_barbara_stowasser.pdf http://www.politics.ankara.edu.tr/dergi/pdf/39/1/13_barbara_... Nietzsche also delves into some of these ideas when he describes the rise and fall of civilizations as a by product of decadence. This decadence is not just the simplistic notion of "consumption", but rather a weak moral system that arises as a result of decadence. It is not consumption, but rather the morality of consumption: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/5avje6/what_does_nietzsche_mean_by_decadence/ https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/5avje6/what_... Looting machines (like companies) required skill, fearlessness, and capital to build.
- pastor_elm 8y agosounds like modern day globalization
- Emma_Goldman 8y agoI don't see how this could be true. 'Looting' is the plundering of goods from others, usually by conquest. Many civilizations were stable for long periods without expansion. In fact, Arnold Toynbee made the argument that imperial expansion was a symptom of decline. If by loot you mean - as you say - the use of raw materials, labour and the environment, I don't think the word has any analytic meaning whatsoever.
- antisthenes 8y ago> If by loot you mean - as you say - the use of raw materials, labour and the environment, I don't think the word has any analytic meaning whatsoever. By that definition, we have expanded the looting in the last century by several factors of magnitude. In that context, we should also view the global economy as a single empire.
- barberousse 8y agoAt a very general level, there are people making that exact argument: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674006713&content=reviews http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674006713&co...