5 ms·

I think the feedback is generally fair — the comment as a whole was definitely lacking a lot of nuance and did not explain itself well in context. The key thes

I think the feedback is generally fair — the comment as a whole was definitely lacking a lot of nuance and did not explain itself well in context. The key thesis for me is that this was the local optimum for British control of the tea trade, and I would say Asia writ large. Controlling the source of opium in a local-ish way gave them an easier time moving it to China, while also allowing them to extract additional wealth from their previous conquests in Asia. In a meta sense, it may be very inefficient, but I’m less convinced that from a British perspective it was at all sub-optimal. Their input costs were primarily capitalistic: Ships, guns, bribes. This is where the marvel comes from, the magnitude with which Europe successfully extracted grand value out of Asia (Just as it had previously done with Africa, South America, and North America to varying degrees). Upon reflection, it is so extractive that it seems slightly misleading to even levy it in discussion as trade.

mrscottson 6y ago
>Upon reflection, it is so extractive that it seems slightly misleading to even levy it in discussion as trade. Yes, it's actually armed robbery being revised for history books. 35% of UK GDP and as much as 50% of US GDP was pumping opium into a China that was actively trying to criminalize the drug.
bsanr2 6y ago
>Upon reflection, it is so extractive that it seems slightly misleading to even levy it in discussion as trade. I think my contention is that how narrowly scoped this extraction is belies the alternative, of broader-based capital development which might have produced greater value in the long run. It seems impressive, because it fed the imperial machine in an extremely lucrative manner for the empire; however, what happens when you factor in the value extracted from Britain by the 20th century's wars, resulting in a rapid decline to present circumstances? The British Empire was incredibly short-lived compared to its predecessors, depending on how you look at it. Is this part of a trend? Possibly. But there's room to conceptualize the situation as one of optimizing towards catastrophe, of the entire enterprise being wrongheaded on balance, and of an alternative approach - one which doesn't strip mine non-European civilization, leaving existing structures not to collapse so violently, with ramifications to the present day - being "better" because the knock-on effects might have been less destructive. Would Mao's purge of intellectuals have happened in a world where Britain's appetite for wealth extraction had been less voracious or narrowly-focused? Would we today be reaping the rewards of Chinese academia emerging from the mid-century intact? I mean, in a sense, it's impressive what the modern war "trade" bankrolls. 200-300 years from now, will we characterize the military-industrial complex as eliciting the same sort of sense of awe, in its complexity but basic effectiveness in maintaining hegemony and access to resources crucial for the unprecedented build-up of global wealth since the 1950s?

mrscottson 6y ago

>Upon reflection, it is so extractive that it seems slightly misleading to even levy it in discussion as trade. Yes, it's actually armed robbery being revised for history books. 35% of UK GDP and as much as 50% of US GDP was pumping opium into a China that was actively trying to criminalize the drug.

bsanr2 6y ago

>Upon reflection, it is so extractive that it seems slightly misleading to even levy it in discussion as trade. I think my contention is that how narrowly scoped this extraction is belies the alternative, of broader-based capital development which might have produced greater value in the long run. It seems impressive, because it fed the imperial machine in an extremely lucrative manner for the empire; however, what happens when you factor in the value extracted from Britain by the 20th century's wars, resulting in a rapid decline to present circumstances? The British Empire was incredibly short-lived compared to its predecessors, depending on how you look at it. Is this part of a trend? Possibly. But there's room to conceptualize the situation as one of optimizing towards catastrophe, of the entire enterprise being wrongheaded on balance, and of an alternative approach - one which doesn't strip mine non-European civilization, leaving existing structures not to collapse so violently, with ramifications to the present day - being "better" because the knock-on effects might have been less destructive. Would Mao's purge of intellectuals have happened in a world where Britain's appetite for wealth extraction had been less voracious or narrowly-focused? Would we today be reaping the rewards of Chinese academia emerging from the mid-century intact? I mean, in a sense, it's impressive what the modern war "trade" bankrolls. 200-300 years from now, will we characterize the military-industrial complex as eliciting the same sort of sense of awe, in its complexity but basic effectiveness in maintaining hegemony and access to resources crucial for the unprecedented build-up of global wealth since the 1950s?