3 ms·

The simple explanation is the timeline of the resolution of power struggle of the ruling classes in respective countries. Both Canada and Australia were Crown c

The simple explanation is the timeline of the resolution of power struggle of the ruling classes in respective countries. Both Canada and Australia were Crown colonies and subsequently member states of the Commonwealth of the British Empire. England experienced extreme violence during its period of power struggle between contending members of ruling classes. If you review the history of England from Henry VIII until the consolidation of the conflict in what they call "The Glorious Revolution", you will note the same volatility and frequent change of power, extreme violence, and vulnerability to external powers. Had England experienced its power consolidation period in modern times, and was vulnerable to external powers capable of projecting power and influence using modern means, it would be another Argentina. In England's case, a chance event of inclement weather neutralized the armada of the super power of the time (Spain), and it should be noted that another invading force (Dutch Orange) finally resolved the matter. The Anglo-Empire (currently administered by the American cousins) enjoys relative concord among the ruling set and the subject classes are effectively propagandized to accept their station in life. (A cursory review of any English work of literature or film supports this assertion.) Should Latin America, Far East, Middle East, or any other non-Anglo region ever enjoy a sufficiently long period unmolested by the Anglo-Empire, they too will pass through their period of contention among the ruling classes and arrive at a stable formula for exercising governance over a docile population.

noduerme 5y ago
>>> Should Latin America, Far East, Middle East, or any other non-Anglo region ever enjoy a sufficiently long period unmolested by the Anglo-Empire, they too will pass through their period of contention among the ruling classes and arrive at a stable formula for exercising governance over a docile population. That stable formula may in turn be imperialist. Colonialism is not the sole province of the Anglosphere. China has already reached this kind of stability and freedom from foreign molestation, to the detriment of its neighbors and conquered peoples. It's also worth noting that countries subjected to Anglo colonialism and Common Law have fared better than those colonized by Spain or France, in large part because British colonies were not organized as plantations run by a few wealthy landlords (at least, not nearly to the same extent). Most of Latin America still hasn't even experienced land reform, keeping large swaths of the population at the level of subsistence. Moreover the lack of property rights and security driven by the occasional socialist/populist uprisings result in a lack of credit or investment that would help build a middle class. The middle class is the group you refer to derogatively as "subject classes [...] propagandized to accept their station in life." That class in China and in the Anglosphere lives a materially much more comfortable existence than the subject classes of LatAm, Africa or South Asia. The material comfort, more than the propaganda, is the key to preventing populist uprising.
- eternalban 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens#Social_commentary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens#Social_comment... I think English 19th century social critics would disagree regarding the material comfort of the subject classes. As I mentioned, my impression is that British subject classes have internalized the narrative of the inherent superiority of the ruling classes. How this was achieved fascinates me and remains an intriguing question. It is a unique phenomena afaik. A degree of psychological "comfort" appears to be necessary for a minority to maintain stable generational power over the majority. In China's case, this psychological component is pride in national resurgence after the 'century of shame', for which achievement the Communist Party of China can reasonably, and most certainly does, claim credit.
  - noduerme 5y ago
    I think there's a vast difference between the British narrative of inherited social hierarchy and the American narrative of upward mobility. It's not really accurate to lump them together. To the extent that they serve as social guidelines and even instruments of control, the former operates as a stick and the latter a carrot. They approach the individual in completely opposite ways, but they both make room for the individual, whereas China simply pretends the individual does not exist except as a threat to the state. China's approach seems remarkably stable ATM, but I suspect it's more brittle than it appears because it cannot accommodate any complaint. Anyone can say anything about the Queen or about American capitalism. National pride in a relatively healthy open society is largely premised on the right to complain. England was the first country to enshrine the rights of commoners, and do away with absolute monarchy. The decentralization of power is what allows for the psychological comfort - or stops a boiling pot from exploding.
  - noduerme 5y ago
    Just having reread what you wrote, and realizing you're referring to subject colonial classes in the 19th C as opposed to internal domestic lower classes in Anglophone countries today... there's another explanation. The British Empire didn't have enough manpower to administrate its colonies. So it was very adept at creating civil service bureaucracies composed of and managed by colonials at all but the highest levels. This is what allowed such a small maritime country to control such a vast empire. To do this, they had to educate and Anglicize a layer of colonials to a certain degree sufficient to run the colony, and had to give them elevated privileges. The bureaucratic classes created by the British are still in control of most former British colonies today. Naturally enough, they still play Cricket, speak English, send their children to school in Britain, and run the armed forces; the structure is their source of power, and their place in it is backed by their proximity to and familiarity with British customs. What you perceive as a narrative of inherent superiority of the British is really a sense of superiority themselves, versus the uneducated masses they rule.
antihipocrat 5y ago
I've often questioned why some new world countries fared better than others. In your opinion, what could have staved off the Anglo-empire meddling in Argentina's case? Had the governing class in Argentina joined (or succumbed to) the Anglo financial system early in the 20th century would the foreign powers that be have promoted stability rather than instability in that country?

noduerme 5y ago

>>> Should Latin America, Far East, Middle East, or any other non-Anglo region ever enjoy a sufficiently long period unmolested by the Anglo-Empire, they too will pass through their period of contention among the ruling classes and arrive at a stable formula for exercising governance over a docile population. That stable formula may in turn be imperialist. Colonialism is not the sole province of the Anglosphere. China has already reached this kind of stability and freedom from foreign molestation, to the detriment of its neighbors and conquered peoples. It's also worth noting that countries subjected to Anglo colonialism and Common Law have fared better than those colonized by Spain or France, in large part because British colonies were not organized as plantations run by a few wealthy landlords (at least, not nearly to the same extent). Most of Latin America still hasn't even experienced land reform, keeping large swaths of the population at the level of subsistence. Moreover the lack of property rights and security driven by the occasional socialist/populist uprisings result in a lack of credit or investment that would help build a middle class. The middle class is the group you refer to derogatively as "subject classes [...] propagandized to accept their station in life." That class in China and in the Anglosphere lives a materially much more comfortable existence than the subject classes of LatAm, Africa or South Asia. The material comfort, more than the propaganda, is the key to preventing populist uprising.

eternalban 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens#Social_commentary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens#Social_comment... I think English 19th century social critics would disagree regarding the material comfort of the subject classes. As I mentioned, my impression is that British subject classes have internalized the narrative of the inherent superiority of the ruling classes. How this was achieved fascinates me and remains an intriguing question. It is a unique phenomena afaik. A degree of psychological "comfort" appears to be necessary for a minority to maintain stable generational power over the majority. In China's case, this psychological component is pride in national resurgence after the 'century of shame', for which achievement the Communist Party of China can reasonably, and most certainly does, claim credit.
- noduerme 5y ago
  I think there's a vast difference between the British narrative of inherited social hierarchy and the American narrative of upward mobility. It's not really accurate to lump them together. To the extent that they serve as social guidelines and even instruments of control, the former operates as a stick and the latter a carrot. They approach the individual in completely opposite ways, but they both make room for the individual, whereas China simply pretends the individual does not exist except as a threat to the state. China's approach seems remarkably stable ATM, but I suspect it's more brittle than it appears because it cannot accommodate any complaint. Anyone can say anything about the Queen or about American capitalism. National pride in a relatively healthy open society is largely premised on the right to complain. England was the first country to enshrine the rights of commoners, and do away with absolute monarchy. The decentralization of power is what allows for the psychological comfort - or stops a boiling pot from exploding.
- noduerme 5y ago
  Just having reread what you wrote, and realizing you're referring to subject colonial classes in the 19th C as opposed to internal domestic lower classes in Anglophone countries today... there's another explanation. The British Empire didn't have enough manpower to administrate its colonies. So it was very adept at creating civil service bureaucracies composed of and managed by colonials at all but the highest levels. This is what allowed such a small maritime country to control such a vast empire. To do this, they had to educate and Anglicize a layer of colonials to a certain degree sufficient to run the colony, and had to give them elevated privileges. The bureaucratic classes created by the British are still in control of most former British colonies today. Naturally enough, they still play Cricket, speak English, send their children to school in Britain, and run the armed forces; the structure is their source of power, and their place in it is backed by their proximity to and familiarity with British customs. What you perceive as a narrative of inherent superiority of the British is really a sense of superiority themselves, versus the uneducated masses they rule.

antihipocrat 5y ago

I've often questioned why some new world countries fared better than others. In your opinion, what could have staved off the Anglo-empire meddling in Argentina's case? Had the governing class in Argentina joined (or succumbed to) the Anglo financial system early in the 20th century would the foreign powers that be have promoted stability rather than instability in that country?