3 ms·

Not an American, so I don't really want to engage in your culture wars, but still... your comment is very Chomsky-ite. The slavery part is questionable. While

Not an American, so I don't really want to engage in your culture wars, but still... your comment is very Chomsky-ite. The slavery part is questionable. While slavery made money for the slave owners, the South as a whole was poor and couldn't keep up with the North when it came to actual economic activity. That is why they lost their war of survival. Looking at other slave-owning societies of the 1800s, none can be described as particularly rich today. One of the reasons why slavery died out in the Western world was that it was becoming uneconomical in a world that was shifting from agriculture to industry. Even the Nazis often lost money on their slave-operated industries; people are just too clever not to be able to sabotage such subtle operations if they hate you enough. Slavery is really only economically efficient in sex, back-breaking work in the fields or mines, or possibly household help. "Quasi-vassality" is a Putinesque formulation. Neither Japan nor Germany are in any sense of the word American vassal states. They are kept in the American-led coalition mostly by their self-interest, because taking part in a global trade network is, for industrial powers like those two, much preferable to not doing so. And if they find any American political or military action questionable, they stay out of it, unlike actual vassals, who were usually compelled to provide manpower for their liege's wars. Neither Japan nor Germany engaged themselves in Vietnam or Iraq, for example.

wheelerof4te 3y ago
"Neither Japan nor Germany are in any sense of the word American vassal states." Both states harbor huge US military bases. Bases that were established after literal military occupation and not by choice. It's safe to say that they can't truly be free and choose their own policies. By definition, they are both occupied states.
- nec4b 3y ago
  Which they want to have out of their self interest and not because they are forced too. And no, they are not occupied by any definition. Ukraine is an example of a country which is partially occupied by a foreign force.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  There is something like 40 thousand American soldiers in Germany. Way, way too little to influence actual policy of a rich country with > 80 million people. I speak German and I can guarantee you that American military presence has approximately zero influence on German politics. This is not how an "occupied" country works. You know how an occupied country looks like? Like Czechoslovakia after 1968. The Soviet troops were permanently stationed there to cow our own Communists into submission to the Moscow line. Once it became clear that Gorbachev was no longer willing to actually use them for this purpose, the regime disintegrated within a few years.
  - wheelerof4te 3y ago
    "I speak German and I can guarantee you that American military presence has approximately zero influence on German politics." Then why the fuck did they put sanctions on Russia? Why the fuck did they agree to buy a much more expensive liquid gas from the US when they had a cheaper alternative that allowed them to have such a great economy? And why did they not react when Nord Stream pipelines, the source of that cheap gas, got blown up? What, they just sucked it up and said "hell, it's worth it, at least Russia is bad!"? They tanked their own economy because Uncle Sam told them to do so, and not a single rational decision has ever been made by the German government since February 2022.
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      Spoiler alert: not everyone elevates money and economy über alles. What you call "rational" I would call "endlessly cynical". Russian invasion of Ukraine destabilized security relationships in half of Europe and quite a lot of Germans are sensitive about it. Your view that German economy matters the most and the Russian imperial project is morally irrelevant is mostly carried by AfD, which attracts about a quarter of the total vote. I would say that another quarter of the German population genuinely doesn't care that way or the other, but that still leaves about a half which considers Putin an evil guy and does not want to maintain tight contact with him, much like you don't just invite gangsters into your business for some money. Granted, the balance of views in Germany is nowhere near as one-sided as in Poland where 90 per cent of people hate and loathe and fear Putin as a mortal enemy, but still. German nation as a whole isn't in mood to make happy deals with Putin and the actions of the politicians reflect that mood.
greenie_beans 3y ago
> While slavery made money for the slave owners, the South as a whole was poor and couldn't keep up with the North when it came to actual economic activity. That is why they lost their war of survival. This is 100% false. The South was wealthy as fuck. The North and South had a very important trade relationship where they both benefited. The southern plantations grew the cotton that the northern industrialists profited from. > One of the reasons why slavery died out in the Western world was that it was becoming uneconomical in a world that was shifting from agriculture to industry. This isn't true as far as I know. The South tried to replicate slavery with Jim Crow because the free and cheap labor was immensely profitable. The South fought the Civil War because they were fighting to protect their right to slavery since it made them so rich.
- api 3y ago
  Wealthy in what way? I’m sure the South had massively rich plantation owners and bankers, but like most resource extraction economies I suspect monetary velocity was lower and the general public was much poorer and less educated. Extraction economies usually amass a lot of static wealth but are poor in terms of dynamic wealth. The relationship with Northern capitalists would have been similar to what you see today with petrostates, resource extraction states, and vendors of cheap labor. Had the South survived I would suspect it would be much poorer today than the North as its economy would probably get stuck in extraction and labor exploitation. Chattel slavery would probably have ended when fossil fuels were discovered at large scale and it might be a petrostate now.
  - wheelerof4te 3y ago
    "Had the South survived I would suspect it would be much poorer today than the North as its economy would probably get stuck in extraction and labor exploitation" You do know how the US economy works today? You know why everyone accepts the US dollar, a literal piece of paper, in exchange for real, tangible goods? Because they will be sanctioned and bombed to oblivion if they don't. Now, tell me how this is not a "wealth extraction" economy.
    - 3y ago
uxp8u61q 3y ago
Try to argue your point without calling me names (in one case a dictator, in another case a professor who got prizes for his peace efforts) and maybe I'll read what you have to say.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  If you made it all the way down to Putinesque, you have already read it.

wheelerof4te 3y ago

"Neither Japan nor Germany are in any sense of the word American vassal states." Both states harbor huge US military bases. Bases that were established after literal military occupation and not by choice. It's safe to say that they can't truly be free and choose their own policies. By definition, they are both occupied states.

nec4b 3y ago
Which they want to have out of their self interest and not because they are forced too. And no, they are not occupied by any definition. Ukraine is an example of a country which is partially occupied by a foreign force.
inglor_cz 3y ago
There is something like 40 thousand American soldiers in Germany. Way, way too little to influence actual policy of a rich country with > 80 million people. I speak German and I can guarantee you that American military presence has approximately zero influence on German politics. This is not how an "occupied" country works. You know how an occupied country looks like? Like Czechoslovakia after 1968. The Soviet troops were permanently stationed there to cow our own Communists into submission to the Moscow line. Once it became clear that Gorbachev was no longer willing to actually use them for this purpose, the regime disintegrated within a few years.
- wheelerof4te 3y ago
  "I speak German and I can guarantee you that American military presence has approximately zero influence on German politics." Then why the fuck did they put sanctions on Russia? Why the fuck did they agree to buy a much more expensive liquid gas from the US when they had a cheaper alternative that allowed them to have such a great economy? And why did they not react when Nord Stream pipelines, the source of that cheap gas, got blown up? What, they just sucked it up and said "hell, it's worth it, at least Russia is bad!"? They tanked their own economy because Uncle Sam told them to do so, and not a single rational decision has ever been made by the German government since February 2022.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    Spoiler alert: not everyone elevates money and economy über alles. What you call "rational" I would call "endlessly cynical". Russian invasion of Ukraine destabilized security relationships in half of Europe and quite a lot of Germans are sensitive about it. Your view that German economy matters the most and the Russian imperial project is morally irrelevant is mostly carried by AfD, which attracts about a quarter of the total vote. I would say that another quarter of the German population genuinely doesn't care that way or the other, but that still leaves about a half which considers Putin an evil guy and does not want to maintain tight contact with him, much like you don't just invite gangsters into your business for some money. Granted, the balance of views in Germany is nowhere near as one-sided as in Poland where 90 per cent of people hate and loathe and fear Putin as a mortal enemy, but still. German nation as a whole isn't in mood to make happy deals with Putin and the actions of the politicians reflect that mood.

greenie_beans 3y ago

> While slavery made money for the slave owners, the South as a whole was poor and couldn't keep up with the North when it came to actual economic activity. That is why they lost their war of survival. This is 100% false. The South was wealthy as fuck. The North and South had a very important trade relationship where they both benefited. The southern plantations grew the cotton that the northern industrialists profited from. > One of the reasons why slavery died out in the Western world was that it was becoming uneconomical in a world that was shifting from agriculture to industry. This isn't true as far as I know. The South tried to replicate slavery with Jim Crow because the free and cheap labor was immensely profitable. The South fought the Civil War because they were fighting to protect their right to slavery since it made them so rich.

api 3y ago
Wealthy in what way? I’m sure the South had massively rich plantation owners and bankers, but like most resource extraction economies I suspect monetary velocity was lower and the general public was much poorer and less educated. Extraction economies usually amass a lot of static wealth but are poor in terms of dynamic wealth. The relationship with Northern capitalists would have been similar to what you see today with petrostates, resource extraction states, and vendors of cheap labor. Had the South survived I would suspect it would be much poorer today than the North as its economy would probably get stuck in extraction and labor exploitation. Chattel slavery would probably have ended when fossil fuels were discovered at large scale and it might be a petrostate now.
- wheelerof4te 3y ago
  "Had the South survived I would suspect it would be much poorer today than the North as its economy would probably get stuck in extraction and labor exploitation" You do know how the US economy works today? You know why everyone accepts the US dollar, a literal piece of paper, in exchange for real, tangible goods? Because they will be sanctioned and bombed to oblivion if they don't. Now, tell me how this is not a "wealth extraction" economy.
  - 3y ago

uxp8u61q 3y ago

Try to argue your point without calling me names (in one case a dictator, in another case a professor who got prizes for his peace efforts) and maybe I'll read what you have to say.

inglor_cz 3y ago
If you made it all the way down to Putinesque, you have already read it.