4 ms·

Wealth of Russian empire came exactly from plunder. They wre exploiting far east for valuable furs, then sold to the west. That was their whole schtick for a lo

Wealth of Russian empire came exactly from plunder. They wre exploiting far east for valuable furs, then sold to the west. That was their whole schtick for a long time.

CrzyLngPwd 3y ago
It's the same for Great Britain. We plundered the wealth of countless countries.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  While I don't doubt that you (you?) plundered a lot of wealth such as the Koh-i-Noor, you made a lot more money by selling industrial products to willing customers. This is what set you apart from, say, Russia of the 1800s, which was unable to produce any sophisticated stuff for the nascent world market.
  - mavelikara 3y ago
    The raw materials for many of these industrial products came from plunder.
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      This is true until today, on a global scale. Mining and other resource production tends to kill people and create horrible lunar landscapes. I grew up in a rust belt city myself. It is also somewhat nationality-agnostic. Coal miners in Merthyr Tydfil weren't any less exploited than coffee gatherers of Ghana.
  - unmole 3y ago
    > selling industrial products to willing customers Like opium.
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      This is an interesting topic. Nowadays, the American concept of "war on drugs" is really ubiquitous, but for a large part of humanity's existence, drug business was considered legitimate. Pure cocaine was freely sold in pharmacies until 1914 or so. I am not that sure if our current moral position is the final one. At the very least, marijuana prohibition has swung from almost universal to a shrinking set of the most conservative US states. Similarly, opium prohibition may not be a thing in 2050 or 2100 again.
      - blackoil 3y ago
        Parent is talking about the "Opium Wars" which weren't legitimate drug business.
  - blackoil 3y ago
    All production requires resources. So plunder is not always in terms of jewels and gold, if you capture a country and force them to buy fabric from your mills or enslave people to work in the plantations or kill all natives and capture the land for the plantation it is a form of plunder.
helij 3y ago
I mean that was the schtick for pretty much all empires. Why single out Russia?
- scotty79 3y ago
  Because when people talk about empires and colonization they usually forget Russia.
justsomehnguy 3y ago
> to steal goods violently from a place, especially during a war: Those evil Russkies! Plundered the poor animals for their furs, instead of delivering them to civilization! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%22The_White_Man%27s_Burden%22_Judge_1899_(cropped).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%22The_White_Man%27s_Burd...
- scotty79 3y ago
  They didn't plunder animals. They were too lazy for that. They plundered local Asian hunters and their communities.
inglor_cz 3y ago
The author is speaking about nations, though. As in huge collectives of people. If a tiny sliver of the elite rolls around in gold, but the average person is poor (and Russian peasants were very poor, indeed until today, the average Russian is among the poorest people of European ancestry), I would argue that the nation isn't wealthy.
- scotty79 3y ago
  Well, plunder might not serve the nation. But it's not the nation who makes the decisions. Wealthy elites always do (except meaybe one time in France, possibly). So the conclusion is that one of the things wealthy elites tend to do when given the opportunity doesn't serve their nation, but at most themselves. Which is not really groundbreaking after two world wars. Although I understand that it might be culturally relevant in times where entire nations are expected to pay reparations for what wealthy elites of their country used to do. Showing that the nations didn't benefit might be a counterargument to that.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    "So the conclusion is that one of the things wealthy elites tend to do when given the opportunity doesn't serve their nation, but at most themselves. Which is not really groundbreaking after two world wars." It nevertheless makes sense to study the exceptions, because these exceptions made a difference.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    That is the entire premise of the article, that people are missing. If you want a prosperous nation (of people), you achieve that through investment in technology, efficient systems, and the future. No country is richer in 2024 than 1 AD because they have gotten 1000x better at plundering.
    - blackoil 3y ago
      The basic fallacy of the article is that the plunder did not become "the investment". Yes plunder is not sufficient but in all the history it is the necessary condition. No country has ever become rich by methods we now consider just.

Wealth of Russian empire came exactly from plunder. They wre exploiting far east for valuable furs, then sold to the west. That was their whole schtick for a long time.

CrzyLngPwd 3y ago

It's the same for Great Britain. We plundered the wealth of countless countries.

inglor_cz 3y ago
While I don't doubt that you (you?) plundered a lot of wealth such as the Koh-i-Noor, you made a lot more money by selling industrial products to willing customers. This is what set you apart from, say, Russia of the 1800s, which was unable to produce any sophisticated stuff for the nascent world market.
- mavelikara 3y ago
  The raw materials for many of these industrial products came from plunder.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    This is true until today, on a global scale. Mining and other resource production tends to kill people and create horrible lunar landscapes. I grew up in a rust belt city myself. It is also somewhat nationality-agnostic. Coal miners in Merthyr Tydfil weren't any less exploited than coffee gatherers of Ghana.
- unmole 3y ago
  > selling industrial products to willing customers Like opium.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    This is an interesting topic. Nowadays, the American concept of "war on drugs" is really ubiquitous, but for a large part of humanity's existence, drug business was considered legitimate. Pure cocaine was freely sold in pharmacies until 1914 or so. I am not that sure if our current moral position is the final one. At the very least, marijuana prohibition has swung from almost universal to a shrinking set of the most conservative US states. Similarly, opium prohibition may not be a thing in 2050 or 2100 again.
    - blackoil 3y ago
      Parent is talking about the "Opium Wars" which weren't legitimate drug business.
- blackoil 3y ago
  All production requires resources. So plunder is not always in terms of jewels and gold, if you capture a country and force them to buy fabric from your mills or enslave people to work in the plantations or kill all natives and capture the land for the plantation it is a form of plunder.

helij 3y ago

I mean that was the schtick for pretty much all empires. Why single out Russia?

scotty79 3y ago
Because when people talk about empires and colonization they usually forget Russia.

justsomehnguy 3y ago

> to steal goods violently from a place, especially during a war: Those evil Russkies! Plundered the poor animals for their furs, instead of delivering them to civilization! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%22The_White_Man%27s_Burden%22_Judge_1899_(cropped).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%22The_White_Man%27s_Burd...

scotty79 3y ago
They didn't plunder animals. They were too lazy for that. They plundered local Asian hunters and their communities.

inglor_cz 3y ago

The author is speaking about nations, though. As in huge collectives of people. If a tiny sliver of the elite rolls around in gold, but the average person is poor (and Russian peasants were very poor, indeed until today, the average Russian is among the poorest people of European ancestry), I would argue that the nation isn't wealthy.

scotty79 3y ago
Well, plunder might not serve the nation. But it's not the nation who makes the decisions. Wealthy elites always do (except meaybe one time in France, possibly). So the conclusion is that one of the things wealthy elites tend to do when given the opportunity doesn't serve their nation, but at most themselves. Which is not really groundbreaking after two world wars. Although I understand that it might be culturally relevant in times where entire nations are expected to pay reparations for what wealthy elites of their country used to do. Showing that the nations didn't benefit might be a counterargument to that.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  "So the conclusion is that one of the things wealthy elites tend to do when given the opportunity doesn't serve their nation, but at most themselves. Which is not really groundbreaking after two world wars." It nevertheless makes sense to study the exceptions, because these exceptions made a difference.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  That is the entire premise of the article, that people are missing. If you want a prosperous nation (of people), you achieve that through investment in technology, efficient systems, and the future. No country is richer in 2024 than 1 AD because they have gotten 1000x better at plundering.
  - blackoil 3y ago
    The basic fallacy of the article is that the plunder did not become "the investment". Yes plunder is not sufficient but in all the history it is the necessary condition. No country has ever become rich by methods we now consider just.