4 ms·

I think you might be misinterpreting it. Yes, there was conquest and genocide, but mere conquest and genocide weren't the reason the US became a superpower. >

by nandemo 12y ago

I think you might be misinterpreting it. Yes, there was conquest and genocide, but mere conquest and genocide weren't the reason the US became a superpower. > On paper, the Nazi empire of 1942 represented a substantial economic bloc. But pillage and slavery are not workable bases for an industrial economy. Under German rule, the output of conquered Europe collapsed.

alricb 12y ago
Well, it depends on whether you're looking at what Hitler & co. wanted versus what actually happened. In the alternate reality the Nazi leadership lived in, they could have made peace with Britain and restored the sea trade vital to Germany's economy. Of course, that was a complete fantasy, as was the idea that they could conquer the USSR and hold it. The US didn't become a superpower only because of its natural resources and immense territory, yes, but I think it may have played a part.
finid 12y ago
> But pillage and slavery are not workable bases for an industrial economy. I think the guy forgot that for most of its existence, the British empire was powered by slave labor, and that the cotton plantations of the US were also powered by slave labor. Even modern, industrial economies of today are in a sense powered by slave labor. Visit the sweatshops in the Brooklyn and Queens boroughs of NYC to see first-hand what slave labor is like. I've not visited Bangladesh or China, but I can imagine what the sweatshops in those places are like.
- protomyth 12y ago
  > I think the guy forgot that for most of its existence, > the British empire was powered by slave labor, and that > the cotton plantations of the US were also powered by > slave labor. True, but the industrial section of the US was not in the slave states, it was in the Northeast. The majority of industrial labor was free men. I would imagine working conditions varied greatly, but interpreting things through a modern lens is fraught with problems. I do think people overlook the importance of the Mississippi in the growth of the US. It is an amazing route for goods right in the middle of the country. Even today, barge traffic is a huge driver of export goods. // on a side note - I am pretty sure I will disagree with this book if the article is any indication, although I will have to read the book first. The 1800s (laws & transportation) were very important for the US and it could be said the early 1900s did a number on economic freedom. The one line in the article can be argued. Also, 1945 was not as important as 1946-48 for the baby boom.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  "I think the guy forgot that for most of its existence, the British empire was powered by slave labor, and that the cotton plantations of the US were also powered by slave labor." The US cotton plantations were part of a primarily agricultural economy, which is arguably a different thing than an industrial economy. There was industry, but it was mostly not slave based.
  - ArkyBeagle 12y ago
    Agriculture is just as industrial as the next... industry - you may have stepped into the fallacy known as "physiocracy". It's an easy thing to do. Cotton, Antebellum cotton, was the - the feedstock for the British textile portion of the Industrial Revolution - which was in Britain, the main event. Cotton went "offline" during the American Civil War so the Brits simply found other sources elsewhere in the Empire. IMO, we can view American chattel slavery as in an intermediate state between Mercantilist ... modes and Capitalist modes. Once a royal patent on a trade system was granted, it was very difficult for a king to control the patent holder. See also Adam Smith... Once (proto) capitalism began in earnest in the U.S., slavery presented challenges to the establishment of law that proved insurmountable. Free labor in the North also saw fit to take up arms against slavery. Lincoln saw this clearly and it's worth taking him both metaphorically/poetically as well as literally.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      There are clearly ways in which agricultural production differs from other kinds of production. Whether you call it "not industry" depends on what lines you've chosen to draw, which is why I said "arguably a different thing". If you don't want to draw those lines, fine - but the economy of the US South in that time was clearly dominated specifically by agriculture.
      - finid 12y ago
        But you do have to agree that that agricultural economy made other industries possible. The agricultural part formed the base of a pyramidal industrial setup.
- fsloth 12y ago
  I think the definition for slave labour is that the labourer is forced to work under a real threat of violence - coercion or just being taken advantage of is not sufficient.
  - finid 12y ago
    That's a very narrow definition of slave labor. The threat of losing your job if you don't work under stipulated conditions, especially when those conditions are live threatening, creates a slave-labor condition. Sure, you could quit, but you've got bills to pay and mouths to feed, so you slave on. Take what's happening to foreign workers in Qatar, for example. There's really no direct threat of violence, but workers die daily because the working conditions are that dangerous.
    - aminok 12y ago
      It's the correct definition of slavery. If I were to arbitrarily stretch the definition of words, I could find a way to define your style of communication as a form of slavery, to malign you, as you are doing to low wage free labour.

by nandemo 12y ago

alricb 12y ago

Well, it depends on whether you're looking at what Hitler & co. wanted versus what actually happened. In the alternate reality the Nazi leadership lived in, they could have made peace with Britain and restored the sea trade vital to Germany's economy. Of course, that was a complete fantasy, as was the idea that they could conquer the USSR and hold it. The US didn't become a superpower only because of its natural resources and immense territory, yes, but I think it may have played a part.

finid 12y ago

> But pillage and slavery are not workable bases for an industrial economy. I think the guy forgot that for most of its existence, the British empire was powered by slave labor, and that the cotton plantations of the US were also powered by slave labor. Even modern, industrial economies of today are in a sense powered by slave labor. Visit the sweatshops in the Brooklyn and Queens boroughs of NYC to see first-hand what slave labor is like. I've not visited Bangladesh or China, but I can imagine what the sweatshops in those places are like.

protomyth 12y ago
> I think the guy forgot that for most of its existence, > the British empire was powered by slave labor, and that > the cotton plantations of the US were also powered by > slave labor. True, but the industrial section of the US was not in the slave states, it was in the Northeast. The majority of industrial labor was free men. I would imagine working conditions varied greatly, but interpreting things through a modern lens is fraught with problems. I do think people overlook the importance of the Mississippi in the growth of the US. It is an amazing route for goods right in the middle of the country. Even today, barge traffic is a huge driver of export goods. // on a side note - I am pretty sure I will disagree with this book if the article is any indication, although I will have to read the book first. The 1800s (laws & transportation) were very important for the US and it could be said the early 1900s did a number on economic freedom. The one line in the article can be argued. Also, 1945 was not as important as 1946-48 for the baby boom.
dllthomas 12y ago
"I think the guy forgot that for most of its existence, the British empire was powered by slave labor, and that the cotton plantations of the US were also powered by slave labor." The US cotton plantations were part of a primarily agricultural economy, which is arguably a different thing than an industrial economy. There was industry, but it was mostly not slave based.
- ArkyBeagle 12y ago
  Agriculture is just as industrial as the next... industry - you may have stepped into the fallacy known as "physiocracy". It's an easy thing to do. Cotton, Antebellum cotton, was the - the feedstock for the British textile portion of the Industrial Revolution - which was in Britain, the main event. Cotton went "offline" during the American Civil War so the Brits simply found other sources elsewhere in the Empire. IMO, we can view American chattel slavery as in an intermediate state between Mercantilist ... modes and Capitalist modes. Once a royal patent on a trade system was granted, it was very difficult for a king to control the patent holder. See also Adam Smith... Once (proto) capitalism began in earnest in the U.S., slavery presented challenges to the establishment of law that proved insurmountable. Free labor in the North also saw fit to take up arms against slavery. Lincoln saw this clearly and it's worth taking him both metaphorically/poetically as well as literally.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    There are clearly ways in which agricultural production differs from other kinds of production. Whether you call it "not industry" depends on what lines you've chosen to draw, which is why I said "arguably a different thing". If you don't want to draw those lines, fine - but the economy of the US South in that time was clearly dominated specifically by agriculture.
    - finid 12y ago
      But you do have to agree that that agricultural economy made other industries possible. The agricultural part formed the base of a pyramidal industrial setup.
fsloth 12y ago
I think the definition for slave labour is that the labourer is forced to work under a real threat of violence - coercion or just being taken advantage of is not sufficient.
- finid 12y ago
  That's a very narrow definition of slave labor. The threat of losing your job if you don't work under stipulated conditions, especially when those conditions are live threatening, creates a slave-labor condition. Sure, you could quit, but you've got bills to pay and mouths to feed, so you slave on. Take what's happening to foreign workers in Qatar, for example. There's really no direct threat of violence, but workers die daily because the working conditions are that dangerous.
  - aminok 12y ago
    It's the correct definition of slavery. If I were to arbitrarily stretch the definition of words, I could find a way to define your style of communication as a form of slavery, to malign you, as you are doing to low wage free labour.