This will be my last reply to you because I don't think you are actually here for debate. Whenever you're confronted with counter arguments to your incorrect representations of history, politics and war you just yell "WHAT? ARE YOU IN FAVOUR OF DICTATORS AND MASS MURDERERS?" or something similar. Which doesn't engage the arguments raised at all and doesn't follow from those arguments either.

Have you considered that corporate capitalism is actually the problem? Resulting, quite recently, in shifts to authoritarian leaders in "democracies" like Bolsonara, Trump, Victor Orban, Mateusz Morawiecki and the destruction of the Hong Kong democracy. This has only been possible with monied interests being either complicit (HK, Trump, Bolsonara) or acquiescing to it. In HK all the parliamentary seats appointed by "business" are pro-China, because that's where the money is. And granted the US stopped being a democracy some time ago and is already a full-blown plutocracy. Reagan was probably the nail in that coffin.

As Daniel Kelemen described:

Elected autocrats tend to follow six steps: win elections; capture referees, such as courts and other independent bodies; attack or seize control of the media; demonize and undermine the opposition; change the rules of the game; and win new elections that are no longer free. — Kelemen

Each one of those "leaders" of "democratic" countries are following this playbook and are in essence autocratic. They are not qualified to spread democracy to begin with. The more important point though, is that democracies don't seem to be able to survive under the pressures of corporate capitalism. So you are willing to murder millions of people - there are after all only 72 democracies in the world - to implement a system that will destroy itself as long as we continue to pursue corporate capitalism.

The democracy index only measures the following though:

"Whether national elections are free and fair";
"The security of voters";
"The influence of foreign powers on government";
"The capability of the civil servants to implement policies". — Democracy Index

The first thing to note is that the countries higher on the list are welfare States with strong social and governmental institutions and strong socialist political movements. And although all of them have their share of populist, authoritarian political players, those don't garner more than 20% support. If we want democracies to survive, they should be non-capitalist, social democracies.

The influence of big business is obvious. In HK 90% of voters voted for pro-democracy MPs. A clear majority over the Chinese appointed MPs but because the business appointed MPs voted pro-China, voters got shafted.

The US it's obvious for local influence by aflluent Americans on policies (see why the US is a plutocracy). And here's some conclusion with regard to influence by big corporations on foreign policy.

We can say that they have greater means and seem to use them to exert more influence than other firms, even big domestic ones. But are they more able to convert these means into success politically? Again our data cannot give a direct answer. But the direction of US foreign economic policy in the past decades suggests they have been very powerful. The lowering of trade barriers via the GATT/WTO and various preferential trade agreements, the opening of capital markets and signing of bilateral investment treaties and economic agreements with investment protections, and the harmonization of regulations in many areas in preferential trade agreements are all policies that the US government has pursued actively and ones that MNCs have championed. MNC preferences, versus those of purely domestic firms, seem to be very congruent with much of recent American foreign economic policy. Rodrik (2018) claims, for example, that preferential trade agreements are tools for MNCs: “Trade agreements are shaped largely by rent-seeking, self-interested behavior on the export side. Rather than rein in protectionists, they empower another set of special interests and politically well-connected firms, such as international banks, pharmaceutical companies, and multinational corporations” (as cited in Blanga-Gubbay, Conconi, and Parenti 2019, p. 4). — Kim Milner

Once this is fixed we can start thinking about spreading democracy.

And granted the US stopped being a democracy some time ago and is already a full-blown plutocracy. Reagan was probably the nail in that coffin.

So you've gone from not being able to tell the difference between good and bad, to not being able to recognize the greatest force for freedom in the world since Pearl Harbor, even on a per-capita basis, as a democracy.

Again, I don't know how you manage to cross the road safely. "That's not a car, it's a squirrel".

My take away from that was that my arguments apparently confuse you, which is probably why you never actually engage them. — Benkei

I don't engage you because you're not qualified to take up my time, on this particular subject. On other subjects I remain open minded.

I was thinking about something along these lines today while daydreaming - that I seriously give very little shits about Russia as any kind of major world-level threat — StreetlightX

Yes, Russia only has enough nuclear weapons to destroy modern civilization in just a few minutes, an act they've come close to doing by accident at least a couple of times (as has the US), so why worry about them at all, as Russia couldn't possibly be any kind of major world level threat.

Paul Edwards This will be my last reply to you — Benkei

YEA!!!

I think it's almost to Putin credit that he's made it seem as though Russia is a far bigger fry than it is. — StreetlightX

Yea, Russia only has a big pile of hydrogen bombs they can deliver anywhere in the world in just a few minutes. Definitely a small fry little bit of nothing country.

The subject of foreign intervention and territorial expansion by Russia has come up a few times in this thread, with a few of the usual suspects frothing at the mouth about Putin's evil designs, or some such caricature. — jamalrob

At least one member is noticing how you consistently avoid explaining Putin's vast wealth to us.

https://www.newsweek.com/how-rich-vladimir-putin-us-senate-wants-know-russia-president-net-worth-1331458

Some analysts claim Putin may be the richest man in the world. Bill Browder, a British-American financier who previously did business in Russia, has estimated that the Russian President is worth about $200 billion.

Is that a US plot too?

And again, what you don't get, or aren't capable of getting, is that Putin's wealth is just the tip of the iceberg. Putin sits on top of a vast system of patronage with every level kicking a percentage of money stolen from the Russian people up to the next highest level.

And if you should shine a light on this vast theft, you mysteriously find yourself poisoned by some Soviet era chemical weapon.

Hey, Hippyhead, do you have any comments on the substance of my post, revolving around the two quotations, one from the ECFR and one from a professor at West Point? One was about the conceptual basis of the conflict between Russia and the West, and one was claiming that Putin's increasing authoritarianism is a response to perceived threats to his position.

You have to begin contributing here properly. I'll accept what you say about Putin's wealth if it makes you happy, but for the purposes of this discussion I don't really care about it. That Putin is a ruthless opportunistic silovarch (half siloviki, half oligarch) surrounded by others of the same kind is a point I have made myself, but right now I don't see the significance.

So please, just calm down and discuss things like a grown-up. There are other contributors to the thread who I disagree with but whose posts I wouldn't dream of deleting. You're not in that category so far.

You have to begin contributing here properly — jamalrob

Feel free to explain why I should bother. In my view, I'm showing the appropriate level of respect for this thread.

I'll accept what you say about Putin's wealth if it makes you happy, — jamalrob

Don't accept what I say, learn it for yourself. Everything I'm saying is only a few clicks away on Google.

but for the purposes of this discussion I don't really care about it.

Could you perhaps link us to the discussions where you do care about it?

One was about the conceptual basis of the conflict between Russia and the West, — jamalrob

There is no conflict between Russia and the West. There is a conflict between the Russian regime and the West.

and one was claiming that Putin's increasing authoritarianism is a response to perceived threats to his position. — jamalrob

Increasing authoritarianism is a highly predictable property of gangster despots.

recognize the greatest force for freedom in the world since Pearl Harbor, even on a per-capita basis, as a democracy. — Paul Edwards

:rofl:

Read the Princeton study.

Read the Princeton study.

Read what I wrote. It's totally accurate.

Right. So you refuse to read research handed to you on a plate because...?

Right. So you refuse to read research handed to you in a plate because...

Because you and they should be reading MY research, which concludes that the US is the greatest force for freedom in the world, even on a per-capita basis, and is one of the world's great democracies. At the same time you can learn to distinguish cars from squirrels so that you can cross the road safely.

OK. Hubris. Nice.

OK. Hubris. Nice.

The same thing preventing you from reading my research?

As for "Joe Biden: Accelerated Liberal Imperialism" hasn't imperialism, liberal or otherwise, been US policy, more or less, since the get go? (Earlier eras of imperialism maybe shouldn't be described as "liberal".)

Imperialism tends to be such a good thing for the imperialists, be they Belgian, Dutch, German, Russian, English, French, Italian, American, Spanish, Japanese or Chinese--whosever--it's hard to imagine potential imperialists foregoing the opportunities. If they could be imperialists, why wouldn't they?

Since the beginning, has any country's leadership ever said: "We could become fabulously rich by taking over and exploiting those shit hole territories over there; but, you know, imperialism is just wrong, and we wouldn't want to become wealthy by doing something that moralists would consider distasteful." ???? — Bitter Crank

I remember reading a study done that concluded that imperialism was extremely expensive from the host country's point of view and the policy of imperialism didn't really make sense economically. It could really only be made sense of from a matter of national pride. I'm sure I could dig up the study if you like, but if you think about the costs of maintaining all those soldiers overseas and facilities it's got to be extremely expensive.

Historically speaking the US has not been anywhere near the level of imperialism when compared to the European powers. We briefly experimented with it as a matter of national policy in the Phillipines in the 1890s but I just don't recall America having the desire or stomach to maintain these colonies. Just to be clear when we're talking about imperialism in the traditional sense we're talking about colonies.

I've read everything you wrote Paul. It's crap. Liberal democracies are sliding into plutocracies and autocracies as we speak. Your view of the US role in international politics seems to be based on the movie Independence Day instead of history, belies any substantive knowledge of its current cultural and social problems and let's not get started on your total lack of knowledge on war (as pointed out by @ssu) or the just war theory.

Historically speaking the US has not been anywhere near the level of imperialism when compared to the European powers. We briefly experimented with it as a matter of national policy in the Phillipines in the 1890s but I just don't recall America having the desire or stomach to maintain these colonies. Just to be clear when we're talking about imperialism in the traditional sense we're talking about colonies. — BitconnectCarlos

Define imperialism. Some political science theories look at the ability to project power over territory which doesn't necessarily mean it has to be part of the sovereign territory of a country.

I've read everything you wrote Paul. It's crap.

You'll need to be specific about which bit you didn't understand. I know it's good stuff because it was good enough to flip a Russian, after months of debate, and much anguish from him as his worldview was shattered.

Our liberal democracies are not ceasing to be democracies. That's a failure to distinguish cars from squirrels. We're not going to get anywhere if you can't recognize a democracy right in front of your nose.

My knowledge of war is fine too.

I took a different path through life, deriving these things from first principles, so you might be confused by the way I express things. But it's all perfectly sound. So long as you accept the axiom that women have the right to not be raped, anyway. If you insist that that is debatable then the rest of what I have derived is also debatable, and we just need to meet each other over the barrel of a gun.

Define imperialism. Some political science theories look at the ability to project power over territory which doesn't necessarily mean it has to be part of the sovereign territory of a country. — Benkei

Yeah, the definition is going to be the contentious point in these kinds of discussions. I would ask these political theorists to define what they mean by "power" - if they're including soft power, then I feel like virtually all decently powerful countries would qualify as "imperialist" under this definition.

If we want democracies to survive, they should be non-capitalist, social democracies. — Benkei

:up: :100:

(Of course, the right seems to increasingly realize the obviousness of this, and are now openly attacking democracy as “mob rule” in opposition to capitalist “liberty”).

Forces of freedom hard at work.

"Canberra, Australia (CNN)Australian elite forces allegedly killed 39 Afghans civilians and prisoners unlawfully in an environment where "blood lust" and "competition killings" were reportedly a norm, according to a long-awaited official report.

...

The Australian Defense Force's (ADF) four-year inquiry into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan alleges that some patrol commanders, who were treated as "demigods," required junior soldiers to shoot prisoners to achieve their first kill, in a process known as "blooding." The report presents what it says is "credible information" that weapons or handheld radios were then sometimes allegedly placed by a body to make it seem like the person had been killed in action."

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/18/australia/australia-afghanistan-war-crimes-report-intl-hnk/index.html

"...the sadistic behavior detailed in Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba’s fifty-three-page classified report, including the sodomizing of a detainee with a chemical light, offers “an unsparing study of collective wrongdoing and the failure of Army leadership at the highest levels.” Those implicated, among them employees of a private military contractor who apparently had no training in the handling of prisoners, claim they were following orders from their superiors, who urged that prisoners be “softened up” in order to extract information."

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/horror-abu-ghraib/
https://fas.org/irp/agency/dod/taguba.pdf

I remember reading a study done that concluded that imperialism was extremely expensive from the host country's point of view and the policy of imperialism didn't really make sense economically. — BitconnectCarlos

I doubt if imperialism (meaning, colonies under the control of the 'mother country') didn't make sense economically. On the one hand, the colonies serve as suppliers of raw material (fiber, ore, wood, foodstuffs, etc.) and on the other hand as a market for finished goods.

Smart imperialists use local forces to control the colony -- like the British did in India. Colonialism is extractive--pulling out wealth from the land and the people. Nice colonialists (I suppose the British qualify) didn't too-crudely shake down their colonies the way bad colonialists did (Belgium would qualify). Sure, there was prestige in having colonies. King Leopold II in Belgium had colony-envy, and felt much improved after he had the Congo colony to screw over. But wealth is the point, not prestige.

I would guess that the initial stage of establishing a colony might not pay off; that seems like a normal investment situation. But in the American colonies, the colonists were expected to begin producing ASAP. And they did. Lumber and tobacco, for instance. England didn't need tobacco but they liked it (as billions have), but they needed a new supply of high quality lumber for ship building and construction. The American colonies didn't make a lot on their own, so they bought a lot of stuff from England.

Soft power is usually not included as far as I know. Mostly military capability or economic influence to direct policy in foreign territories.

Marxists will describe the outgrowth of capitalism as a form of imperialism.

Well, that's murky. I'm not sure where US capitalism begins and ends and EU capitalism does. So I don't think capitalism as such can be an imperialistic force. I do think companies, furthering interests of their home country abroad, can be an instrument for imperialism. Say, by threatening to move an important factory to a third country, to force reduced trade tariffs between that country and the home country.

To build off this, not only did colonies have an ambiguous relationship to the long term economic success of host nations, but many of the most prodigious colonizers fell far behind nations with little to no colonial experience.

Spain and Portugal fell significantly behind the rest of Western Europe despite early colonial expansion, only making up ground with "catch up growth," later. France hit the peak of its cultural, economic, and military dominance vis-a-vis the rest of Europe prior to it's major colonization efforts. The wealthiest, highest functioning European states, the Nordics, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, etc. had fairly limited or no colonial aspirations. Meanwhile, Russia exerted and still exerts control across a huge amount of natural resources in Central Asia, and later held sway over Eastern Europe, and remains a low functioning and poor state.

The classic image of South America, Asia, and Africa dug up, and North America and Europe covered in plunder seems to ignore that economic growth in Europe much more the cause of colonization than vice versa.

Meanwhile, it's arguable that decolonization after WWII was done in part due to moral concerns. Of course said moral concerns blended with security concerns, since there was a strategic element to seeming morally superior to the Soviet Bloc.

The wealthiest, highest functioning European states, the Nordics, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, etc. had fairly limited or no colonial aspirations. Meanwhile, Russia exerted and still exerts control across a huge amount of natural resources in Central Asia, and later held sway over Eastern Europe, and remains a low functioning and poor state. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Those that are the wealthiest now have had to focus on maintaining a competitive export oriented industry. They have to compete on the open global market, not to rest on their laurels and have income from raw materials from the colonies take care of the government finances.

Colonies seem at first to be an economic blessing, but are more of a curse in disguise. First of all, the raw materials give an easy income stream which doesn't go into investment into the colonies, but usually make few people rich. Also the populations of colonies have been a great market for the industry of the colonizer without outside competition. And third, the costs of hanging on to the colonies has been enormous. One regiment living in the barracks of the mainland isn't much, but have that regiment stationed on the other side of the World and costs are totally on another scale. Then fight an insurgency there and the costs are dramatic.

(The real cost of Empire. Notice how high the defence spending is and how large the military is prior to the 1960's.)

(The real cost of Empire. Notice how high the defence spending is and how large the military is prior to the 1960's.) — ssu

x% GDP on military spending doesn't translate too well to its effect on the long term differences in total GDP per capita between colonised and coloniser countries though does it?