The problem with our earlier discussion on colonialization is that we were all acting under the assumption that one is EITHER or NEITHER a colony or a colonialist. There's a third option: A nation can be BOTH a colony and colonialist.
That China leans on Tibet (no saints themselves), Malaysia, parts of Africa, Bangladesh, Vietnam, India, etc, is pretty well documented. Economies are controlled, the working class essentially enslaved, cheap or even fake products dumped on their markets, the works.
On the other hand, a couple of places that AREN'T colonized by China are America and Germany. Quite the opposite, in fact. The bitching that people do about Chinese domination of American markets is laughable: It is the result of US colonizing THEM to the detriment of them AND our own working class. Our fatcats get cheap labor, we get cheap(er) products, they get slave labor, we get no jobs. And we blame the Chinese and/or their government, of course, not our own industrialists or even ourselves. If you shop at WalMart or most of the other box stores, you are DIRECTLY supporting this shit, just for ONE example. Odds are, every stitch of the clothing you are currently wearing was made by Chinese slaves or slaves in Chinese client states.
That is the behavior of a PASSIVE colonialist. If that hurts your feelings, you are cordially invited to observe me not giving a shit.
Now, Germany and America are pulling manufacturing out of China. It's happening slowly, but it's happening. The reason? Well, my company is pulling out because the Chinese are developing an actual middle class, so we can't make them work in hellish conditions for peanuts the way we used to (See: Britain granting independence to India). So what we're doing is planning to cut out the overseer (China), and send the work directly to Bangladesh, etc.
And THAT is the behavior of an ACTIVE colonialist. They are of no further use to us, drop them in the dumpster.
So there you have it. China isn't a good guy being oppressed by the big bad USA, nor are they the boogyman that is trashing the USA's economy. The real principals are sitting on the board of The Gap and Hasbro. Or in your chair, right now.
So, the US never stopped being a colony, we just also became a colonialist?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2012, 07:05:46 PM
So, the US never stopped being a colony, we just also became a colonialist?
No, we stopped being a colony. In fact, there is precisely no reason for an American to bitch, because all of the colonial problems are basically one-way. The issues we have are a direct result of supporting the colonialists in our government and wealthy class. No jobs, cheap shit on the shelves, etc...That's the price of being a colonialist, not a colony.
Burning to death in a tee shirt factory (Bangladesh) because safety issues are available but not even considered is the price of being a colony. Dying because you got fake Cipro while being treated for TB is the price of being a colony. Having all available jobs at the whim of an outside factor that you didn't elect or legislate is the price of being a colony.
Pretty much every successful modern state must be, by definition, colonial. When viewed in a historical perspective.
China is a great example, because the Han Chinese historically did not control the entire landmass of what we call China today. No, they conquered and intermarried and bought and murdered for it.
And the same is true of any existing state: it is built on the back of at least a dozen more dead states, tribes that were conquered, sold into slavery, intermarried with or forbidden from high status due to their ethnic group.
France, after all, was not always France. Gaul was competing tribes, and the name "France" itself comes from its Germanic conquerors, the Frankish. They invaded across the Rhine, subjugated the "French" kingdoms, who were themselves often of Visigothic stock - from the plains near the Danube, as far as anyone can tell.
The Avars trailblazed a route which the Seljurk Turks followed - if somewhat less successfully in terms of geographic reach, out of Central Asia and to conquer new lands in the Middle East and southern Europe.
And to deal with more the substance of your argument, there are class ties between each state in the modern world. Most Americans are in particular loathe to admit this, because it sounds like the sort of thing Karl Marx would say (he did). But it's in many respects true. I know, because my job involves catering to certain elements of the ultra-rich - people who have several mansions, who fly from Frankfurt to London to New York and stay in five-star hotels all the way.
These are the people who let American and German corporations set up in their countries, or own subsidaries of such companies, or make their wealth exploiting their own people for the benefit of such companies. They have about as much in common with the average person in their country as your average Teabagger does with Bill Gates. Meanwhile, I have Chinese and British and Indian and Russian students who all went to school together, all went to University together, all subscribe to more or less the same ideas who then go on to work in the investment banks, the hedge funds, the multinational and defense corporate conglomerates....who has more in common, really?
Quote from: Cain on November 28, 2012, 07:16:13 PM
These are the people who let American and German corporations set up in their countries, or own subsidaries of such companies, or make their wealth exploiting their own people for the benefit of such companies. They have about as much in common with the average person in their country as your average Teabagger does with Bill Gates. Meanwhile, I have Chinese and British and Indian and Russian students who all went to school together, all went to University together, all subscribe to more or less the same ideas who then go on to work in the investment banks, the hedge funds, the multinational and defense corporate conglomerates....who has more in common, really?
Yep. This is the mechanic that allows modern colonialism, which is more properly described as a "client state" or a "captive market". Nobody ever sends colonists, anymore. There's no money in it. Instead, they send fresh-faced young people in $1000 suits bearing contracts and wearing smiles usually seen only in aquariums.
And the mechanic that allows the "backspill" into our markets is the po'bucker that wants his Soma cheap at Walmart, or the middle class assnozzle that wants to see a 20% return on his portfolio. These things are only possible if someone is getting fucked.
Thing is, EVERYONE gets fucked eventually, aside from the people actually DOING it. The po'bucker's out of work (and blaming the Chinese), and the middle class douchebag loses everything due to market manipulation by the same class that got him his illusory returns in the first place.
Net result: Rich Americans prosper, rich Chinese prosper to a slightly lesser degree, Americans get fucked mildly, and Chinese folks take it right up the pooper with sand for lube.
Precisely. "The state" and "the ruling class" and "voters/citizens" need to be considered separate categories for this exact reason.
Because "China steals American jobs" makes no sense, as you rightly point out. "The American Ruling Class" using the vehicle of "the state" make a deal with the "Chinese Ruling Class" which uses the "Chinese state" to extract surplus wealth from Chinese and American "voters and citizens" is a far more accurate, revealing and useful analysis.
Quote from: Cain on November 28, 2012, 07:28:30 PM
Precisely. "The state" and "the ruling class" and "voters/citizens" need to be considered separate categories for this exact reason.
I was trying to get that across in the OP, but couldn't seem to word it properly.
Because "China steals American jobs" makes no sense, as you rightly point out.
Quote"The American Ruling Class" using the vehicle of "the state" make a deal with the "Chinese Ruling Class" which uses the "Chinese state" to extract surplus wealth from Chinese and American "voters and citizens" is a far more accurate, revealing and useful analysis.
Of course, none of that would be possible without the gleeful consent of the fuckees.
Well, one way to distract people from the fact they are being paid less, in real terms, is to flood the market with junk that is even cheaper.
Quote from: Cain on November 28, 2012, 07:46:52 PM
Well, one way to distract people from the fact they are being paid less, in real terms, is to flood the market with junk that is even cheaper.
And that worked here for 30 years. Problem comes when wages and employment are so bad that "cheaper" is still "unaffordable".
I found this very enlightening.
Quote from: American Jackal on November 28, 2012, 08:55:04 PM
I found this very enlightening.
^^^ That. I hadn't put it together quite like that.
Thanks Roger and Cain. I really enjoyed this.
Especially interesting because the American ruling class can exploit the situation that they've created as political talking points. So you get something like, "this guy over here help send American jobs to China!" except you hear very little about actually doing anything to the contrary. I was thinking a bit today about the variety of job that Americans have. I'm a little fuzzy on it now, but it was something along the lines of America doesn't produce much of anything except for consumers, and those consumers are only paid enough to consume rather than to build up wealth.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on November 28, 2012, 10:16:26 PM
Especially interesting because the American ruling class can exploit the situation that they've created as political talking points.
This is because Americans are STUPID and will swallow ANYTHING.
And so is EVERYONE ELSE.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 06:53:33 PM
The problem with our earlier discussion on colonialization is that we were all acting under the assumption that one is EITHER or NEITHER a colony or a colonialist. There's a third option: A nation can be BOTH a colony and colonialist.
That China leans on Tibet (no saints themselves), Malaysia, parts of Africa, Bangladesh, Vietnam, India, etc, is pretty well documented. Economies are controlled, the working class essentially enslaved, cheap or even fake products dumped on their markets, the works.
On the other hand, a couple of places that AREN'T colonized by China are America and Germany. Quite the opposite, in fact. The bitching that people do about Chinese domination of American markets is laughable: It is the result of US colonizing THEM to the detriment of them AND our own working class. Our fatcats get cheap labor, we get cheap(er) products, they get slave labor, we get no jobs. And we blame the Chinese and/or their government, of course, not our own industrialists or even ourselves. If you shop at WalMart or most of the other box stores, you are DIRECTLY supporting this shit, just for ONE example. Odds are, every stitch of the clothing you are currently wearing was made by Chinese slaves or slaves in Chinese client states.
That is the behavior of a PASSIVE colonialist. If that hurts your feelings, you are cordially invited to observe me not giving a shit.
Now, Germany and America are pulling manufacturing out of China. It's happening slowly, but it's happening. The reason? Well, my company is pulling out because the Chinese are developing an actual middle class, so we can't make them work in hellish conditions for peanuts the way we used to (See: Britain granting independence to India). So what we're doing is planning to cut out the overseer (China), and send the work directly to Bangladesh, etc.
And THAT is the behavior of an ACTIVE colonialist. They are of no further use to us, drop them in the dumpster.
So there you have it. China isn't a good guy being oppressed by the big bad USA, nor are they the boogyman that is trashing the USA's economy. The real principals are sitting on the board of The Gap and Hasbro. Or in your chair, right now.
SWEET MERCIFUL FUCK, YES.
Quote from: Cain on November 28, 2012, 07:16:13 PM
Pretty much every successful modern state must be, by definition, colonial. When viewed in a historical perspective.
China is a great example, because the Han Chinese historically did not control the entire landmass of what we call China today. No, they conquered and intermarried and bought and murdered for it.
And the same is true of any existing state: it is built on the back of at least a dozen more dead states, tribes that were conquered, sold into slavery, intermarried with or forbidden from high status due to their ethnic group.
France, after all, was not always France. Gaul was competing tribes, and the name "France" itself comes from its Germanic conquerors, the Frankish. They invaded across the Rhine, subjugated the "French" kingdoms, who were themselves often of Visigothic stock - from the plains near the Danube, as far as anyone can tell.
The Avars trailblazed a route which the Seljurk Turks followed - if somewhat less successfully in terms of geographic reach, out of Central Asia and to conquer new lands in the Middle East and southern Europe.
And to deal with more the substance of your argument, there are class ties between each state in the modern world. Most Americans are in particular loathe to admit this, because it sounds like the sort of thing Karl Marx would say (he did). But it's in many respects true. I know, because my job involves catering to certain elements of the ultra-rich - people who have several mansions, who fly from Frankfurt to London to New York and stay in five-star hotels all the way.
These are the people who let American and German corporations set up in their countries, or own subsidaries of such companies, or make their wealth exploiting their own people for the benefit of such companies. They have about as much in common with the average person in their country as your average Teabagger does with Bill Gates. Meanwhile, I have Chinese and British and Indian and Russian students who all went to school together, all went to University together, all subscribe to more or less the same ideas who then go on to work in the investment banks, the hedge funds, the multinational and defense corporate conglomerates....who has more in common, really?
Annnnnd yep.
This was very helpful, illuminating, etc. :)