Comments by "Thabo Muso" (@thabomuso2575) on "Colonialism Wasn't Profitable - How History Works" video.
-
@Croz89 I think that you are nuanced but your description becomes even more fair if we take it a step further. Overall, colonialism was profitable for a long time for most colonial powers, but as you state, it became clearly improfitable when resistance became too strong and too effective. And then there were additional aspects to colonialism aside from the ones that you mention.
For instance, the retention Indian colony, labeled as the crown colony of the British Empire, only became questionable when the Indian resistance movements started striking and resisting by other means and that was in the late 40's. Still, the taxes from British companies operating in India but headquartered in the U.K. still made it profitable to keep the colony for the movement. But the British saw the writing on the wall and gave independence before things got totally out of control.
In general, the British were smart enough to strike a deal with most nationalist movements in their colonies and they managed to maintain direct or indirect control of much of the major assets of its former colonies. As did many other colonial powers.
If you for example read the book "Neo-colonialism" written by Ghana's first president Kwame Nkrumah, you will see that the former colonial powers actually made more money by granting independence to it's colonies. They still largely ccontrolled trade and worked with an indigenous elite to keep control of those countries anyway.
Yes, colonialism was of course mostly an economic question but not only. The French maintained Algeria at a loss, but they fought bloody wars there to keep the colony. Not only for pride and deterrence, but also to protect the 1 million French citizens in that colony. It lost Indochina due to effective resistance from the local populations.
Portugal was bankrupted largelly due to its colonial war against the resitsnce movements in Angola and Mozambique and had its military dictatorship overthrown because of those wars. Still, it fought for the Portugese settlers and hoped that the nationalist movements would eventually get crushed. Belgium reaped huge profits from Congo, but was simply unable to maintain that colony. The story is the same with the Dutch control over Indonesia.
Italy and Germany lost their colonies due to the two world wars. Spain lost its colonies due to independence wars and wars with the U.S.
Aside from the anti-colonialism and free-trade propagation by the U.S. which was important and which you mentioned, the Atlantic Charter created during the second world war and then the U.N. charter stated that all countries and peoples shoul be able to gain independence in the near future. The U.K. was forced to agree to those terms in order to get help from the U.S. There was no apetite for the population in European countries to send their young men into colonialwars and particularly not after having suffered under nazi-colonialization and agressive wars. Also, leftist and liberal anti-colonialist sentiments and anti-war movements were gaining ground across Western Europe. Western European powers could not financially maintain prolonged colonial wars.
Finally, technical developments made Western economies increasingly sophisticated and decreased the benefit of cheap labor in the colonies to maintain overall wealth. It was increased tecnological innovations, increased trade within the Western World, mass education, improved infrastructure, growing trade unions, increased and improved bureauacracies, the developed wewlfare state, lifted nearly all of Western Europe out of poverty. The colonies just like the monarchies and the nobility, had become relics of the past.
6
-
@Croz89 I agree, and we would have to look at the individual circumstances. But perhaps we can also agree that countries in the Western World that have oficially promoted democracy, have had governments that acted in a way detrimental to democracy in other countries. And did so intentionally.
One of the best examples was how the U.S. government and many others propped up the terrible dictator Mobutu. Allegedely for his "stabilizing" impact on Congo and his anti-communist stance. He was a mass murderer who killed millions and robbed his own people of hundreds of billions. His ruthless opression of opposition both curbed communists but also all other democratic movements. But he did so in the financial short-sighted interest of many Western governments at the time. He or somebody else could easily have been forced to develop Congo financially and politically, but the Western powers simply didn't bother. As long as diamonds and other raw materials were cheap through sem-forced labor. And financial developments means increased strenght of labor unions fighting for higher wages. And so many other things that are long-term beneficial for ordinary people both in the former colonies but also in the Western World. But short-term negative for the balance sheets of the corporations and thair aligned politicians in the West.
And for sure and at least in the short run, there are often no other alternative than to work with existing elites, but that will never be enough. And even if we talk about funding, that in my mind does not explain the lack of sufficient effort in democracy building.
For example, while I do NOT regard the U.S. invasion and involvement in Afghanistan as a neo-colonial adventure and it was something that I supported, one of the many things the Americans failed to do was to curb its own corporate interest when the country was occupied. It is a great modern example of what to do and what not to do when occupying a country.
Yes the Americans did many great things fo the country that have largely been overlooked, but it was far from enough. And it was far more costly to maintain a large military footprint in that country. If the Americans and other countries had taken more direct control over much of the civil administration and constructed water pipes and water sanitation and electrical power grids all over the country, with a local workforce, the Taliban would have lost their support instead of winning the war against the Americans.
And all of that would likely have been cheaper even short term than accepting the deep corruption and tribal policies of the country.
The Americans showed with their Marshall plan they are able to do effective nation-building if and when they want to. The British largely managed to maintain their colonies not democratically, but at least in a way that benefited enough colonized people to keep resistance movements at bay. While on the other hand the French and the Belgians and the Dutch, the Portugese and Spaniards mostly plundered and exploited their colonies to such an extent that mass rebellions became inevitable.
3
-
3
-
2
-
@Croz89 yes the term neo-colonialism is surely a thorny term. It is also subjective and political, but overall, I think that it is relevant and correct.
As you say, corporations exerting influence over governments is normal and not wholly bad. Also, that is not really what I am talking about. I am talking about deliberate efforts, often officially declared, of the governments former colonial powers to maintain financial control in their former colonies by financial and often military means.
In general these corporations would never be able to exert control, much less tyrannical control in former colonies if they weren't supported by the former colnial powers in any way conceivable.
As for military interventions, they are likewise done for various reasons. Both financial as well as ideological. They often coincide rather than contradict each other. The U.S. did not wage the Vietnam War due to financial interests in Vietnam. And Vietnam was never really a U.S. colony in the first place. It was mainly a political and ideological war run at a terrible loss. Sure the Americans fought the communists with sincerity but did so with a level of brutality that it drove the Vietnamese people into the arms of the Vietnamese nationalist resistance movement. Both U.S. war veterans from the Vietnam War as well as historians and many others came to that conclusion.
The U.S. also supported the old indigenous Vietnamese elite created by the French. And the U.S. did not make any serious efforts to democratize Vietnam, nor to lift Vietnam out of poverty.
Had it done so, I believe that the U.S. would have won the Vietnam War in the same manner that it won the Korean War. And in the same manner that it turned both Italy, Japan and West Germany into reliable allies.
But all that aside, the U.S. has never really had any formal colonies in the way that European colonial powers had.
2
-
@Croz89 back. Anyway and ironically, I agree that an even longer US military presence was necessary in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but even that would not have been enough. The two countries both have similarities and stark differences.
By and large the US military fought very professionally and gradually corrected itself and its minor military mistakes. The fault lines mostly on fa failed civil administration. German was not turned into a de-nazified democracy by the US military. It played a very limited role in that. What made German strong was the reconstruction of strong civil institutions. Same thing with Japan and largely with Italy. Later on also Greece, Spain and Portugal that were for long times military dictatorships.
Iraq could have been rebuilt a lot quicker and with professional US assistance.
Afghanistan was on the other hand an utterly destroyed and ruined country in 2002. Many good things were done, but they were still far from enough. But I tell you this, if most Afghans had obtained runnig drinking water and electricity, the Taliban would have been a very minor player by now. Without local support in the villages and therefore among the major clans and tribes in Afghanistan, the Taliban could never hide and rectruit and fund itself.
Once the insurrection was dying down, it would have been possible to gradually create a fragile but functioning democracy in Afghanistan.
As for neo-colonialism, I would in the case of the US clearly agree with you that neo-colonialism was not a primary factor in the Vietnam War, in Laos, Cambodia, or during the Korean War or in Afghanistan. Certainly not in the American conquest of Europe during WW2.
The US intervention in Somalia was in my mind a truly utalitarian intervention and it was regretable that the US pulled out after a few dozen casualties. That intervention stopped a humanly induced genocide through starvation of millions, into "only" a few hundred thousand dead. But the cost of a few dead US soldiers was apparently too high.
The US government did great service to humanity, although it came a bit too late, when it assisted the overthrow of the Hutu regime in Rwanda during the genocide there. The US also did a great humanitarian job, although again a bit too late, when it intervened in former Yugoslavia.
And there are other great examples of US military interventions.
The US never had colonies there in the first place and those wars were certainly not waged for financial benefit of the U.S. Quite to the contrary. There are however other examples for the US that are more appropriate as fo example the US war against the Phillipine insurrectionists, or the so-called "Banana Wars" in Central America and so on.
The U.S. benefited greatly in the manner it intervened in Congo and many other places and neo-colonialism is more relevant there. Totally aside the presence of a few scattered communist rebels. It acted mostly for financial benefit there. US troops were not put on the ground, although the CIA funded and backed the military regime in Congo.
Perhaps neo-colonialism becomes a far more relevant term when we speak of actualy official former colonial empires as the ones described in this Youtube video?
2
-
@Croz89 well yes the U.S., if we at least speak of the country with all of its people, often worked against its own interest. But I think that it was about more than short-sightedness and mistakes. Many U.S. administrations did indeed work in the interest of the corporate allies in a way that benefited those corporations, but were detrimental to the U.S. population and of course for the local populations.
Again, the U.S. didn't only work with Mobutu as the lesser of two evils. It worked with him because it benefited their direct financial interests. Congo's first president Lumumba wished to cooperate with the American governments, but he also wanted to create a strong and independent Congo and an increased standard of living for its population. How to achieve that? Well it required many measures but one of them was certainly to control their own resources and to get better paid for the raw materials that it was exporting. And that went directly against the interest of the major corporations. So Mobutu was chosen instead and he had Lumumba murdered.
As for the Marshall Plan and U.S. involvement in Western Europe, despite some notable mistakes and immoral behavior, the U.S. mostly played and extremly positive and important role in securing democracy and prosperity for Western Europe.
Yes, it cost a lot of money but those expenses were moderate and decreased as Western Europe recovered over time. The unprecedented economic boom in America after WW2 would not have been possible without Western Europe as an export market. So it was more of a great investment that still keeps paying itself off up until this day.
And this comes down to your last sentences. I agree with your assessment of how U.S. governments are largely thinking, but I think that they have often been in error at least when it comes to countries outside of Europe. Rebuilding Afghanistan for example would take at least a decade longer, but the costs were still very small compared to the Marshall Plan and the U.S. is ten times richer than it was in 1945.
But also, we may focus a bit too much on the U.S. and that is my fault since I was the one to first bring up that country as an example. My main point is that neo-colonialism can in most cases be correctly identified. Just like predatory lending can in most cases be correctly identified and separated from ordinary money lending.
Neo-colonialism in our world is far more lucrative and easy to maintain than direct colonialism. It is also more politically sustainable. Still, had it not been for the Atlantic Charter and the UN Charter, both created by U.S. administrations, we would have seen a prolongation of overt colonialism and bloody wars of liberation. The Western colonial empires largely gave up their colonies because they were forced to, even if it was actually for their own good.
1
-
@Croz89 in all fairness the corporate interests and ideological motives worked hand in hand.
And as for nationalization, that is only one option for an independent country. And everything need not be in black and white.
U.S. corporations could and should be involved in a country where the U.S. is engaging militarily, but often not to the extent that they have and certainly not to the extent that it smothers local business and instantly puts lots of people out of jobs. It gets even worse when local workers are replaced by contract- and migrant workers.
This was for example what happened in Iraq about a year after the overthrow of the Baath regime. It threw hundreds of thousands of people out of jobs. Well functioning state entrepresises were privatized and sold to mostly U.S. corporations and other western nations. These privatized companies were also often operating at a higher cost for its customers. And large parts of the workforce was replaced by overseas workforce.
It effectively drew a large part of the Iraqi population straight into the hands of the insurgents. The main motive was greed by the corporations that were politically and militarily backed by the U.S. government.
Now when it comes to underdeveloped countries, control of its main resources can mean anything from nationalization, private but national ownership, or co-ownership.
That has never been communist and never will be. The U.S. federal and state governments have similar systems. A shortened list of U.S. wholly or partially owned companies will serve as one example:
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC, Export-Import Bank of the United States, Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, Farm Credit Banks, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Federal Financing Bank (FFB,Federal Home Loan Banks, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), The Financing Corporation Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae, National Cooperative Bank, National Credit Union Administration Central Liquidity Facility (CLF), National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Securities Investor Protection Corporation, United States Postal Service.
Sweden that has never been communist, owns nearly all of its iron mines through the corporation LKAB.
The German federal government created toe Volkswagen Corporation and still owns 20% of its shares.
British Petroleum which was heavily engaged in colonial policies across the Middle East, was government owned until 1987.
Norway is a fully flegded democratic country that resents communism, has a working market economy and and expansive welfare state, with its oil industry owned and run by the government.
And so on.
My argument is that when the U.S. has involved itself in many military conflicts it has allowed itself to preach one kind of economic policy abroad while practicing another one at home. And the fight against communism or for that matter the Taliban or Al Quaeda or the Baath party was used as an excuse for private confiscation with a worse service, fewer jobs and higher prices for local customers, while enriching the stock holders of its own financial elite.
But if we go back to your political assessments about the willingness to spend larger amounts of money abroad on beneficiary projects, I totally agree that there is much less apetite for such policies, fo various reasons. However, there need not be any equivalent to the Marshall Plan in todays world. At least not in my opinion.
Policies that improves peoples lives are the best way to stability and that can actually be done quite quickly and with means cheaper than heavy military engagement. Cheaper both in money and human lives.
One crucial price one has to pay is to keep the greed and control of the greed of major corporations and put limits to their drive to enrich themselves on the expense of everybody else.
1
-
@Croz89 yes. I can buy your explanation to a large extent, but not entirely.
I think that we must also take into account the influence of major corporations on US policymaking. Their greed does get in the way. And that is of course not an American problem, but a global problem.
Communism posed no threat in Afghanistan in 2002. The world community by and large supported US invervention in the country and so did most of the Afghan population.
But still so many things got messed up because despite all of the good things the US government did (to name a few, organize the clearing of most mines in the country, vaccination of all children, putting most children into school etc.), resources and time was wasted in a quite flawed nation-building that was crucial.
And don't get me wrong, the US is certainly not the worst culprit in mismanagement largely based by ideological rigidity. If anti-communist sentiment went too far within U.S. administrations, the the communist purges of Stalin, Mao and the Khmer Rouge were a hundred times worse. As a matter of fact those examples can I think be better explained by fanatical amateurs imposing a regime and ruining everything through shere ideological stupidity.
But when it comes to raw capitalist interest, they make a lot more sense and they would be prevalent without the existence of communism. Greed and major financial interests existed thousands of years prior to communism and exists today when communism is disappearing.
1
-
@Croz89 we seem to draw quite analyses of the conflict areas that we are talking about. And for sure communism always played a part during the Cold War but arguably not now and US policies are still very similar in many ways.
To be clear, I never questioned the imporance of a US military presence in the countries that we are talking about. Quite to the contrary. I am still saying that it was not enough and at some times the military even acted contradictory to US interests.
If I may be bold to suggest a few books for you in case you haven't read them already, is the previously mentioned book "Neo-colonialism" by Kwame Nkrumah. It puts US interests and US corporations into the mix but largely focus on the behavior of the former European colonial powers. There were strong anti-communist sentiments in those countries as well but their behavior was still and often openly stated to preserve as much of their interests. mostly financial, in their former colonies.
They would have acted the same way with or without the existence of communism. It shows the power and political influence of various global corporations. I am not talking about the occasional major company that lobbies and gets some contracts or what ever.
If you think about the East India Company, De Beers and the Rhodes Corporation that were all created during and through colonialism, you will see that many present companies act in exactly the same manner today and during the Cold War.
Corporate interference was never only an unfortunate side show. It is often a major factor in foreign policy and war.
And yes the domino theory. It was a theory that turned out to be true in some cases and false in other cases. So it must of course as you imply be taken into account.
I therefore recommend the book "the Shock-doctrine" written by Naomi Klein. Althoug political just as Nkrumah's book, it still goes into painstaking detail referring to statistics, quotes, persons, describing how the corporations successfully worked to influence governments and exploited countries. Both in times of war and peace. Both with dictatorships and formal democracies. And how their leaders often moved between the corporate and political world. I am sure that there are many other good books on the topic but this one is a classic.
As for Afghanistan which is a country that I learned quite a deal about since I worked as an asylum attorney for several hundreds of Afghans and I visited the country once, plus had a client who became a close friend live in my apartment for a year. For sure the US military needed to stay there longer, but there would not be a need for a large scale military presence or war all across that country. Infrastructure would take time to build due to the factors that you mention and also because the country is so destroyed. Still, the US could have done so much more with the available resources for construction if they had managed it better.
You can read various repors from both US military and civil authorities coming to the same conclusions. From what I saw in Afghanistan, both the Chinese, the germans and Japanese to mention a few examples, could likely have fixed ten times more if they had been in charge of the reconstruction of Afghanistan or Iraw for that matter.
The Americans were great at fighting the war, but quite poor even with good intentions, to win the peace.
1
-
@Croz89 most of the litteral works and arguably those who have had most impact are biased in one for or another. That goes for Plato's dialogues, Adam Smiths laissez-faires economics in "The Wealth of Nations", to the policies prosribed by Manyard Keynes, or the political framework of Marx in his "Communist Manifesto", Hitler in "Mein Kampf" and Mussolini's autobiography. I read them.
The fact that they have questionable and often even despicable agendas doesn't mean that they are wrong in all of their factual statements. Sometimes the very contrary can be true.
The proto-US nationalists who argued for independence of the thirteen colonies from Great Britain were biased. That didn't make their analysis of how they were financially and politically exploited by the British invalid. And the fact that the British subjects in the thirteen colonies overall paid lower taxes, or the argument that they should arguably help to pay for the war against France, the right to representation invalid.
While Nkrumah made clear that he was writing to propagate financial and political independence for colonized and former colonized nations, what struck me was his detailed description of the impact of major corporations in global politics.
Naomi Klein attacks the economic policies presribed by late professor Milton Friedman as the main explanation for the power of global corporations. I think that she is dead wrong in her analysis. I also think that those corporations would largely have the same power and impact without the existence of Friedmans economic policies.
But again as for her research about financial statistics and how she records events and why they occurred, she relies on meticulously assembled and noted sources.
As a comparison far earlier in history, you could look at Caesar's conquest of Gaul. Politically, he performed that dangerous and risky conquest. It among many things resulted in about 30% of all Gauls being enslaved and about 30% killed.
He had motives of fame and glory, but more practically, he used the conquest to pay back the huge loans that he had taken in order to bribe himself to important offices and for the expenses of the Colloseum. Caesar was like a majority of the most powerful Roman politicians, also one of the main business players, or backed by the main business players such as slavers, and the equivalent to the military industrial complex and money lenders (bankers).
And yes the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan were waged at a financial loss for the U.S. That is undisputable. In those cases I was rather talking about how what one might call war profiteers benefited greatly from the wars. The invasion of Afghanistan was more or less inevitable in my mind and also very necessary. The invasion of Iraq is quite a different story but not done for financial reasons.
Oh and as for my opinion (not a factual statement) that other countries might have done better in rebuilding Afghanistan. They were largely in the US shoes. Most of them except Japan had troops on the ground. They waged war. And they did civilian projects. Lots of them. But in general a lot better managed. I think they would have performed a lot better in Afghanistan for the same reason as for why in general civilian management is better within those same countries compared to the US.
1