Comments by "And Rei" (@AndRei-yc3ti) on "Premodernist" channel.

@8is unlike Spain which (like you fairly mentioned) had never ending amounts of gold it was bringing from its colonies - Britain had a whole lot of coal and did not have gold it could easily bring from its colonies. Instead it brought over tons of resources and in order to compete with the Spanish and other European powers it was forced to industrialize. Ironically rivers of gold was the downfall of the Spanish but without coal and resources Britain would never have had a industrial revolution.
7
@8is on December 2nd an article came out in Al Jazeera titled "How British Colonial Policy Killed 100 million Indians". In this article it states, "Britain taxed the Indian population and then used the revenue to buy Indian products - indigo, cotton, grain and opium - thus obtaining these goods for free. These goods were either consumed within Britain or re-exported abroad, with the revenues pocketed by the British State and used to finance industrial development of Britian and its settler colonies - the United States, Canada and Australia". This only confirms what I said that Britain developed from plundering the wealth and resources from its colonies. Without its colonies Britain would be nothing.
5
@8is no. The reason Britain industrialized first was 1) colonies overseas bringing it enormous wealth and 2) the discovery of extensive coal deposits in northumbria that gave them access to almost unlimited energy
4
@8is Industrialization in Britain started at the beginning of the 18th century. Capitalism has a rather simple definition - accumulation of wealth and the neans of production in private hands. This was already true for centuries with Venetian traders and the Dutch banking/money lending system. The point is this - Britain is in no way unique or different from other countries outside historical accident that led it to avoid accumulating too much gold as Spain did and its unqiue geographic position and resources available to it launched industrialization as it was able to produce surplus goods at the expense of its colonies
4
@8is indeed capitalism can be said to go as far back as the Athenian Empire as the means of production (slaves) was held in private hands. Indeed, even in feudal europe the means of production was held either in merchant or aristocratic hands. In Britain this system began to expand but it was a natural consequence of the wealth and resources that was flowing into the country from the colonies and the necessity of competition with other European powers (as no single power dominated the continent like in Roman times for example) - this system was not created in vacuum
3
@Zandaroos Historians estimate that Britain looted the equivalent of $1 trillion from India alone. There was also China, and extensive American colonies driving British industrialization. You really think that money was not invested into industrialization and the "head staet" that Britain had? Also its quite easy to explain Scandinavian industrialization - it happened on the back of oil and was relatively easy to accomplish given their small population and easy access to trade with the British and Europe as a whole. Egypt was actually on the brink of industrialization, but it lacked the necessary resources for that and the Ottomans had already fallend behind technologically and where not interested in technological innovation due to tradition - they felt that they didnt need to compete. Plus like the Spanish the resources they had actually hindered their industrialization as it made them complacent.
3
@8is capitalism had already existed at that time and was entirely controlled by venice as it made enormous amounts of cash through tariffs on goods passing through the mediterrenean. Even after the defeat of the Spanish armada the English navy was weaker than that of spain.
2
@jeangold8789 society needs to fuel the seeds of heroism to fuel the re-emergence of the Aristocrats of the Soul
2
@jeangold8789 heroism is usually a quality of the soul, a revolt against the modern, material world
2
@jeangold8789 we are living in the age of kali yuga after all...
2
@8is the industrialization of scandinavia without new world colonies (though thats debatable) does not prove that britain industrialized without looting resources from its colonies that were necessary to finance the industrialization (primairly china and india). Indeed, if this were the case there would have been no need for a British Empire or a necessity for further expansion
2
@8is lol theres no way you can say the colonies gave them nothing" when Chinese opium trade provided the silver and cash flow that bankrolled industrialization in britain lol. Agricultural reforms were not unique to britain and did little to kick start industrialization on their own without easy access to coal, finance from china and resources from the colonies. Theres a reason why almost every other european country rushed to obtain colonies in Africa, Carribbean and elsewhere
2
@8is britain and social mobility? Lol you serious? Capitalist classes existed in every society since the Athenian empire. We talked abt this
2
@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl feudalism was a system in which aristocrats held lands given to them by the Crown in return for military service while peasants were obliged to work the land and feed the Lord in exchange for his protection. Private control of capital had already existed in those times (see Venice and the numerous Italian States). I dont see how you don't see a difference between capitalism and feudalism
1
@8is i never said Britain didnt grow anything - I said that agriculture reform alone does nothing to allow for industrialization - indeed agricultural sector was more powerful in Germany and Russia than in Britain. And theres nothing unique about British culture lol
1
@lewis5384 nah. Just stating historical fact. Its okay though, no need to cope.
1