[ngc248]

The west basically "developed" by exploiting/colonizing resources from the 3rd world countries. The west basically pulled the ladder once it climbed up. Now you are wondering why the 3rd world countries can't develop their own vaccines.

[xyzzyz]

Comparing how poor South Korea was in 1950 vs how wealthy it is now, can you tell me which 3rd world country it exploited to achieve this wealth?

[Zircom]

Here's a few articles about them exploiting Asian migrant workers. They're both from this year, I can't imagine that the conditions have gotten better over 80 years. Not to mention that with the current state of market globalization, one could argue that simply by participating in international commerce your benefiting from some group being exploited somewhere in the global supply chain.

And as an aside, modern capitalism as it stands right now almost necessitates some group be exploited in order to produce cheap labor/goods for consumption for another wealthier group, and the exploited group is most often a poorer country and the goods/labor are then imported. You're not gonna get very far paying your workforce a living wage to produce things that people making that same living wage need to buy, not with the percentage of profit modern owners/shareholders take right off the top.

https://www.firstpost.com/world/in-south-korea-asian-migrant...

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1001194446/as-workforce-ages-...

[fastball]

One group being wealthier than another group does not automatically make interactions between those two groups "exploitation" / if that is the definition of exploitation that you're using it is practically meaningless.

[Zircom]

You could try reading the articles I posted for some examples of what I consider modern exploitation. Terrible working/living conditions, paying less than minimum wage, etc, and they get away with it because the exploited lack the resources to fight for their own rights, and general apathy of the rest of their society that enjoys the cheap goods/labor the exploited produce ensures that no one else is incentivized to stand up for them.

edit: And that's just more modern examples exploitation, Western society didn't suddenly spring forth into existence in it's current state of being. If you wanna talk about how exactly Western society reached its current level of wealth and privilege I'm more than happy to talk about that as well.

[fastball]

I was mostly responding to this:

> And as an aside, modern capitalism as it stands right now almost necessitates some group be exploited in order to produce cheap labor/goods for consumption for another wealthier group, and the exploited group is most often a poorer country and the goods/labor are then imported.

Which certainly does not follow from the articles you linked.

[ngc248]

Yours is a strawman argument. I was talking specifically and also have mentioned the west as colonizers.

Moreover if we are talking about South korea, they have benefited from US backing.

"International relations between South Korea and the United States commenced in 1950, when the United States helped establish the modern state of South Korea, also known as the Republic of Korea, and fought on its UN-sponsored side in the Korean war" [0]

Of course they are fully developed now and may not depend on US backing. Even Japan after WW2 was helped by the US in reconstruction [1]

So in essence unless one of the "developed" countries helps you get a head start, you either develop slowly or not at all. Since all the tech and trade agreements are controlled by the established dominant players

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea%E2%80%93United_Sta... [1] - https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/japan-reconst...

[xyzzyz]

Can you explain to me what this “head start” consisted of, exactly?

[fastball]

How did the West colonize 3rd world countries if they weren't already more developed?

[ngc248]

The "3rd world countries" resources were plundered and utilized for the development of the colonizers. The "3rd world countries" if left with their resources would have traded what they had and become "developed"

Seriously, people are in colonialism denial now?

[xyzzyz]

No, colonialism very much happened, it’s just the impact of colonialism on colonizers was much smaller than on the colonized.

All of the colonizer countries were much wealthier and technologically advanced before they started colonizing. The disparities were already enormous in 1500, before much of colonization happened. English, Dutch and Spanish became colonizers because they were more developed, not the other way around.

The “plunderers” had way more resources than the “plundered”: look at the trade volumes between England and its Indian colonies, and compare them with the volumes of domestic production in England: the latter has always been orders magnitude bigger than the former. It’s even more lopsided with African colonies.

Next, the little that the colonizers got out of the colonies were not “treasures” that were “plundered”, hindering development by victims of colonization. Spanish got a lot of silver from Argentina, but the silver was basically worthless to the natives, and had they kept all of it, they could’ve made more plates and jewelry, which in no way could have made them richer and more developed. In fact, metal oriented policy of Spain probably was detrimental to them too. But, if not the Spanish, the indigenous would not have worked Potosi mines anyway, so it’s moot. Most of physical resources that colonizers removed from colonies were like that: of what value are minerals in the ground, if the natives cannot extract them or make use of them?

Most of the actual use of colonies was cultivation of land and exploitation of human labor, often forced. These were overwhelmingly seriously underutilized by the natives. It should not need to be said, but knowing how obstinate some people are here, I’ll say it anyway: this underutilization in no way justifies colonization. Rather, the point is that the colonizers did not “plunder” land from colonies (because you can’t carry it away), and the amount of labor exploited was in almost all cases very small relative to the total workforce of the natives.

Finally, there are many countries that successfully developed without serious colonization effort. Consider Germany: it had some colonies, but only got them in late 1800s, and only keep them for three decades. It would be ridiculous to argue that Germany is now rich and developed thanks to these three crucial decades 1890-1920, when they held some colonies in Africa. In fact, they not only did not get wealthy by exploiting these, but most likely it was a net loss to them, considering the expense required to set them up.

All of this is not meant to excuse or justify colonization. Clearly, conquering and subjugating other nations by military force is wrong, according to our today’s moral standards. The point here is that the idea that it was the colonies that allowed some nations to become wealthy and developed, is simply wrong, and betrays lack of familiarity with economic history of the world.

[aiProgMach]

I hope you're trolling. This would have been a Masterpiece of trolling actually, except that it touches a sensitive topic that's literally about the death and lives of billions of people in the last 500 year of western colonialism, and about one of the most barbaric genocide in the history of humankind.

[fastball]

What part do you think is a troll? It's a fairly accurate representation of events.

[OneTimePetes]

reply at @xyzzyz

It exploited the "we have nice capitalism"-wall build against socialism. Basically all along the border, there was a gradient to be exploited for starting up. I assume alot of players near china are waiting for the same sort of ladder to climb up on, once the 2nd cold war starts.

[Zircom]

I don't know why you're being downvoted, as far as your first claim people need to open a history book.

[ngc248]

Yes, people really need to read history. The statement upthread, "Why can't they build vaccines of their own?" sounds akin to "Whey can't they eat cake, if they can't have bread".

Even if they build vaccines, it is not held to the same standard, for ex: India's covaxin was not being accepted for travel to western countries. The dominant players set all the rules.

Unless we understand why/how we are in this situation, we will keep on making the same mistakes again and again