Comment by blackhawkC17
12 days ago
Industrialization is what brought prosperity to the masses.
Colonialism and slavery benefited the reigning elite, but the average person almost didn’t see any benefit.
Unfortunately that won’t stop people from lying that slavery is the foundation of wealthy western democracies.
Brazil had 10x more slaves than the USA [1]. They would have been the richest country in Latin America per capita if slavery was the foundation of rich modern democracies, but that’s far from the case
I say this as a Nigerian whose country was colonized by the British.
1- https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/comparative-histori....
Alexis de Tocqueville noted in the 1840s that slave-holding America was much poorer than non-slave-holding America, and why, and it's not the climate because there were cases where simply crossing a river border was crossing from wealth to poverty. Slavery absolutely did not benefit the masters, except in so far as it helped them feel better about themselves. "I'm better than you" is a human instinct that continues unabated to this day -- many absolutely adore that feeling as if it was a mind-altering drug hit.
> Alexis de Tocqueville noted in the 1840s that slave-holding America was much poorer than non-slave-holding America
That's because the north, in particular new england, started industrializing in the late 1700s. While the south, due to a variety reasons, didn't.
> Slavery absolutely did not benefit the masters
If it didn't, the civil war wouldn't have happened. The wealthy elite who owned slaves benefited immensely. Just visit a plantation turned historical museum in the south. Most southerners didn't own slaves.
> "I'm better than you" is a human instinct that continues unabated to this day -- many absolutely adore that feeling as if it was a mind-altering drug hit.
Indeed.
Yup. It's important to note that while slavery was bad economically for the South as a whole, it was certainly good for the tiny minority of rich white elite.
Interestingly enough, a virulent white supremacist at the time [1] pointed this out, and the South banned his book. He hated black people, but at the same time made the economic analysis that slavery was a tool for white elite to oppress not just black people but also poor white people. He wanted to end slavery not to benefit blacks (he wanted to build a railroad to send black people to South America), but to benefit poorer whites.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinton_Rowan_Helper
3 replies →
> That's because the north, in particular new england, started industrializing in the late 1700s. While the south, due to a variety reasons, didn't.
Among those reasons was this: that slavery made the capitalists in the South lazy.
> > Slavery absolutely did not benefit the masters
> If it didn't, the civil war wouldn't have happened. The wealthy elite who owned slaves benefited immensely. Just visit a plantation turned historical museum in the south. Most southerners didn't own slaves.
It's a matter of perception: the masters didn't perceive that industrializing would have benefited them much more than slavery ever could, nor did they perceive that slavery held them back. So of course they saw abolition as a threat to their status.
Industrialization relied heavily upon raw materials generated cheaply with slavery - cotton picked in the American South was exported and was a necessity to fuel the industrialization of textile production in England, for example. There is a reason that industrializing and industrialized countries that relied on slavery and other exploitative economic relationships have achieved greater wealth than more newly industrializing countries have. America's wealth is largely supported by cheap labor and raw materials in other countries, opened up for the use of international corporations by state-sponsored violence - see America's history of interfering in South American politics or Chiquita's recent guilty verdict for sponsoring paramilitary forces in Colombia.
It is not true that "cotton . . . was a necessity to fuel the industrialization of textile production in England".
England produced so much wool that it exported most of it (to other European countries). Flax was also very common.
Factories full of steam-powered machines were going to replace the existing arrangement in which most households on farms and in villages manually spun their own yarn and wove their own cloth with or without access to cheap cotton.
> Industrialization is what brought prosperity to the masses.
workers organization did. Early industries were mostly run like slaveshops and the only reason we didn't end up in that world was that the reigning elite needed someone to manage the colonies and thus needed some people educated a bit more (which then also went into industry too) - which turned out problematic.
> They would have been the richest country in Latin America per capita
Oh, the former slave-owners for sure are. Likely too in Nigeria if you know how to look.
> Oh, the former slave-owners for sure are. Likely too, in Nigeria if you know how to look.
Probably, which supports my case that slavery benefited a tiny set of slaveowners but not the average citizen.
Only a few years ago did I learn through an economic historian, that throughout Dutch colonial rule, the entirety of that activity has been a loss, not a gain, to the Dutch state and thus the Dutch citizen (it is evident it was a loss for those enslaved in the process). All it did was make _some_ people _very_ rich, who in turn managed to convince everyone it was all worth the while.
The real money, also for the state, was made through trade with the Baltic area, during the Dutch Golden Age. Not trade with the Indies.
> Industrialization is what brought prosperity to the masses.
Industrialization brought prosperity to the elites, just like colonialism and slavery did. You act like the poor masses were the biggest beneficiaries of industrialization. Most of the benefits of industrializations has gone to the elites. Just like colonialism and slavery.
> Colonialism and slavery benefited the reigning elite, but the average person almost didn’t see any benefit.
Simply false. Tens of millions of europeans crowded in the smallest continent on earth were able to migrate to other parts of the world and gain land ( which is one of the primary sources of wealth ). And the ability to offload excess population allowed european elite to invest in production rather than waste resources on their excess population. A win-win situation.
> Unfortunately that won’t stop people from lying that slavery is the foundation of wealthy western democracies.
Slavery and colonialism were the foundations of industrialization. Industrializaton requires two things - excess capital and excess resources. How do you think europe was able to procure excess capital and resources?
> Brazil had 10x more slaves than the USA [1]. They would have been the richest country in Latin America per capita if slavery was the foundation of rich modern democracies, but that’s far from the case
And one of the most industrialized nations ( North Korea ) is one of the poorest in the world. What's your point? Brazil ended slavery in the 1800s and industrialized. It still isn't 'one of the richest in Latin America per capita'? Obviously you need something more than industrialization. Like political safety and stability and competent leadership.
You seem to think people are saying you need slavery and colonialism to industrialize. That's not the case. The point is that europe industrialized due to slavery and colonialism.
It remarkable how many here watch silly youtube videos to get their understanding of history and economics.
> Most of the benefits of industrializations has gone to the elites. Just like colonialism and slavery.
The average individual is much better off economically and has a higher quality of life in an industrialized economy than one built on slavery.
I’m not arguing that slavery was good, but that it was orthogonal to industrialization. Virtually all countries practiced slavery at some point, but most didn’t industrialize.
Industrialization began with Britain running out of firewood and switching to coal as an alternative energy source. Steam engines were fine tuned to pump water out of coal mines, and people gradually began using steam engines to power other things, kickstarting the revolution.
My point is that Europe would have industrialized with or without slavery.
Thanks for picking North Korea as an example…a country where 43.5% works in agriculture and only a mere 14% in industry [1], compared to the much richer South Korea where only 5% work in agriculture [2]. It remains obvious that any economy built mainly on manual labor (slavery included) will be as mediocre as North Korea’s.
1-https://globaledge.msu.edu/countries/north-korea/economy
2- https://globaledge.msu.edu/countries/south-korea/economy
I understand your point, but not sure I would accuse those that misinterpret these things of lying. Many people are educated enough to know that the massive explosion in human advancement was heavily fueled by exploitation of some kind. They simply don't understand exactly what those exploitations are and the resulting effects they've had.