Empires vs DemocraciesfareOctober 26 2010, 00:37:30 UTC
Think again. The British didn't create the enmity between Muslims and Hindus. Read a bit about what the Mughals did before, or what the *democratically* elected regimes that followed did after. Whatever evil the British did is dwarfed by that. Religious fanaticism and Democracy together caused the wanton massacre of millions in "peace" time, where the British made massacres of thousands at most, in war time (with notable and sad exceptions).
Arabs vs Israelis - also hard to put this millenar religious conflict on the British, though the Anglo-americans certainly have propped the arabs through their communist foreign affairs department as much as they have propped the jews through their war departments. Mencius Moldbug calls that a proxy war between State and Defense - and that's precisely an artefact of the "democratic" way of ruling through Hegemony over proxy "democratic" regimes rather than directly as an Empire.
A much better argument against the British rule would be millions of dead people due to protectionist mismanagement by the British in times of War and Famine, forbidding the commerce of grain between provinces - in India just like in Ireland. But then you'd have to argue that Empires are inclined to be MORE protectionist than democracies, and that it isn't the democratic component of the British Empire that prolonged such protectionism. I *will* agree though that multiple democracies have over a single Empire the advantage of more competition. But by the same account, multiple "Empires" would have as much competition without the problems of Democracy.
Arabs vs Israelis - also hard to put this millenar religious conflict on the British, though the Anglo-americans certainly have propped the arabs through their communist foreign affairs department as much as they have propped the jews through their war departments. Mencius Moldbug calls that a proxy war between State and Defense - and that's precisely an artefact of the "democratic" way of ruling through Hegemony over proxy "democratic" regimes rather than directly as an Empire.
A much better argument against the British rule would be millions of dead people due to protectionist mismanagement by the British in times of War and Famine, forbidding the commerce of grain between provinces - in India just like in Ireland. But then you'd have to argue that Empires are inclined to be MORE protectionist than democracies, and that it isn't the democratic component of the British Empire that prolonged such protectionism. I *will* agree though that multiple democracies have over a single Empire the advantage of more competition. But by the same account, multiple "Empires" would have as much competition without the problems of Democracy.
Reply
Leave a comment