Why did the modern left decide go from workers rights to SJW concerns?

Mar 2011
5,047
Brazil
Agree... however this is "an accident of history and geography"... if the right resources (coal, iron) had been conveniently concentrated in an easily accessible and populated place in China for example, then the industrial revolution might have happened in China... with that and its vastly more numerous population, it would have been quite interesting what chinese imperialism might have achieved

So the difference I think is not in intent but in capability... europeans through good fortune and resources found themselves with more capability than others..
There is plenty of coal and iron in China, since China is currently by far the world's largest producer of both.

The industrial revolution happened in Europe because of institutional competition: Europe was divided into many different states and each state competed with the others which gave rise to the development of new institutions. These new institutions allowed an acceleration of economic growth to modern levels, which is what historians call the "industrial revolution". The main role of geography was actually in promoting institutional competition: Europe is naturally harder to unify politically compared to China and so it tends to be naturally more fragmented into many states. By the way, that is the general opinion among serious economic historians: that domestic institutional progress lead to economic progress. Douglas North won the nobel prize in economics for pointing that out.

China, by contrast, was always either unified as one empire or during small periods of time, divided into a small set of empires. Therefore, there was no institutional competition and so China stagnated in economic and technological terms. Actually, in many ways China declined: the latest estimates of historical levels of Chinese GDP per capita show that it peaked in the 11th century and was about half of it's peak level in the 19th century while European GDP per capita levels multiplied several times over the same period.

The same applied to periods in Western history when the West was unified such as the Roman Empire: it was not a coincidence that after Rome unified the ancient western world, economic and technological progress stopped. Only after Rome fell and many different states emerged (in particular, the 300 Italian city states such as Venice and Genoa, which were the driving force of the renaissance) that economic and technological progress resumed.

The Western expansion was also the product of this progress and institutional competition: since states competed in developing military technologies and organization techniques with each other their territory was very hard to conquer, since states have a natural tendency to expand their territories they conquered lands outside of Europe since it was easier.

For example, it was much easier for Spain to conquer indigenous peoples in central and south America than for Spain to conquer other European countries like France.

Finally, Chinese territorial expansion was actually very impressive: in the 16th century Ming China looked like this:


After 250 years, Qing China looked liked this:


Qing China covered a territory of 13.1 million square kilometers by the late 18th century, that's 50% larger than the US today and many times larger than China's proper which is a territory of only about 2.5 million square kilometers.

Clearly, a case of massive territorial expansion: China's territory increased by several times over 250 years while European powers were also expanding.

European territory increased by a similar speed from 1500 to 1800: from Europe to colonies in the Americas, Africa and Asia, the territory controlled by states of European origin multiplied by a factor of about 3-4.

Concluding, I don't think there is anything particularly special about European imperialism from 1500 to 1914 besides it's unprecedented scale. Ancient Greek city states for instance also used sea power to found colonies and to project power far from their local territories while Alexander's conquests and the Hellenization of the Middle East that followed then was also similar to the Europeanization of the world over the past 500 years.
 
Last edited:

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,227
There is plenty of coal and iron in China, since China is currently by far the world's largest producer of both.

.
No, Australia is the largest producer of iron ore by far

Unlike in Europe they are not both concentrated in easily accessible places with large population centers (e.g. the Ruhr)....

Its not competition that drove the industrial revolution in Europe... the industrial revolution happened precisely where there were large amounts of coal and iron (in a relatively small area)..... there is a reason why Britain, Germany and France (and not for example Poland or Italy or Spain) got the best of it... that's were most of that easily accessible coal and iron was.....
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,351
Florania
No, Australia is the largest producer of iron ore by far

Unlike in Europe they are not both concentrated in easily accessible places with large population centers (e.g. the Ruhr)....

Its not competition that drove the industrial revolution in Europe... the industrial revolution happened precisely where there were large amounts of coal and iron (in a relatively small area)..... there is a reason why Britain, Germany and France (and not for example Poland or Italy or Spain) got the best of it... that's were most of that easily accessible coal and iron was.....
China is the largest producer of steel today, there are hardly any debates about it.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,227
Ironically SJWs have their own share of rapists

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/30/uk/sexual-abuse-aid-sector-uk-report-intl/index.html

Sexual abuse of vulnerable women and girls by international aid workers is "endemic" and has been happening for years, with perpetrators easily moving around the sector undetected, according to a damning UK government report published Tuesday.

Meanwhile, with the Syrian civil war in its eighth year, sexual exploitation and abuse by aid workers were "an entrenched feature" in the lives of women and girls there, particularly at aid distribution centers, the report said, citing a study by the UNFPA.
Perpetrators around the world hailed from a broad range of jobs, ranging from guards to drivers and senior managers. They were a mix of local, national and international personnel, the inquiry found.
 
Dec 2015
2,512
USA
Ironically SJWs have their own share of rapists

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/30/uk/sexual-abuse-aid-sector-uk-report-intl/index.html

Sexual abuse of vulnerable women and girls by international aid workers is "endemic" and has been happening for years, with perpetrators easily moving around the sector undetected, according to a damning UK government report published Tuesday.

Meanwhile, with the Syrian civil war in its eighth year, sexual exploitation and abuse by aid workers were "an entrenched feature" in the lives of women and girls there, particularly at aid distribution centers, the report said, citing a study by the UNFPA.
Perpetrators around the world hailed from a broad range of jobs, ranging from guards to drivers and senior managers. They were a mix of local, national and international personnel, the inquiry found.
How is this an SJW thing? Aid workers and volunteers, as well as missionaries and soldiers, have been using these services in dangerous situations to take advantage of people for decades, if not centuries. That's well before the whole SJW movement.

If anything SJWs are the ones trying to stop the sexual exploitation to begin with.
 

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,770
At present SD, USA
Agree... however this is "an accident of history and geography"... if the right resources (coal, iron) had been conveniently concentrated in an easily accessible and populated place in China for example, then the industrial revolution might have happened in China... with that and its vastly more numerous population, it would have been quite interesting what chinese imperialism might have achieved.
Agreed... to I'd still think with China's case that there was also an odd level of "intent" that factors in. Though, I'm not good enough on Ancient Chinese history to venture any guess on whether or not that was on the basis of expansion/non-expansion... or concerns on keeping their own population in line...

So the difference I think is not in intent but in capability... europeans through good fortune and resources found themselves with more capability than others..
Europe ultimately proved to have greater capacity for it and was far more willing to do so than other potential Empire builders... but that's again not the point on the issue of Social Justice.

Because, while, yes, if certain circumstances were different... China or the Aztecs or someone else could have attained similar levels of power to what Europe did in history, the fact remains that they didn't and even China would find itself under a great deal of European influence as a result. Many people have found themselves under European/American rule and remember that. Saying that someone else could have done it if circumstances were different would only come off as an excuse.

And it's in this where Social Justice issues reflect on trying to present some attention to where mistakes are made. It's when someone either denies that wrong outright... or excuses in some way that breeds the argument and keeps it going, and in the end doesn't actually address the issue at hand, as both sides end up getting caught in throwing names at each other.
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,351
Florania
Agreed... to I'd still think with China's case that there was also an odd level of "intent" that factors in. Though, I'm not good enough on Ancient Chinese history to venture any guess on whether or not that was on the basis of expansion/non-expansion... or concerns on keeping their own population in line...



Europe ultimately proved to have greater capacity for it and was far more willing to do so than other potential Empire builders... but that's again not the point on the issue of Social Justice.

Because, while, yes, if certain circumstances were different... China or the Aztecs or someone else could have attained similar levels of power to what Europe did in history, the fact remains that they didn't and even China would find itself under a great deal of European influence as a result. Many people have found themselves under European/American rule and remember that. Saying that someone else could have done it if circumstances were different would only come off as an excuse.

And it's in this where Social Justice issues reflect on trying to present some attention to where mistakes are made. It's when someone either denies that wrong outright... or excuses in some way that breeds the argument and keeps it going, and in the end doesn't actually address the issue at hand, as both sides end up getting caught in throwing names at each other.
We can argue why true feminism and relative ethnic equality started in the West.
Even though the conditions of the aboriginal people remain appalling, we are attempting to right historical injustice.
 

Guaporense

Ad Honorem
Mar 2011
5,047
Brazil
No, Australia is the largest producer of iron ore by far
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_iron_ore_production

China still produces a huge amount, nearly 400 million tons.

Unlike in Europe they are not both concentrated in easily accessible places with large population centers (e.g. the Ruhr)....
Because Europe industrialized and these population centers grew close to the sources of coal and iron.

China didn't so their population distribution was uncorrelated with the distribution of iron and coal deposits.

Its not competition that drove the industrial revolution in Europe... the industrial revolution happened precisely where there were large amounts of coal and iron (in a relatively small area)..... there is a reason why Britain, Germany and France (and not for example Poland or Italy or Spain) got the best of it... that's were most of that easily accessible coal and iron was.....
No serious economic historian is going to argue that France industrialized before Poland did because of "easily accessible coal deposits". First because the reality is the inverse, Poland had more coal deposits than France. Second, because having coal deposits was just irrelevant for industrialization: coal is a very plentiful fossil fuel that is available worldwide. It was used in the UK because it was easier to get energy from coal than to get energy from watermills (that is after 1830, before 1830 most factories in the UK were powered by watermills and not coal powered steam engines).

You should read up a little bit more of economic history. Natural resource endowments have little correlation with economic development. For example, by 1910 the richest country in Europe was Switzerland, a country without large coal deposits, while territories that would become Poland and Czechoslovakia had vast coal deposits but were still very poor.

What is correlated is the development of social institutions. Spain and Italy developed after Germany and France, but they eventually did and now their living standards are almost at the same level. While Poland was very unlucky in being under Soviet rule for half a century, if Poland were integrated into Western Europe they would also have eventually converged to German living standards (which is what is actually happening right now as in 1990 Poland had only 35% of the per capita income of Germany while today it is about 60%).
 
Last edited:

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,351
Florania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_iron_ore_production

China still produces a huge amount, nearly 400 million tons.



Because Europe industrialized and these population centers grew close to the sources of coal and iron.

China didn't so their population distribution was uncorrelated with the distribution of iron and coal deposits.



No serious economic historian is going to argue that France industrialized before Poland did because of "easily accessible coal deposits". First because the reality is the inverse, Poland had more coal deposits than France. Second, because having coal deposits was just irrelevant for industrialization: coal is a very plentiful fossil fuel that is available worldwide. It was used in the UK because it was easier to get energy from coal than to get energy from watermills (that is after 1830, before 1830 most factories in the UK were powered by watermills and not coal powered steam engines).

You should read up a little bit more of economic history. Natural resource endowments have little correlation with economic development. For example, by 1910 the richest country in Europe was Switzerland, a country without large coal deposits, while territories that would become Poland and Czechoslovakia had vast coal deposits but were still very poor.

What is correlated is the development of social institutions. Spain and Italy developed after Germany and France, but they eventually did and now their living standards are almost at the same level. While Poland was very unlucky in being under Soviet rule for half a century, if Poland were integrated into Western Europe they would also have eventually converged to German living standards (which is what is actually happening right now as in 1990 Poland had only 35% of the per capita income of Germany while today it is about 60%).
Then, the Balkan area demonstrates major disparity:
Greece got a boast from EU membership, and it was unsustainable; we all know about the Greek debt crisis.
Slovenia is by far the most developed country in the Balkan area.
Croatia is behind Slovenia.
Romania, Serbia, Macedonia and Bulgaria are somewhat in between; I am not too sure if "the middle income trap" applies here.
Albania was traditionally poor; it must be a middle income country today.
Moldova is the poorest country in Europe by far, why?
In general, the Balkan area is still poorer than Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Poland.