StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Germany did not industrialize later due to lack of colonies, it industrialized later due to a lack of enclosures and a later liberalization of the farming laws (which up to then prevented the rise of a worker class) and due to political disunity resulting in such high tariffs that it become unprofitable to trade in goods.

Under the Marxist model, what's being dumped here isn't "excess production" in the sense of "shit we can't sell because it's shit." It's excess production capacity: the ability to produce goods faster than the available markets in the homeland can purchase them. Remember that this was still a time when a large percentage of the population was rural subsistence (or near-subsistence) farmers, who had negligible buying power, and industrial laborers who didn't have all that much more... That could make it unprofitable to mass-produce goods for the domestic market unless overseas markets could be found or made.

That doesn't work. Input and output in an economy have to equal each other- you can't have long run overproduction. The money you pay for wages and for raw materials and capital inputs is used by other people to drive up demand.

The only explanation I can see making sense is that the industries in question are affected by large economies of scale and you need a larger market in order to make their average costs go down.

Samuel wrote:That doesn't work. Input and output in an economy have to equal each other- you can't have long run overproduction. The money you pay for wages and for raw materials and capital inputs is used by other people to drive up demand.

Again, not overproduction; capacity for industrial overproduction relative to the local economy's needs. You get English mills producing more cloth than their country can use, while at the same time Indian farmers grow more cotton than their country can use. This is possible because they form "an economy:" two interlinked bodies of internal commerce tied together by trade.

The point is that in these countries, it became possible (in principle) to produce industrial goods at rates higher than domestic demand could sustain right that instant. If the nation's industrial infrastructure was to be used to the fullest, it would then be at least somewhat desirable to be able to sell the goods overseas. Likewise to import raw materials and food from overseas (as the British did), freeing up labor for industrial products and factories instead of farms and mines.

The only explanation I can see making sense is that the industries in question are affected by large economies of scale and you need a larger market in order to make their average costs go down.

YES. This is it exactly.

Thanas wrote:Germany did not industrialize later due to lack of colonies, it industrialized later due to a lack of enclosures and a later liberalization of the farming laws (which up to then prevented the rise of a worker class) and due to political disunity resulting in such high tariffs that it become unprofitable to trade in goods.

So a lack of enclosures was a break on German industrialization? Heh. I wonder how Kane or storm would answer to that. They were ardently defending the idea that enclosures and destitute people to form a worker class are not important for industrialization.

Could you point me to any studies about that, Thanas?

P.S. Storm, are you still reading this? I'm not sure if I can sum it all up properly, but I've looked into the North American industrialization during the 1800-1860 period, and there's quite a massive death toll there. I believe it wouldn't be an underestimate to say that around 50 000 people died building the canals in North America, and that's the low estimate, because like I said, unlike the XX century and late XIX century projects, the early XIX century projects had bad records (however, the later found mass graves often told what the documents did not). When I looked (only a little) into the construction of railways, a similar death toll manifested itself. But whereas the death toll for major projects like the canals was a one-time effort, and only related to the period of construction, railroad workers kept dying in the dozens of thousands each year in the mid-XIX century. And this is not even looking at the ventures of American and European capitalists in underdeveloped nations, where death tolls were much higher and persisted into the late XIX-early XX century. It is certain that millions of people died from industrial accidents and during labour-intensive, early construction projects. Of course, the USSR had also separate death tolls for the famine and the 1937-1938 mass executions (which were not directly related to industrialization), and these cannot be said to constitute the human cost of industrial development - they were plain victims of repression for no gain (and, in fact, a break on industrialization because such repression and famine threw economic activity into major tumults). I do not dispute that fact.

However, the gruesome death tolls of construction projects stemmed not from a particular malevolence in my view, but from mere imitation of the First World - with little industrial tooling, the leaders sought to imitate the early industrialization of Britain and North America, constructing massive canal systems, railroads and factories in an extremely rapid tempo. Of course, just as in the XIX century in the First World nations, this led to numerous work accidents and worker deaths. The USSR in many things emulated the West. The enclosures were replaced by the repressive collective agriculture system which forced numerous people off-land. These people turned into the cheap labour that fuelled the Soviet industrialization.

Stas Bush wrote:In which case why did you even waste your time? Because my point was exactly that there were nations with quite inferior performance, and to a great degree it was determined by prior industrialization or lack thereof. And yes, prior existing industrial level matters a lot. India, Africa, Latin America, huge swaths of Asia are still in the shitter, and that is to a large degree because of the situation which was formed in the XIX-XX century, which we today call "imperialism", wherein the industrialized nations started growing rapidly and left everyone behind. The initial claim of mine was that there are some very poor nations which have the social order described by stormthebeaches (democracy), and thus the reasons for their poverty must lie elsewhere.

My goal was to show that above and beyond any individual screw ups capitalist and communist countries had as a whole communist countries showed far worse performance when compared to similar capitalist countries. You took issue with that and claimed the comparisons were not fair and we should compare the likes of USSR with the likes of Mexico hence the entire discussion.
As you say yourself India, Africa and to an extent Latin America were the victims of imperialism while USSR wasn't, it itself was an imperialist country. This is in addition to large population growth, density and tribal and ethnic conflicts in the places you mentioned.
Clearly democracy doesn't inevitably lead to prosperity but communism as it seems does inevitably lead to low economic performance and communism is the title of the thread.

Stas Bush wrote:I see. But the problem is, the gap was already rising between Eastern and Western Europe. GDP/capita for Eastern Europe to Western Europe went from 57% to 43% during 1820-1940, and the gap was rising faster in the XX century than it was in the XIX. So you'd have to separate unique factors from the general lagging of Eastern Europe. Austria and Czechslovakia, in fact, are not following the general trend here - whereas the gap was rising overall, it was contracting between Czechoslovakia and Austria.

Not all Eastern European and Western European countries are the same so the data won't be as clear as comparing a country to country. Secondly a drop from 57% to 43% over 120 years is nowhere near as severe as a drop from 43% to 32% that happened in 1950-1990. Since Western Europe lost their empires one would expect the Eastern Europe to at least maintain the percentage.
Finally I already pointed out that Czechoslovakia was closing the gap and in fact had a greater GDP per capita than Austria post WW2. That only helps my argument because after the institution of communism the country begins a rapid decline.

Stas Bush wrote:They can. I said industrialization required ardous hard labour during the first stage when machine tools were few. And they are extremely hard to create without outside help, yes - this is why industrialized nations took such an enormous lead and left what, 90% of the world's population in the shitter while only 10% or so fully enjoys the benefits of First World industrialization?

Yes that is true. It doesn't change the fact that the percentage would be higher if there was no communist revolution in China or Deng Xiaopang's reforms came in 1959 instead of '79.

Stas Bush wrote:Cuba's economy collapsed in 1991 - isn't it more fair to look at the period when the COMECON was still active, i.e. before 1990? Because as you understand, those other nations did not lose their main trade partners overnight. Cuba did.

I did. Again look at my chart. You can clearly see EL Salvador and Dominican Republic gaining on Cuba while Honduras maintains a roughly equal percentage. Nicaragaua starts to fall drastically after the revolution.

Stas Bush wrote:Really? Why was the gap still widening between Eastern and Western Europe between 1820 and 1940? Quite obviously, in the case with industrialization the biblical proverb "For whoever has, to him will more be given, and he who doesn't have, even that which he has will be taken away from him" is all too true, sadly. The nations which took the lead in the XVIII, XIX and early XX century basically got such a huge gap created between them and others...

As I showed the rate of decline was nowhere near as fast as after communism was introduced and that was after the West Europe lost its empire. Nor does it explain why Eastern Europe started to gain on the West after communism was abolish ed.

Stas Bush wrote:So technology transfer, industrial restoration and finally, trading with an unscathed superpower does not factor in?

Of course it does. Just not to the point that US can singlehandedly make Japan and Western Europe as huge of economies as it did.

Stas Bush wrote:You see, it would be relevant if I ever made such a claim. Find it. What I said was that the first stage of industrialization proceeded with enormous labour-intensive projects, and was driven forward by a great many things we call vices today (yes, that includes slavery, fencing and colonialism). I did not say that it was the sole reason for the richness. Besides, if you are so willing to discuss outside the box, why not note that in 1990, the USSR ranked 22nd in the UN HDI rankings (1990 HDR)? This means that by HDI it left a rather great majority of nations behind. And quite certainly it did leave Brazil - an example you said displayed some remarkable performance vs. the USSR - behind by HDI indicators (I already examined it once in a debate with Iosef Cross). At the same time, at no point I made the claims you insinuate I did.

I did say that without these vices, industrialization could not process and frankly, try and show me it could. I have found ample examples, even in the very heartlands of industrialization - Britain and North America, for once - of massive and deadly labour-churning projects.

"a smart Marxist would also argue that slavery was fundamental in the accumulation of capital"
"without this period of accumulation of capital and all the associated vices (slavery, dispossession, fencing, colonial exploit and what people call "robbery of the colonies") modern capitalism could not have been born"
There you go. You clearly say that slavery and colonial exploitation are "fundamental" to capitalism and that without it capitalism could not have been born.
You never explicitly stated that this is why capitalist countries are richer but if you claim that they couldn't even exist without it that claim is implied.
My point is that capitalism generates richer countries even if all of the slavery and colonial exploitation is removed. Certainly they won't be as rich as with them but still above communist countries.
You then backpedalled and focused on "hard and cheap" labor within an emerging capitalist country. Apparently you believe that subsistence agriculture on a small patch of land and with 4 sons waiting to inherit their own even smaller patches of land was heaven on Earth so moving on to work hard and cheap in a factory was some kind of additional suffering.
Regarding Brazil you'll notice that I never claimed Brazil was better off than USSR in 1990 in absolute terms. My original chart taken from Maddison's date clearly shows that in 1990 USSR's per capita GDP is above that of Brazil so there is no issue there. The point, like in Eastern Europe, is that the gap between USSR and Brazil was rapidly closing and that was while Brazil's population climbed from being 3.7 times smaller than USSR in 1946 to being 1.9 times smaller in 1990.

Kane Starkiller wrote:"a smart Marxist would also argue that slavery was fundamental in the accumulation of capital"
"without this period of accumulation of capital and all the associated vices (slavery, dispossession, fencing, colonial exploit and what people call "robbery of the colonies") modern capitalism could not have been born"
There you go. You clearly say that slavery and colonial exploitation are "fundamental" to capitalism and that without it capitalism could not have been born. You never explicitly stated that this is why capitalist countries are richer but if you claim that they couldn't even exist without it that claim is implied. My point is that capitalism generates richer countries even if all of the slavery and colonial exploitation is removed. Certainly they won't be as rich as with them but still above communist countries. You then backpedalled and focused on "hard and cheap" labor within an emerging capitalist country. Apparently you believe that subsistence agriculture on a small patch of land and with 4 sons waiting to inherit their own even smaller patches of land was heaven on Earth so moving on to work hard and cheap in a factory was some kind of additional suffering.

This is idiotic. I stand by my statements - slavery was fundamental to creating huge masses of cheap labour, which in turn was fundamental to early industrialization. There were other venues for getting cheap labour to fuel industry - yes, and no less despicable these were, the Chinese and Irish immigrants, for example, who fled from famine and poverty of their home nations to find death at the hands of America's industrialists building railways and canals. Or the people forced off-land in Britain to become the same cheap labour.

Without "this period of accumulation of capital and all the associated vices", I said, modern capitalism could not have been born. And how is that untrue? Those nations which had problems with some of the above - no cheap labour, no people forced off-land (like Thanas noted, Germany's lack of enclosures) industrialized much later... or, in some cases, not at all. Capitalism was not born in 1917, fluffy and free of all evil and suddenly then BLAM, communism - what the fuck? I was discussing the BIRTH of capitalism, the first stages of industrialization. Capitalism was born of opression and brutality, born in the XVIII-XIX centuries.

Prove me wrong. "They wouldn't be as rich"? Sure as hell, without the brutal industrialization of the XVIII-XIX century they'd be fucking dirt poor, and so would be everyone else, if nobody did the things I mentioned above. That's what you're saying. And still you deny this fact in an amazing feat of doublethink. You are saying it is possible to industrialize without the brutality? But the very few nations that managed to industrialize without brutality did it with the help of those who already industrialized. So someone had to do it.

And if you remove slavery, you remove the vast reserve of labour from the First World. You don't even understand what a huge magnitude of consequences that would have. Remove the British opression and brutality in Ireland, and the Irish famines? You left the USA without cheap Irish bodies to build railroads and waterways. Remove colonialism and brutal constructions like the Panama railway, Panama canal, Suez canal? You are undercutting the global trade, instrumental in making the First World so powerful and industrialized.

If you're too much of a jerk to understand the point I'm making, fuck off. Yes, they could have industrialized with clean gloves on - maybe that would take another hundred years alltogether. Happy now?

Kane Starkiller wrote:Just not to the point that US can singlehandedly make Japan and Western Europe as huge of economies as it did.

Obviously it can. Do you really think it is impossible for the largest economy on Earth to be the engine of prosperity for others? Europe was already industrialized on a similar level to the USA; restoring the potential is easier. And Japan was not, but it made up for that with ardous labour, 12-hour work day and other niceties which the US and Europe passed in the XIX century already.

Kane Starkiller wrote:As you say yourself India, Africa and to an extent Latin America were the victims of imperialism while USSR wasn't, it itself was an imperialist country.

A nation can be imperialist and at the same time a victim of foreign imperialism. And this is exactly what happened with the USSR, or with China, and with many other nations as well. The USSR/Russia acted as imperialist towards smaller nations, but itself became the victim of European and after that - German imperialism, during World War II.

And whereas the USSR became strong enough to be the hegemon (for a while) some nations had no such luck. They were in an even deeper shitter than the USSR. Which leads us back to point 1 - without industrialization and the associated vices it is very hard for a nation to achieve good economic performance, social indicators and even independence itself.

^ Why are you debating a guy who does not think the US single-handedly helped Japan industrialize even into the 70's? He clearly has no understanding of economics, or even business history. The case models showing US development of the Japanese economy, at all levels is very well documented.

Show it then with numbers. Show how US made Japan reach 30% of US total GDP by 1970 and 41% by 1991.

^ Imbecile - google "Sarasohn" and "Deming" and figure it out - I'm not doing your leg work for you.

Google how Honda first got their prototype engines, and google how Japan developed their tire industry.
Your implied assertion that you are smart enough to understand a macroeconomic model when you thought that Siberia is potentially as productive as the US is laughable

Indeed. Look into any industry of post-war Japan, and you'll inevitably see U.S. assistance or, in some cases, direct theft of US technology by Japan. Hitachi was notorious in stealing US computer technologies, for example. In 1982, Hitechi stole IBM tech, it was fined for what, 24 thousand US dollars (a joke sum). Meanwhile in 1974 the USSR and the entire COMECON was put under a highly specific Jackson-Vanik embargo, which restricted the sale of higher tech items (like the aforemetioned computers).

Or, for example, how did Japan get its semiconductors? Quite simple - they got them from a U.S. company subsidiary and started making them like hell. In July 1956, five Japanese companies received license from the US to produce semiconductors - the giants of today, Toshiba, Hitachi and the company which became Sony later (first a licensee of Western Electric). How many Soviet, COMECON or other nations' companies got U.S. semiconductor patents in 1956? I am genuinely wondering. And this is not to mention that in the 1980s Japan made inroads into the US semiconductor industry, buying up US plants along with the know-how and qualified personnel. Could the USSR just go and buy a U.S. semiconductor plant? Obviously not.

Japanese Industrialization and Economic Growth wrote:American companies were encouraged to license technology to Japanese companies in the new international environment. Japan redirected its trade away from the areas that had been incorporated into the Japanese Empire before 1945, and towards the huge and expanding American market.

Good article.

The difference between USSR and Japan was that the USSR effectively lost U.S. assistance after the 1930s, whereas Japan enjoyed it in post-war times, when the USA became yet bigger and more advanced. Some recommended reading: U.S.-Japan strategic alliances in the semiconductor industry. It gives an interesting statistic (I will quote):

U.S.-Japan strategic alliances in the semiconductor industry, p.5 wrote:According to one prominent Japanese economist, technology (much of it imported) was responsible for more than half of Japan's economic growth between 1955 and 1980

So, remove the tech transfer, and you're looking at undercutting Japan's growth twice or more. This is more in line with the Soviet and East European GDP/capita performance. If the growth would have been downsized by a factor of 2, Japan's GDP/capita by 1990 would be around 9 thousand int.d. instead of the 18k IRL. And yet people think tech transfer is something not important? Also remarkable (same source):

In return for billions of dollars generated by the transfer and adaptation of foreign technology, Japanese companies paid a relatively modest cumulative sum of only $17 bilion. Amortized over 33 years, Japanese industry, paid on the average only about $500 million per year ...

And what of the East European nations that Kane so likes to bring up? They changed a poorer hegemon (the USSR) for a richer and more advanced hegemon (the European Union). The richness and tech level of the hegemon determines a lot.

Bottlestein wrote:^ Imbecile - google "Sarasohn" and "Deming" and figure it out - I'm not doing your leg work for you.

Google how Honda first got their prototype engines, and google how Japan developed their tire industry.

And these vague google "links" explain Japan achieving 30% of US GDP and then 41% of US GDP in 1991 how exactly? Numbers. I never denied Japan was helped after the war but if you claim that it was helped to such a degree that it would change the GDP per capita to being worse than that of USSR, which was my point to begin with, feel free to do so.

Bottlestein wrote:Your implied assertion that you are smart enough to understand a macroeconomic model when you thought that Siberia is potentially as productive as the US is laughable

My own relevant quotes from this thread:
"Comparing a 22 million km2 nation to tiny countries from Latin America and Indochina hardly seems fair."
"I never said that all 22million km2 are perfect. Certainly US has more usable territory. It doesn't change the fact that you continue to insist on comparing USSR with mountainous Mexico."
"Yes it has the worst lands and the lowest population density. Soviet Union had 2 million km2 of arable land and 250 million people and Germany had 120,000km2 of arable land and 80 million people. "
Maybe I really don't understand a macroeconomic model but it sure beats not being able to read.

Stas Bush wrote:So, remove the tech transfer, and you're looking at undercutting Japan's growth twice or more. This is more in line with the Soviet and East European GDP/capita performance. If the growth would have been downsized by a factor of 2, Japan's GDP/capita by 1990 would be around 9 thousand int.d. instead of the 18k IRL. And yet people think tech transfer is something not important? Also remarkable (same source):

"technology(much of it imported) was responsible for over half of growth" means that technology both domestic and imported was responsible for half of growth. "much of it imported" means that an unknown part was imported but it doesn't say how much was imported now how much growth did the imported part generate.
Say again: I never disputed for a second that US helped Japan merely that "help" cannot explain Japan reaching 41% of US economy at its peak in 1991 in roughly 45 years.

Kane Starkiller wrote:And these vague google "links" explain Japan achieving 30% of US GDP and then 41% of US GDP in 1991 how exactly? Numbers. I never denied Japan was helped after the war but if you claim that it was helped to such a degree that it would change the GDP per capita to being worse than that of USSR, which was my point to begin with, feel free to do so.

It might not change the GDP/capita to "worse than that of the USSR", but it might reduce it to a point where it won't be much higher. *shrugs* If you want to argue, do so. I might try to look into traditional Japanese economic growth macroeconomic model and investigate factor breakdowns to see what the impact would be. But this would require some time. Meanwhile, I believe, there are other questions left to discuss, no?

Kane Starkiller wrote:"technology(much of it imported) was responsible for over half of growth" means that technology both domestic and imported was responsible for half of growth. "much of it imported" means that an unknown part was imported but it doesn't say how much was imported now how much growth did the imported part generate.

Actually, I can make it perfectly clear for you - the semiconductor industry of Japan was fully created with U.S. technology transfer.

Kane Starkiller wrote:Say again: I never disputed for a second that US helped Japan merely that "help" cannot explain Japan reaching 41% of US economy at its peak in 1991 in roughly 45 years.

Well, why don't you then build the model and show it?

Stas Bush wrote:It might not change the GDP/capita to "worse than that of the USSR", but it might reduce it to a point where it won't be much higher. *shrugs* If you want to argue, do so. I might try to look into traditional Japanese economic growth macroeconomic model and investigate factor breakdowns to see what the impact would be. But this would require some time. Meanwhile, I believe, there are other questions left to discuss, no?

What is there left to argue? I have shown data that clearly shows Japan and other countries outperforming communist ones and you appeal to some vague "help" by US without quantification.
How would Cuba and Eastern Europe fare had USSR not had overabundance of oil which allowed USSR to sell it to them at discount prices?

Stas Bush wrote:Actually, I can make it perfectly clear for you - the semiconductor industry of Japan was fully created with U.S. technology transfer.

Which is not all of "technology" is it? And it doesn't follow that US helping Japan to create semiconductor industry->Japan holds 46% of world's semiconductor industry in 1991->Japan's GDP is 41% of US in 1991.

Stas Bush wrote:Well, why don't you then build the model and show it?

Why should I? The data shows how capitalist countries fared better than similar countries with communist system. All you have is an appeal to the US being responsible for this and "helping" Western Europe, Asian tigers etc. Also there are countries Mexico and Brazil which managed to close or maintain the gap even while having a much larger population growth.

I take it that you refuse to discuss slavery, fencing, and early industrialization, and all you could do is throw a hissy when I said they were fundamental in the initial accumulation of capital? Well, all the better. More time to do worthwhile things, then.

Stas Bush wrote:I take it that you refuse to discuss slavery, fencing, and early industrialization, and all you could do is throw a hissy when I said they were fundamental in the initial accumulation of capital? Well, all the better. More time to do worthwhile things, then.

Well Stas, Kane Starkiller is a known Russophobe, and everything American to him is glorious....

Stas Bush wrote:I take it that you refuse to discuss slavery, fencing, and early industrialization, and all you could do is throw a hissy when I said they were fundamental in the initial accumulation of capital? Well, all the better. More time to do worthwhile things, then.

My objective was to show that all communist countries undeperformed compared to similar capitalist countries and I did that. I also took issue with your statement that slavery and colonial exploitation were something without which capitalism couldn't exist.
I never mentioned fencing or claimed that early industrialization isn't necessary for a developed country be it communist or capitalist. Nor have I claimed that a country which industrializes earlier won't have a head start.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Well Stas, Kane Starkiller is a known Russophobe, and everything American to him is glorious....

Russophobe would be someone who fears Russia and presumably wishes to see it destroyed. Even if I'm completely wrong about everything I said how does that make me a Russophobe? BTW capitalism is not "American".

Kane Starkiller wrote:Russophobe would be someone who fears Russia and presumably wishes to see it destroyed. Even if I'm completely wrong about everything I said how does that make me a Russophobe? BTW capitalism is not "American".

Your posting history has been consistently anti-Russian, and you consistently side with American regardless and drink their capitalist propaganda like Kool Aid. So quit the semantics. Don't bother to hide what you are. Many of us still remember the crap you spilled out with regard to the Kosovo issue.

I side with the side I think is right. If you have evidence I do that because I hate Russians prove it otherwise don't slander me.
How many threads about Isreal on this board were not critical of it? Does the board hate Israelis?

Kane Starkiller wrote:I side with the side I think is right. If you have evidence I do that because I hate Russians prove it otherwise don't slander me.

Oh you don't say it explicitly. But when it comes to a geopolitical fight, you will side with the Americans.

Your posting history itself is proof. So quit it. Slander my arse. Every time an issue with regard to Communism/Russians, you show up and it doesn't take too much guessing to see which side you end up on.

This thread itself is proof you are an idiot and intellectually dishonest.

Again prove it's because I hate Russians. You brought up the Kosovo issue as some kind of evidence I hate the Russians. Kosovo was once a part of my own country. What the fuck do the Russians have to do with it?

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:This thread itself is proof you are an idiot and intellectually dishonest.

Show it then you slanderous asshole.

Kane Starkiller wrote:Again prove it's because I hate Russians. You brought up the Kosovo issue as some kind of evidence I hate the Russians. Kosovo was once a part of my own country. What the fuck do the Russians have to do with it?

I said you are anti-Russian and pro-American.

Oh here's the thread for your good memory: NATO saved Kosovo from....western civilization! And oh, you happily skunked away without even givng a rebuttal. Typical.

So I discussed about a conflict in a region that was part of my own country while I was growing up. Right or wrong what in the fuck does that have to do with the Russians?

Doesn't an attack against an opponent directly usually mean that nothing meaningful can be said on the subject of arguments?

Kane Starkiller wrote:My objective was to show that all communist countries undeperformed compared to similar capitalist countries and I did that. I also took issue with your statement that slavery and colonial exploitation were something without which capitalism couldn't exist.

You continue twisting my words. Where I say "could not have been born", you say "could not exist". Overreacting much? Your definition of similarity was challenged by me, and rightly so, because guess what, industry often matters far more than natural conditions. But I got tired of trying to explain how prior industrial potential is important in creating the future industrial base, and how it gives you not just a massive headstart, but also the ability to opress and control other nations and make them industrialize later or not at all.

Kane Starkiller wrote:...or claimed that early industrialization isn't necessary for a developed country be it communist or capitalist. Nor have I claimed that a country which industrializes earlier won't have a head start.

You have claimed that the vices were not necessary for early industrialization, or something similar. You even said that dying on labour-intensive projects was not a greater suffering than living in an agrarian nation. Well, I guess the ten thousand who died building the White Sea Canal or the same amount building the New Basin Canal would like to challenge that view. After all, being dead is the ultimate suffering, is it not?

Stas Bush wrote:

Thanas wrote:Germany did not industrialize later due to lack of colonies, it industrialized later due to a lack of enclosures and a later liberalization of the farming laws (which up to then prevented the rise of a worker class) and due to political disunity resulting in such high tariffs that it become unprofitable to trade in goods.

So a lack of enclosures was a break on German industrialization? Heh. I wonder how Kane or storm would answer to that. They were ardently defending the idea that enclosures and destitute people to form a worker class are not important for industrialization.

In Britain's case, it was.

In Germany's case, people wanted to emigrate to the cities long before this, but they were prevented by law. Only when those laws were lifted and new production methods made the farming of large-scale lands possible was there enough incentive to move to the cities - first a population and productivity increase (meaning more children of farmers looking for more jobs), heavy taxation in some areas (aka I want a new castle, raise taxes on the peasants) and of course liberalization (aka I can suddenly legally make and sell shoes etc.)

So Industrialization in Germany was a lot more complex - pauperism was very much a cause of it, but not as large in Britain. Also, it never got that bad as in Britain for obvious political reasons (Bismarck and socialism is a topic I am sure you already know much about) as well as the old Prussian/German idea that the state had the duty to take care of its citizens in exchange for loyalty. Additionally, there was a fair number of catholic and protestant welfare organizations, who (especially the catholics) seemed to have been absent from England.

Also, the main Landflucht happened in Germany a lot earlier - it was a constant phenomenon since the 1200s, so it was not as if there was no experience with it, though of cause the scale was a much higher one in the 19th century - what I am getting at is that poor people fleeing to the cities is a constant occurrence of German history.

Could you point me to any studies about that, Thanas?

The German wiki is surprisingly well sourced and - as far as I can see it - accurate.

I can especially recommend the works listed by Wehler and Zorn.