The mass murder and displacement of Native Americans were undeniably imperialist atrocities committed in the name of expansion and resource acquisition. While these acts were often intertwined with the economic interests of settlers and colonial powers, labeling them purely as capitalist atrocities overlooks the overtly imperial and state-sanctioned policies driving the violence. In contrast, if one wants an example of how capitalist motivations morphed into oppressive systems after formal slavery ended, the convict lease system post–Civil War in the United States is perhaps more directly relevant.
Ultimately, one of the fundamental differences between liberal democracy and communism is the emphasis on individual rights and freedoms. Liberal democracies, at least in principle, protect personal freedoms and encourage pluralism—though they may fall short in practice. Communism, as historically implemented, has often allowed totalitarian governments to intervene in virtually every aspect of life indefinitely, subordinating individual liberty to a perceived “collective” good. While each ideology can be corrupted, the core values of liberal democracy tend toward preserving the individual, whereas many forms of communism have subordinated the individual to the state, often with brutal consequences. Not sure you have rebuked this component in your piece.
Thanks for the engagement Rebecca. I should clarify a bit what I mean with capitalism and native Americans. I didn't mean that capitalism literally caused native Americans to be killed. Rather I was using it as an example of how people argue when it comes to socialist systems. Whatever atrocities they commit they commit gets attributed to socialism, regardless of whether that was the driving force.
It reminds me a bit of when Christians try to blame atheism for the atrocities of Hitler. For all we know he was actually religious, but even if he was atheist, he wasn't killing Jews in the name of atheism.
I realized that the rest of my reply to you got so long that, I decided to wrap it into an article of itself. It is question I think has broader interest.
Btw I do agree that if Russians have pursue liberal democracy that would have been better, but I also think it is a it unrealistic expectation from a country where people had been so deeply oppressed. Liberal democrats rarely win civil wars. Look at the Arab spring or Iranian revolution for instance.
Thanks for taking the time! It's an interesting debate about Russia and China as to whether history predisposed the people...it's hard to prove one way or another.
Yeah not really possible to run controlled experiments. But I love history and have long had a strong interest in why countries end up the way they are. Everything I have read suggests we are deeply affected by our past going far back. I can read the old sags from Viking times and find many traits in Norwegians that are still present today. I read accounts of the Netherlands by British visitors in the 1600s. I lived 3 years in the Netherlands so I know the culture well. It was hilarious how much was similar today about the Dutch relative to the English.
My wife read a lot of newspapers from late 1800s and early 1900s (she is a historian) from the US, Germany, France and Norway. She could read any little advertisement or story and it was almost comical how easy you could guess where it was from.
One of my interests is the how the combination of geography, climate and history shapes what a country looks like today. While the titles suggests it is about Scandinavia, this article is really about how geography and climate shaped development of democracy and autocracy in different regions of the world:
Very cool! Thank you. I have not read that one. Didn't know about it. I am reading a book by Terje Tvedt at the moment comparing waterways in several countries historically and their impact on how countries developed. Quite fascinating read. It undermines a lot of common narratives about many countries dismissed as not innovative enough. Too lazy. Backwards etc.
Also really want to get back to reading David Greabers last book. Have you read him?
Only read two books of his, but I really like both. "Debt the first 5000 years" was thought provoking. It was about money and really challenged a lot of my perception of money and the tales economists tells us.
The funniest was probably "Bullshit Jobs". It is about a lot of typical white collar jobs that exist today and how utterly absurd they can be. It is about the discovery that so many jobs today are pointless. But if they are pointless why do they exist? He waves together a lot of stuff about history and human psychology and culture to answer that.
He is an easy read as he writes very entertaining and with a lot of enthusiasm. He knows how to dramatize a story.
The mass murder and displacement of Native Americans were undeniably imperialist atrocities committed in the name of expansion and resource acquisition. While these acts were often intertwined with the economic interests of settlers and colonial powers, labeling them purely as capitalist atrocities overlooks the overtly imperial and state-sanctioned policies driving the violence. In contrast, if one wants an example of how capitalist motivations morphed into oppressive systems after formal slavery ended, the convict lease system post–Civil War in the United States is perhaps more directly relevant.
Ultimately, one of the fundamental differences between liberal democracy and communism is the emphasis on individual rights and freedoms. Liberal democracies, at least in principle, protect personal freedoms and encourage pluralism—though they may fall short in practice. Communism, as historically implemented, has often allowed totalitarian governments to intervene in virtually every aspect of life indefinitely, subordinating individual liberty to a perceived “collective” good. While each ideology can be corrupted, the core values of liberal democracy tend toward preserving the individual, whereas many forms of communism have subordinated the individual to the state, often with brutal consequences. Not sure you have rebuked this component in your piece.
Thanks for the engagement Rebecca. I should clarify a bit what I mean with capitalism and native Americans. I didn't mean that capitalism literally caused native Americans to be killed. Rather I was using it as an example of how people argue when it comes to socialist systems. Whatever atrocities they commit they commit gets attributed to socialism, regardless of whether that was the driving force.
It reminds me a bit of when Christians try to blame atheism for the atrocities of Hitler. For all we know he was actually religious, but even if he was atheist, he wasn't killing Jews in the name of atheism.
I realized that the rest of my reply to you got so long that, I decided to wrap it into an article of itself. It is question I think has broader interest.
https://open.substack.com/pub/erikexamines/p/communism-and-individual-freedoms?r=ioelo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Btw I do agree that if Russians have pursue liberal democracy that would have been better, but I also think it is a it unrealistic expectation from a country where people had been so deeply oppressed. Liberal democrats rarely win civil wars. Look at the Arab spring or Iranian revolution for instance.
Thanks for taking the time! It's an interesting debate about Russia and China as to whether history predisposed the people...it's hard to prove one way or another.
Yeah not really possible to run controlled experiments. But I love history and have long had a strong interest in why countries end up the way they are. Everything I have read suggests we are deeply affected by our past going far back. I can read the old sags from Viking times and find many traits in Norwegians that are still present today. I read accounts of the Netherlands by British visitors in the 1600s. I lived 3 years in the Netherlands so I know the culture well. It was hilarious how much was similar today about the Dutch relative to the English.
My wife read a lot of newspapers from late 1800s and early 1900s (she is a historian) from the US, Germany, France and Norway. She could read any little advertisement or story and it was almost comical how easy you could guess where it was from.
One of my interests is the how the combination of geography, climate and history shapes what a country looks like today. While the titles suggests it is about Scandinavia, this article is really about how geography and climate shaped development of democracy and autocracy in different regions of the world:
https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/how-climate-and-geography-shaped
You probably enjoyed the book then! https://a.co/d/3J43gE0
Very cool! Thank you. I have not read that one. Didn't know about it. I am reading a book by Terje Tvedt at the moment comparing waterways in several countries historically and their impact on how countries developed. Quite fascinating read. It undermines a lot of common narratives about many countries dismissed as not innovative enough. Too lazy. Backwards etc.
Also really want to get back to reading David Greabers last book. Have you read him?
No although I've heard of him in some circles...which wld u recommend
Only read two books of his, but I really like both. "Debt the first 5000 years" was thought provoking. It was about money and really challenged a lot of my perception of money and the tales economists tells us.
The funniest was probably "Bullshit Jobs". It is about a lot of typical white collar jobs that exist today and how utterly absurd they can be. It is about the discovery that so many jobs today are pointless. But if they are pointless why do they exist? He waves together a lot of stuff about history and human psychology and culture to answer that.
He is an easy read as he writes very entertaining and with a lot of enthusiasm. He knows how to dramatize a story.