Economic Independence | INFJ Forum

Economic Independence

wolly.green

Permanent Fixture
Jul 20, 2016
1,067
2,718
1,236
MBTI
ENTP
Enneagram
4w5
About 3 months ago, there was an article on counterpunch.org that explained the dangers of economic sanctions. One of the dangers is that sanctions encourage governments to achieve economic independence. The idea is that this independance is pretty much a licence to wage war with impunity. An independent nation is one that will not suffer the economic consequences of waging war because it has no dependencies.

I can no longer find the article or anything even remotely like it on the internet. Does anyone have any resources that outline historical examples? Thanks peps
 
About 3 months ago, there was an article on counterpunch.org that explained the dangers of economic sanctions. One of the dangers is that sanctions encourage governments to achieve economic independence. The idea is that this independance is pretty much a licence to wage war with impunity. An independent nation is one that will not suffer the economic consequences of waging war because it has no dependencies.

I can no longer find the article or anything even remotely like it on the internet. Does anyone have any resources that outline historical examples? Thanks peps

Hi, wolly, I think the biggest debate along these lines is centred on Francis Fukuyama and his thesis of 'the end of history'.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man

You may already be familiar, but essentially it argues that Liberal democracy and free market capitalism are the 'final forms' of political states. That states which have these systems of organisation do not go to war with each other for the reasons you suggest and many others.

I have more to say on this, 2 secs.
 
I don't think economic independence possible with a society reliant on a service sector economy because a lot of shit goes into making a laptop. I prefer to live in a society like this.

However, if we were a society of farmers, perhaps. This is because a society with farming as it's major industry is heavily reliant on raw-resources.

Yes, yes, I am a globalist: globalization is a good thing.
 
Hi, wolly, I think the biggest debate along these lines is centred on Francis Fukuyama and his thesis of 'the end of history'.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man

You may already be familiar, but essentially it argues that Liberal democracy and free market capitalism are the 'final forms' of political states. That states which have these systems of organisation do not go to war with each other for the reasons you suggest and many others.

I have more to say on this, 2 secs.

Thanks so much for that!
 
So 'globalisation', or rather 'economic integration' and 'economic dependence' are relatively recent phenomena. Of course historically there has always been vibrant trade, but the extent to which geographically disparate regions were 'dependent' on one another is debatable.

There's a case to suggest that the way grain markets in Early Modern Europe functioned meant that Europe was then economically interdependent - that different states would mitigate against famine in other states by the transfer of surpluses. This also tells us that surpluses are key here - such economic interdependence is thus a function of, or at least co-dependent upon capitalism in general. The other aspect of economic interdependence is just how much catastrophe a state is willing to endure. If the country is dependent upon, say, Polish grain, but the king doesn't care about major famines, then political autonomy isn't really affected.

So globalist problems of economic interdependence have only really been a thing in the last 500 years or so to be generous, but really we're talking about the 18th century where things really start to be seen.

Typically how its played out is that a major power wants to achieve some kind of economic autonomy for the sake of political sovereignty, and goes to war to do it, rather than achieving economic autonomy and then going to war because they can.

The Napoleonic wars had this character - defending the revolution - and the French tried really hard to separate British economic interests from the continent using various legal instruments, to try to achieve economic autonomy.

WWII was certainly about this, if you look closely at Japan, Germany and Italy.

In our time, it is the express policy of Putin to further national 'sovereignty', and sanctions are very probably aiding him in that goal. In a few decades, Chinese economic might allied to Russian political will will very probably recreate a multipolar world once more with at least two economic poles, and that would de facto be the end of the Pax Americana
 
yes economic sanctions are a form of warfare

the japanese bombed pearl harbour after the US placed them under economic sanctions

put it this way if i took away your livlihood would you take that as an act of friendship or an act of war?

The US placed sanctions on Iraq that killed half a million people mostly young folk and old who are always the worst hit. If that's not an act of war then i don't know what is
 
yes economic sanctions are a form of warfare

the japanese bombed pearl harbour after the US placed them under economic sanctions

put it this way if i took away your livlihood would you take that as an act of friendship or an act of war?

The US placed sanctions on Iraq that killed half a million people mostly young folk and old who are always the worst hit. If that's not an act of war then i don't know what is

Clausewitz had this term... 'war of arithmetic' to refer to a situation where armies were just 'compared', and the Victor given the victory without any actual fighting.

This is what happens with arms races where one side cannot keep up and folds economically (E.g. Cold War destroying the USSR).

Ecobomic warfare has kind of the same quality. It's all war though if we look at Clausewitz's definition.
 
Clausewitz had this term... 'war of arithmetic' to refer to a situation where armies were just 'compared', and the Victor given the victory without any actual fighting.

This is what happens with arms races where one side cannot keep up and folds economically (E.g. Cold War destroying the USSR).

Ecobomic warfare has kind of the same quality. It's all war though if we look at Clausewitz's definition.

one area to watch is GOLD with countries like russia and china stockpiling it while the US fed refuses to allow itself to be audited, i suggest because it has none

in the vietnam war the US generals thought there would be a tipping point where the enemy absorbed so many losses that it would have to quit. In the end they under estimated the losses their enemy was willing to absorb and in the end the US lost
 
So 'globalisation', or rather 'economic integration' and 'economic dependence' are relatively recent phenomena. Of course historically there has always been vibrant trade, but the extent to which geographically disparate regions were 'dependent' on one another is debatable.

There's a case to suggest that the way grain markets in Early Modern Europe functioned meant that Europe was then economically interdependent - that different states would mitigate against famine in other states by the transfer of surpluses. This also tells us that surpluses are key here - such economic interdependence is thus a function of, or at least co-dependent upon capitalism in general. The other aspect of economic interdependence is just how much catastrophe a state is willing to endure. If the country is dependent upon, say, Polish grain, but the king doesn't care about major famines, then political autonomy isn't really affected.

So globalist problems of economic interdependence have only really been a thing in the last 500 years or so to be generous, but really we're talking about the 18th century where things really start to be seen.

Typically how its played out is that a major power wants to achieve some kind of economic autonomy for the sake of political sovereignty, and goes to war to do it, rather than achieving economic autonomy and then going to war because they can.

The Napoleonic wars had this character - defending the revolution - and the French tried really hard to separate British economic interests from the continent using various legal instruments, to try to achieve economic autonomy.

WWII was certainly about this, if you look closely at Japan, Germany and Italy.

In our time, it is the express policy of Putin to further national 'sovereignty', and sanctions are very probably aiding him in that goal. In a few decades, Chinese economic might allied to Russian political will will very probably recreate a multipolar world once more with at least two economic poles, and that would de facto be the end of the Pax Americana

Thanks a bunch for your contribution. Just one more question: do you have any book recommendations?
 
Thanks a bunch for your contribution. Just one more question: do you have any book recommendations?

Hi wolly, I would just go with Fukuyama for the theoretical exploration of this idea - it's one of the big works of the 90s and very widely cited even if controversial.

On the Early Modern historical side I couldn't tell you off the top of my head - my knowledge is gathered from a load of books & journal articles I read years ago now for my undergrad degree.

You couldn't go wrong with Michael Mann though, maybe try The Sources of Social Power Vol. 4.

Another classic is Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers but its a bit of a monster and the thesis here is to do with military spending (military overspend causes the fall of a power, underspend its rise).

Hmm, sorry I couldn't be more helpful.
 
About 3 months ago, there was an article on counterpunch.org that explained the dangers of economic sanctions. One of the dangers is that sanctions encourage governments to achieve economic independence. The idea is that this independance is pretty much a licence to wage war with impunity. An independent nation is one that will not suffer the economic consequences of waging war because it has no dependencies.

I can no longer find the article or anything even remotely like it on the internet. Does anyone have any resources that outline historical examples? Thanks peps

I'll have a look at the literature on sanctions that I explored years ago during my masters in international politics. Prima facie, I really doubt that there is extensive serious scholarship suggesting that sanctions lead to "economic independence". The concept itself seems rather dubious to me, especially in the contemporary world which is articulated around interdependence. The few States striving for autarky are usually very weak.