= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Multiheaded comments on Rationality Quotes May 2012 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (696)
Konkvistador's point is that third world countries attempting to imitate western countries haven't had much success.
When Turkey was modernizing it sure as heck was looking towards Europe for examples, it just didn't implement democratic mechanisms straight away and restricted religious freedom. And if you look at Taiwan, Japan, Ghana, etc... sure, they might be ruled by oligarchic clans in practice, but other than that [1] they have much more similarities than differences with today's Western countries! Of course a straight-up copy-paste of institutions and such is bound to fail, but a transition with those institutions, etc in mind as the preferred end state seems to work.
[1] Of course, Western countries are ruled by what began as oligarchic clans too, but they got advanced enough that there's a difference. And, for good or ill, they are meritocratic.
I'm not familiar with Ghana, but both Japan and Taiwan had effectively one-party systems while modernizing.
I don't care all that much about political democracy; what I meant is that Japan, India or, looking at the relative national conditions, even Turkey did NOT require some particular ruthlessness to modernize.
edit: derp
Could you explain the meaning of this sentence please. I'm not sure I have grasped it correctly. To me it sounds like that you are saying that there was no ruthlessness involved in Atatürk's modernizing reforms. I assume that's not the case, right?
Compared to China or Industrial Revolution-age Britain? Hell no, Ataturk pretty much had silk gloves on. At least, that's what Wikipedia tells me. He didn't purge political opponents except for one incident where they were about to assassinate him, he maintained a Western facade over his political maneuvering (taking pages from European liberal nationalism of the previous century), etc, etc.
To extent that this is a discussion of quality of life and attractiveness of a country, as opposed to what is strictly speaking necessary for development, it's worth remembering the Armenian genocide.
There's no evidence that Ataturk was more complicit in that than, say, many respected public servants in 50s-60s Germany were complicit in the Holocaust. Nations just go insane sometimes, and taboos break down, and all that. It takes a hero to resist.
I feel pretty confident that Niall Ferguson, in his The War of the World, claims that Ataturk directly oversaw at least one massacre; I don't have my copy on hand, however. Also, the Armenian National Institute claims that Ataturk was "the consummator of the Armenian Genocide."
Also, Israel Charney (the founder of the International Association of Genocide Scholars) says:
Really Ataturk was less harsh than Industrial Revolution-age Britain? I find this highly unlikely (unless your taking about their colonial practices in which case the Armenian genocide is relevant). I think the reason you're overestimating the relative harshness of Britain is that Britain had more freedom of speech than other industrializing nations and thus its harshness (such as it was) is better documented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution#Child_labour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Poor_Law
http://www.victorianweb.org/history/workers1.html
http://www.victorianweb.org/history/workers2.html
(That's just after a fifteen-minute search. By the way, haven't you read Dickens? He gives quite a vivid contemporary account of social relations, although dramatized.)
"The blogosphere overflows with Google Pundits; those who pooh-pooh, with a few search queries, an argument that runs counter to their own ideological assumptions, usually regarding a subject with which they possess only a passing familiarity." It always gets my goat when the other guy does it.
I knew perfectly well about all of those except the Great Famine before searching, thank you very much! (I used to think there was only one Irish famine.) That's why I felt confident in saying that 20th century Turkey was not as bad! "Fifteen-minute search" referred to a search for articles to show in support of my argument, not an emergency acquisition of knowledge for myself.
Are you claiming that similar and worse things didn't happen in Turkey?
Let me get this straight: you're trying to argue that Britain was harsh because some people expressed opposition to a law you like?
Yes, that's want I meant by Britain's harshness (such as it was) being better documented thanks to its freedom of speech.
With the exception of the Armenian genocide (which is comparable in vileness to many things, including the actions of that wonder of private enterprise, the East India Company) - yes. Not during the late 19th and 20th century, I mean. Turkish landlords might've been feudals, but they didn't outright steal the entirety of their tenants' livelihood from under them.
The other way around! Many respected people hated and denounced it so much, it famously prompted Dickens to write Oliver Twist.
Taboo 'ruthlessness'. For example Japan was certainly ruthless while modernizing by any reasonable definition.
It didn't fully come into the "Universalist" sphere, ideologically and culturally, until its defeat in WW2, and the most aggressive and violent of its actions were committed in a struggle for expansion against Western dominiance.
Konkvistador's argument would be that it wouldn't of been able to modernize nearly as effectively if it had come into the "Universalist" sphere before industrializing.
Maybe, I don't know. On the other hand, maybe it would've avoided conquest and genocide if it had come into that sphere before industrializing.
Or maybe my premise above is wrong and its opening in the Meiji era did in fact count as contact with "Universalism" - note that America and Britain's influence had been considerable there, and Moldbug certainly says that post-Civil War U.S. and post-Chartist Britain (well, he says post-1689, but the Chartist movement definitely was a victory for democracy[1]) were dominated by hardcore Protestant "Universalism".
1- Although its effects were delayed by some 20 years.