Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Topic: State vs. Market Posted: 23-Mar-2006 at 09:21 |
Maju:
Did my long post above on the topic clarify anything? I hope it addressed how it seems to me (and also Maharbbal who started the thread) that the market interacted with interest groups to affect state formation.
|
|
ataman
Chieftain
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Mar-2006 at 09:32 |
And few more datas from Kennedy's book.
GNP of countries in 19th c. (bln dollars)
in 1830: Russia 10.5; GB 8.2; France 8.5
in 1840: Russia 11.2; GB 10.4; France 10.3
in 1850: Russia 12.7; GB 12.5; France 11.8
in 1860: Russia 14.4; GB 16.0; France 13.3
in 1870: Russia 22.9; GB 19.6; France 16.8
in 1880: Russia 23.2; GB 23.5; France 17.3
|
|
ataman
Chieftain
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Mar-2006 at 09:36 |
Originally posted by Maju
Originally posted by ataman
Originally posted by Maju
Russia was definitively the "third world of Europe" at that time: a country that exported cheap agricultural products such as grain in exchange for little. |
Paul Kennedy in his 'The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers' claimed that what made every country (including GB) wealthy was agriculture. It was at least until 1850.
| Allow me to doubt such affirmation. |
Maju, allow me to believe more professor Kennedy than you
|
|
ataman
Chieftain
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Mar-2006 at 09:46 |
Originally posted by Maharbbal
Just consider all their defeats after 1815 even by weaker countries (Ottoman) and on their own soil (Crimea war). |
Crimean war was lost by Russia, but Russia had to fight against the coalition of 4 countries and because the place of this war (by the sea) favoured armies of the coalition.
Edited by ataman
|
|
Kapikulu
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Berlin
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Mar-2006 at 10:51 |
I advocate market with state intervention
|
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;
A Strange Orhan Veli
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Mar-2006 at 12:42 |
Originally posted by ataman
Originally posted by Maju
Originally posted by ataman
Originally posted by Maju
Russia was definitively the "third world of Europe" at that time: a country that exported cheap agricultural products such as grain in exchange for little. |
Paul Kennedy in his 'The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers' claimed that what made every country (including GB) wealthy was agriculture. It was at least until 1850.
| Allow me to doubt such affirmation. |
Maju, allow me to believe more professor Kennedy than you |
Sure. That's your choice. Instead I prefer to put my money in arguments and reasons rather than titles. So which are the reasons of your professor (whose name I never heard before, btw)?
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
ataman
Chieftain
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Mar-2006 at 13:10 |
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Mar-2006 at 15:10 |
Just read the Wikipedia entry on his main book and he doesn't seem to say what you say he says. As far as I can understand from this article, I could surely agree with this Kennedy in most of what he says. Yet I can't agree with your interpretation of it - which is something totally different. So, then, why don't you quit hiding behind others' name and start reasoning your position on your own words and with your own logic?
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
ataman
Chieftain
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Mar-2006 at 00:01 |
Originally posted by Maju
Just read the Wikipedia entry on his main book and he doesn't seem to say what you say he says. |
Maju,
please read the book or believe me that I really quote Kennedy.
Originally posted by Maju
As far as I can understand from this article, I could surely agree with this Kennedy in most of what he says. Yet I can't agree with your interpretation of it - which is something totally different. So, then, why don't you quit hiding behind others' name and start reasoning your position on your own words and with your own logic? |
I do it . When I don't agree with Kennedy's inference I write (and explain) my opinion.
Edited by ataman
|
|
ataman
Chieftain
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Mar-2006 at 00:30 |
Originally posted by Maju
If he attacked Russia was only because he wanted to force this country to "blockade" the UK. |
The reason of Napoleon's attack is irrelevant. I wrote that Russia defeated Napoleon's huge coalition. Any reason of Napoleon's attack doesn't change that Napoleon's armies were defeated by Russia - this Russia which was (according to your opinion) 'extremely weak'.
Edited by ataman
|
|
ataman
Chieftain
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Mar-2006 at 01:19 |
Originally posted by pikeshot1600
I would have to disagree with that. Back in this thread, we discussed Spain and the Dutch and Sweden. All those powers made wealth out of some control of trade, and none of them could feed themselves, let alone make wealth from selling agricultural produce.
|
Pikeshot, I think that here is some kind of misunderstanding. You write what was important for the income to the Treasure (control of trade or rather taxes from control of trade). I write about GNP, which (until 1850) was created largely by agriculture. These are not the same things.
And last notice - even if most of GNP was created by agriculture, it doesn't mean that the industry in early 19th c. (or earlier) wasn't important. It was important, but at least until 1850 bigger part of GNP was created by agriculture. And therefore Russia in 19th c. had GNP even bigger than GB.
Edited by ataman
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Mar-2006 at 03:22 |
Originally posted by ataman
Originally posted by Maju
If he attacked Russia was only because he wanted to force this country to "blockade" the UK. |
The reason of Napoleon's attack is irrelevant. I wrote that Russia defeated Napoleon's huge coalition. Any reason of Napoleon's attack doesn't change that Napoleon's armies were defeated by Russia - this Russia which was (according to your opinion) 'extremely weak'. |
Not yet. Russia's weakness showed up as the century marched on and industrialization got stabilished everywhere... but in Russia. Russia lacked the competitive edge to shadow western powers. It had a huge territory with a very harsh climate and masses of conscriptable slave-peasants... that's about all. Else, Russia would have annexed Europe - it didn't and it could not even dream in that. It could only expand against semitribal peoples of the steppes of Asia - just that. When Russia attemted to fight against any peripheric power like Turkey or Japan, it was defeated. The reason being that it lacked the power to do it. Instead the Soviet Union had that power: the difference being that they had made a forced-march industrialization in few decades under the 5-years plans of Stalin. After that, Russia wasn't just able to resist passively in a guerrilla warfare against a major European power bt it was able to counter-attack and invade that power, challenging even the naval power of the time rather succesfully.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
ataman
Chieftain
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Mar-2006 at 03:54 |
Originally posted by Maju
Not yet. Russia's weakness showed up as the century marched on and industrialization got stabilished everywhere... but in Russia. |
Russia was weaker in the end of 19th c. than in the begining of 19th c. But it doesn't mean that it was 'extremely weak' country. BTW, after 1864 Russia wasn't feudel country any more.
Originally posted by Maju
Russia lacked the competitive edge to shadow western powers. |
Let me explain something. I stated that Russia was the strongest European country in that time. It doesn't mean that Russia was stronger than the rest of Europe. But if we compare any other European country to Russia, I would vote for Russia as the strongest country.
Originally posted by Maju
It had a huge territory with a very harsh climate and masses of conscriptable slave-peasants... that's about all. |
That's only your opinion unsupported by historical facts.
Originally posted by Maju
Else, Russia would have annexed Europe - it didn't and it could not even dream in that. It could only expand against semitribal peoples of the steppes of Asia - just that. |
Maju, I recommend you to check the map of Russia (or rather western Russian borders) in 1700 and in 1900.
And I'll repeat again - I stated that Russia was the strongest European country in that time. It doesn't mean that Russia was stronger than the rest of Europe.
|
|
majkes1
Samurai
Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 130
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Mar-2006 at 14:45 |
[/QUOTE]
Russia lacked the competitive edge to shadow western powers. It had a huge territory with a very harsh climate and masses of conscriptable slave-peasants... that's about all. Else, Russia would have annexed Europe - it didn't and it could not even dream in that. It could only expand against semitribal peoples of the steppes of Asia - just that. When Russia attemted to fight against any peripheric power like Turkey or Japan, it was defeated. The reason being that it lacked the power to do it.
[/QUOTE]
This is not true. Russia fought against Japan in XX th century - 1905 year. Ottomans were defeated by Russia many times. They won against Russia in Crimean War but They had huge help from England and France.
|
|
majkes1
Samurai
Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 130
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Mar-2006 at 14:48 |
Russia was powerful military but weak economicaly. That's why would sooner or later lost to Western powers.
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Mar-2006 at 23:08 |
That's what I mean: that it was weak intrinsecally (economically) - I couldn't care less for the size of their army.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
ataman
Chieftain
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Mar-2006 at 23:24 |
Originally posted by majkes1
Russia was powerful military but weak economicaly. That's why would sooner or later lost to Western powers. |
Economical weakness of Russia is also exaggeration. Look at the GNP of European countries in 19th c. During most of 19th c. Russia had GNP even biggger than GB.
Russia was only iferior to GB (but it wasn't inferior to for example France) when we compare industrialization of these countries. Below are next datas from Kennedy's book.
Industrialization of countries as a part of industrialization of the world:
in 1750: GB 1.9%, Russia 5%, France 4% (note - in that time, Russian industry made over 2.5 times more products than British one)
in 1800: GB 4.3%, Russia 5.6%, France 4.2%
in 1830: GB 9.5%, Russia 5.6%, France 5.2%
in 1860: GB 19.9%, Russia 7%, France 7.9%
in 1880: GB 22.9%, Russia 7.6%, France 7.8%
in 1900: GB 18.5%, Russia 8.8%, France 6.8%
So, at least until 1800 it was Russia which was the most industrialised European country. In 1900 Russia was still more industrialised than France (and only about 2 times less industrialised than GB).
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Mar-2006 at 23:43 |
I just don't believe those figures: France wasn't an agrarian nation at the turn of the 20th century. Russia had never got more than 5% of its population in industry before the Revolution.
Where do yiu get such distorted statistics from? Which vested interests do you have in faking an unexistent glory of Tzarist Russia?
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
ataman
Chieftain
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Mar-2006 at 00:51 |
Originally posted by Maju
I just don't believe those figures: |
That's your choice .
Originally posted by Maju
Where do yiu get such distorted statistics from? |
I told you. It is from the book ''The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers'' by Paul Kennedy.
Originally posted by Maju
Which vested interests do you have in faking an unexistent glory of Tzarist Russia? |
Maju, I would like to open your eyes . It is the only one my interest. As I wrote, as the Pole I might be the last person which will love 18th and 19th c. Russia - the country which conquered and occupied my country. During those centuries Russia was the biggest enemy of Poland. It was Russia which partitioned Poland. It was Russia which defeated Napoleon and his Polish allies. And it was Russia which occupied my country until 1918. But my feelings to Russia won't change historical facts. These facts which I show here.
Edited by ataman
|
|
majkes1
Samurai
Joined: 25-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 130
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Mar-2006 at 01:04 |
I've read in many books that Russia was backworld country economiclyand socially. Peasants were given freedom in 1864 if I remember well and still they didin't have land on their own. Industralization was started much later than in west. In political reforms They were like 100 years after rest of Europe. First parliament in 20th century.
Maybe they have big GNP because they produce loads of food but food is easy to buy and there are many countries that produce too much of it and if You wanted to beat someone in XIX th century Europe You had to have modern economy and modern weapon and money to spend for it. Industry products were far more expansive than food.
Of course Russia was slowly improving their industry but in comparison with the west too slowly.
I'm pretty sure Russia had most powerful land army in 1750-1850 with a break for Napoleon.
|
|