Raise the Hammer

It's funny how such a staunch individualist reverts to "we" and "them" when it comes to racial conflict.

If you want to keep the European tradition of genocide alive, you've probably got a good shot. There are many groups for you to join: the Heritage Front, Aryan Nation, etc. None of these groups are theoretically opposed to private property. Isn't that swell?

I want to keep other "European traditions" alive: the labour movement, community organizing, feminism, the organized left. If you had actually read my last post about the Spanish and Russian working classes, you'd know I have a big place in my heart for these aspects of European culture. Without these collective efforts involving much voluntary work, most of your "individual rights" would not exist.

(Of course I'm not claiming that white folks get all the credit. Non-Europeans - including Natives - have participated in and enriched these movements from the beginning.)

You voice a common misconception that I think is worth addressing, especially since it relates back to the debate about value and ethics.

It is true that a disproportionate amount of wealth is located where "ethnic Europeans" are the majority. But it is major leap in logic to jump to the conclusion that "private property and individual rights" are the reason. Again, your a-historical way of analyzing leaves you with gaping blind spots. You're just assuming, based on a theory that appeals to you. You haven't looked at the actual process of how that wealth was accumulated.

Before 1500, Europe lagged behind the Arab world and China in both wealth and technology (apart from navigation and guns). Capitalism was only a minor part of the social system. The theft of bullion from the Aztec and Inca empires, as well as the Atlantic slave system, were the major sources of "primitive accumulation of capital" in Europe. You could also add the use of naval force to open the Chinese and Indian markets (while protecting the markets at home).

These oppressive, militaristic acts of state were crucial factors in the development of capitalism, and gave European powers the advantage from then on. So in a sense you're right that a "history of warfare" was a major factor.

You'll probably counter that other societies - notably Japan, Korea, and Taiwan - were able to accumulate capital and join the first world later in the game. That's true. But "individual rights" were not part of the strategy. These were highly authoritarian regimes, and their strategy involved a high degree of protectionism.