encelado748 comments on Fuel rationing looming unless Hormuz supply resumes, experts warn

Fuel rationing looming unless Hormuz supply resumes, experts warn (www.thetimes.com)

submitted 5 months ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

63 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] encelado748@feddit.org -6 points 5 months ago* (16 children)

Ok again for the 3rd time:

ok, again, I was very specific in my sentence.

Britain and Belgium are brutal example of growth driven by colonial exploitation. Germany and Italy are not. So while we agree that is the case for Britain and Belgium, those are not good sources to explain why this is "necessary".

Why are you fighting me on opinion we share already? - Because you are not sharing the opinion.

We fucking do in the context of that sentence. Obviously I did not meant that we share "all" the opinion we discussed in this conversation! The lack of context awareness of each of your sentences is so frustrating, and is exactly the same problem highlighted at the start of this message

Finally, I do not understand why you give China a pass. When China gets billions in capital from the World Bank, or trillions in FDI after they joined the WTO why are they not benefiting from colonial exploitation, but 1880 Germany was a colonial exploiter because they bought raw material on the open market? When China force the "One China" principle, the "No Paris Club", and tied procurement clauses (no skill transfer and no job creation) it is fine, but EU lending frameworks conditions likes anti-corruption, green transitions, and finance sustainability are bad? Why the double standard?

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 months ago (15 children)

Britain and Belgium are brutal example of growth driven by colonial exploitation. Germany and Italy are not.

We really are going in circles.

Germany and Italy did not exist in a vacuum. They operated inside an integrated European imperial system. German banks financed colonial ventures in Africa. German firms sold manufactured goods into markets protected by British and French guns. German industry ran on rubber, cotton, and minerals extracted under colonial conditions. That "open market" was not neutral. It was structured by colonial power relations that set prices, controlled shipping, and enforced contracts through gunboats. Buying raw materials from a colony means benefiting from the exploitation that produced them.

And Germany had the third largest colonial empire in the 19th century, behind only Britain and France. Lost those holdings after WW1, but the benefit remained. Italy held the AOI and other territories until 1941. No direct colonies at a given moment does not mean no colonial benefit. The core-periphery relation is systemic.

Finally, I do not understand why you give China a pass.

I am not giving anyone a pass. I am analyzing material differences in mechanism.

Chinese investment does not come with structural adjustment programs. No demands for privatization, austerity, or deregulation. No regime change tied to loans. Debt renegotiations happen without military intervention. Infrastructure-for-resources deals at least build physical capital in the host country. That is a material difference from Western lending frameworks.

The "One China" principle is about territorial sovereignty, not extraction. The policy is no more colonial than the US federal government defeating the Confederacy.

EU conditionalities like "anti-corruption" or "green transition" often function to open markets for European firms, enforce neoliberal reforms, and maintain dependency.

When China force the "No Paris Club", and tied procurement clauses (no skill transfer and no job creation) it is fine

The Paris Club is a Western creditor cartel that enforces repayment on terms favorable to core capital. Chinese lending may have tough terms at times, but it does not demand political restructuring to serve foreign capital interests.

Tied procurement is not unique to China. Western aid and investment do the same. The difference is in the superstructure: Western conditionalities reshape domestic policy. Chinese contracts are bilateral and commercial. Not perfect. But not identical.

You are conflating all foreign capital as the same. That ignores how power actually operates. Mechanism and outcome matter.

Please actually engage. Stop the circular deflection. So much of this misunderstanding and malformed analysis, (if it's not simply bad faith debate-bro bullshit) would clear up if you took the time to read the seminal works of the authors I recommended.

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[+] encelado748@feddit.org -6 points 5 months ago (14 children)

I am not going in circle! I am being precise.

I set the date as 1880 multiple times exactly because both Italy and Germany were among the richest countries in the world by that date without a colonial empire. Who cares about 1941, this is not relevant to the conversation. It is indeed the case that industrialization came before colonization. As I have stated before, steel and carbon are the main driver.

If market access is enough of a benefit to be part of the exploitation system, that means that China and India which are also benefitting from global market access and capital, are part of the system of colonial exploitation. If you grant that 2026 China and 2026 India are colonial exploiter according to your world view I will grand that 1880 Germany and 1880 Italy are colonial exploiter according to your world view.

Chinese investment does not come with structural adjustment programs. No demands for privatization, austerity, or deregulation. No regime change tied to loans. Debt renegotiations happen without military intervention.

does EU lending program for Africa? Not to my knowledge. Do you have some data that justify this? You continue to assert stuff that is not backed in reality.

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 9 points 5 months ago (13 children)

I set the date as 1880 multiple times exactly because both Italy and Germany were among the richest countries in the world by that date without a colonial empire.

Precision that misses the point is not precision. Capital does not accumulate in national silos. German and Italian industry in 1880 was embedded in a European imperial circuit. British and French colonies supplied cheap cotton, rubber, minerals. Those inputs lowered production costs for German and Italian manufacturers. Colonial markets absorbed their exports. European banks, shipping, insurance, and legal frameworks (all built on extraction) facilitated their trade. To isolate "1880 Germany" from that system is methodological nationalism. It ignores how capital actually moves.

If market access is enough of a benefit to be part of the exploitation system, that means that China and India which are also benefitting from global market access and capital, are part of the system of colonial exploitation.

False equivalence. China and India are not shaping the rules of the global market. They are operating within a system designed by and for Western capital. The IMF, World Bank, WTO, SWIFT, dollar hegemony, these are not neutral platforms. They are instruments of core power. China is building parallel structures precisely because the existing ones are rigged. That is not the same as being a beneficiary of the original extraction that built those structures.

Germany in 1880 was part of the core that designed and enforced the colonial order. China in 2026 is challenging that order. Materially different positions. Conflating them is either confusion or bad faith.

does EU lending program for Africa? Not to my knowledge. Do you have some data that justify this?

Yes. EU development aid is tied to procurement from European firms. The Cotonou Agreement, the Global Gateway initiative, the European Development Fund, all come with conditionalities on governance, trade liberalization, and policy alignment. The European Investment Bank requires environmental and social standards that often favor European contractors. These are not "anti-corruption" in the abstract. They are mechanisms that reproduce dependency and open markets for European capital.

You do not need to take my word. Read the policy documents. Or better, read the critics who have analyzed their outcomes.

Stop dodging. Stop deflecting. Stop pretending that isolating one variable in 1880 explains a global system of accumulation.

Read the fucking books. Eric Williams. Walter Rodney. Kwame Nkrumah. Samir Amin. Aimé Césaire. CLR James. Frantz Fanon. Not to argue. To understand how the world actually works.

I know reading is hard but you barely have a grasp on what you're talking about while you speak with such authority.

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[+] encelado748@feddit.org -7 points 5 months ago (12 children)

This entire reply is bullshit. Is difficult to keep up with so many lies.

In 1880 Germany was mostly self sufficient in generating capital from traditional industries (like agriculture) and the rise of the middle class. The only foreign capital injection was from France as part of the settlement reached after the Franco-Prussian war in 1871. You continue to lie about "European banks, shipping, insurance" like this was a thing in 1880. Capital was coming from national banks and industrial reinvestment. And the same lies continues with rubber (not a thing in 1880), and mineral (which one exactly?). I can grant you import from US cotton plantation, but while they had problems with slavery, that was not the result of colonial exploitation, but access to market.

False equivalence. China and India are not shaping the rules of the global market [...] Germany in 1880 was part of the core that designed and enforced the colonial order. China in 2026 is challenging that order.

False. The hegemon in 1880 was the British Empire, the bank of England and the Royal Navy. Germany was actually against the British world order, and the raise of Germany as adversary of the economic dominance of the British Empire is one of the core reasons for WW1

Stop pretending that isolating one variable in 1880 explains a global system of accumulation.

I am fucking tired of generalization applied to "the West" like a giant forever unified monolite of evil as a way to deflect from the same shit done all the time by powerful nations like China that has implicit procurement (chinese companies, materials and labor with no knowledge transfer), political (you must cut ties with Taiwan) and economical (you must export to us oil, copper, cobalt ) conditions on loans.

This was just an example to show that colonial exploitation is not the reason why some countries are rich. It is not for China, it is not for Germany, it is not for Italy (for both countries the colonial empire was a massive net financial loss).

And you repeating the same lies is so tiring that makes me think those books are not that good.

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 months ago (11 children)

In 1880 Germany was mostly self sufficient in generating capital from traditional industries

Self-sufficiency is a myth in a global capitalist system. German agriculture in 1880 relied on imported guano, nitrates, and machinery. German industry relied on imported cotton, rubber, and minerals. You cannot isolate a national economy from the world market that sustains it.

You continue to lie about "European banks, shipping, insurance" like this was a thing in 1880.

Deutsche Bank was founded in 1870 specifically to finance German foreign trade. Dresdner Bank and Commerzbank were active in colonial finance by the 1880s. Lloyd's of London insured German shipments. British and French shipping lines carried German goods. Capital was never purely national. That is not a lie. That is history.

Rubber (not a thing in 1880)

Rubber was absolutely a thing in 1880. The Congo rubber boom began in the early 1880s. The Amazon rubber boom was in full swing. German chemical firms like BASF and Bayer were already importing rubber for industrial use. Natural rubber was critical for insulation, tires, and machinery. To deny this is to ignore basic industrial history.

Mineral (which one exactly?)

Iron ore from Sweden and Spain. Manganese from Russia and Brazil. Copper from Chile and the US. Tin from Southeast Asia. German steel production depended on imported inputs. Colonial and semi-colonial sources supplied those inputs under conditions of unequal exchange. That is the material relation.

while they had problems with slavery, that was not the result of colonial exploitation, but access to market.

Slavery in the US South was colonial exploitation. The cotton that fed Lancashire and the Ruhr was produced by enslaved labor. That is not "access to market." That is extraction. To separate the two is idealism.

The hegemon in 1880 was the British Empire [...] Germany was actually against the British world order

Rivalry within the core does not negate shared benefit from the periphery. Germany challenged British hegemony precisely because it wanted a larger share of colonial extraction. That is not evidence against the system. That is evidence of how the system works.

colonial empire was a massive net financial loss

Debated in historiography. Even if true for some accounting metrics, it ignores strategic benefits: resource access, market control, geopolitical leverage, technological spin-offs. Capital accumulation is not just about balance sheets. It is about power.

China that has implicit procurement [...] conditions on loans

Yes. Chinese loans have conditions. But they do not typically demand privatization, austerity, or deregulation. They do not restructure domestic policy to serve foreign capital. That is a material difference. Not perfection. Not innocence. But difference. Conflating mechanism with outcome is bad analysis.

you repeating the same lies is so tiring that makes me think those books are not that good

You don't think rubber was a thing in the 1880s. You think Germany was self-sufficient in a global capitalist system. You think buying cotton from slave plantations is just "market access." You think core-periphery relations are optional.

I am going to ask this earnestly please don't be offended: are you by chance a German teenager? It would explain the constant attempts to whitewash German imperial history and the extreme gaps in basic historical knowledge.

If not (and honestly even if you are), then please just read the fucking books. Eric Williams. Walter Rodney. Kwame Nkrumah. Samir Amin. Aimé Césaire. CLR James. Frantz Fanon.

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[+] encelado748@feddit.org -7 points 5 months ago (10 children)

I am not a german teenager, are you a fucking AI? Because you are sounding just like AI following a script of bad training.

"cannot isolate a national economy", "never purely national", no shit Sherlock. But we are discussing insignificant parts of a nation wealth. Rubber in 1880 Germany was like 0.2% on GDP if I am being generous. Deutsche Bank is a national bank. By 1880 Germany with no colonial empire was a capital exporter, not importer. Sweden and Spain, your typical african colonies.

Why are we discussing this shit?

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 11 points 5 months ago (8 children)

Wow, very hostile. Honestly not unexpected after getting caught on some pretty bald-faced lies.

Rubber was not a thing in 1880

Shipping insurance wasn't a thing in 1880

Germany didn't import minerals or agricultural supplies

You went from denying rubber existed in 1880 to conceding it was "0.2% of GDP" in one message (not to mind 0.2% is a number pulled directly from your ass alongside being irrelevant to the point). You went from "European banks and shipping insurance wasn't a thing" to "Deutsche Bank is a national bank" like that refutes anything.

I'd be embarrassed too don't worry I don't hold it against you.

However after all this, you still have not engaged the core point: Germany and Italy were integrated into the imperial core even before they had direct colonies. Capital, trade, finance, shipping, insurance, markets, all structured by colonial extraction. It's really not that complicated. It is basic historical materialism.

The fact that you cannot grasp a systemic analysis, and instead lash out when basic facts are corrected, tells me everything I need to know. Seems I hit the nail on the head as they say (bullseye). 🤣

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[+] encelado748@feddit.org -6 points 5 months ago (7 children)

Learn to read the context when discussing, it is really like chatting with a robot..

Rubber was not a thing in 1880

CONTEXT: Germany 1880, trying to establishing the relevance to national wealth of rubber imported from colonies.

COMPLETE EXPLANATION: do the math, in 1880 we are before the invention of pneumatic bicycle tire, before the automobile industry, before rubber plantation in Congo and Asia. Global production is 11K tons, almost entirely from the Empire of Brazil, not a colony of a European country, most of which goes to Britain, US and France. At 1880 that is less then 0.2% of GDP for Germany. To me in the context of establishing the reason for Germany wealth being driven by colonial exploitation that is nothing. If for you 0.2%, 0% of which is from a colony, is worth discussing over then you are totally missing the point.

Shipping insurance wasn’t a thing in 1880

CONTEXT: original quote "European banks, shipping, insurance". We are talking about the system put in place to facilitate exploitation of colonies.

COMPLETE EXPLANATION: Stressing "European". Europe was not a thing. Shipping insurance was a thing since medieval age. Was Florence banking system and Genoa shipping insurance in 1300 put in place for exploitation of colonial empires? No, it was put in place to facilitate trade. My mistake in assuming you meant a unified "European" system of exploitation as the alternative was just silly. If you really meant banks and insurance then good for you, on a national level that was a thing and totally irrelevant to the conversation.

Germany didn’t import minerals or agricultural supplies

CONTEXT: you said "British and French colonies supplied cheap cotton, rubber, minerals". I asked you which mineral. Your quote is not a quote, I never said that. The context is still colonial exploitation, and by asking which mineral I have implied there is no mineral import from British or French colonies relevant to the conversation.

COMPLETE EXPLANATION: The only mineral not from a European country in your list was tin. Germany had tin deposits on the border with Bohemia, but most of the Tin was from Cornwall. So most of what was true for rubber is true for Tin we are talking a very small portion of GDP most of which was from Britain. The rest was from Malaya

The fact that you cannot grasp a contextual analysis and instead search for futile points to strawman when your points are trash tell me everything I need to know. Seems I hit the nail on the head as they say (bullseye). 🤣

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 9 points 5 months ago (4 children)

CONTEXT: Germany 1880, trying to establishing the relevance to national wealth of rubber imported from colonies.

Moving the goalposts is not context. It is deflection. Your original claim was that Germany industrialized without colonial benefit. That is false. The global system Germany operated within was structured by colonial extraction. Even if rubber was "0.2% of GDP" (which is again straight from your ass), it still spectacularly misses the point being made. Capital accumulation is not about raw input percentages. It is about super-profits, protected markets, financial infrastructure, and reinvestment capacity. Colonial trade provided all of that. Isolating one commodity used as an example to dismiss the system is not the dunk you seem to think it is.

Global production is 11K tons, almost entirely from the Empire of Brazil, not a colony of a European country

Brazil in 1880 was not "not a colony". It was a semi-colonial economy, formerly Portuguese, integrated into the British imperial economic sphere. Informal empire counts. The cotton, rubber, and minerals that fed European industry came from conditions of unequal exchange. Prices set in London. Shipping controlled by British firms. Contracts enforced by gunboats. That is the material relation. To pretend that "not a formal colony" means "not extraction" is to ignore how imperialism and colonialism actually works.

Europe was not a thing. Shipping insurance was a thing since medieval age.

No one said "Europe" was a unified state. The point was that German capital operated within a European imperial circuit. British shipping, Lloyd's insurance, French ports, German industrial demand: all part of the same extraction-based system. To isolate "national" banks from that circuit is methodological nationalism. It ignores how capital actually moves. Deutsche Bank financed foreign trade. German firms used British insurance. German goods moved on British ships. That is not "irrelevant". That is the system.

The only mineral not from a European country in your list was tin. Germany had tin deposits on the border with Bohemia, but most of the Tin was from Cornwall.

Cornwall was embedded in the British imperial mining complex. Its profits relied on colonial capital, colonial technology, and colonial markets. The same goes for Spanish iron, Swedish copper, Bohemian manganese. These were not isolated national industries. They operated within a European extractive circuit built on colonial power. Cheap labor from the periphery kept input costs down. Colonial infrastructure lowered shipping costs. Imperial finance provided the credit. That is how European mining stayed profitable.

Germany directly benefited from access to these mines. German steel used Spanish iron. German machinery used Swedish copper. German industry used Cornish tin. The prices, the availability, the reliability of supply, all shaped by imperial relations. To treat these as "just European" inputs is to ignore the global division of labor that made them cheap and accessible. Germany did not need its own colonies to benefit from colonial extraction. It just needed to participate in the system. And it did.

You keep isolating variables to avoid the systemic argument. One commodity. One year. One border. That is cherry-picking to protect a preconceived conclusion.

At this point, continuing is futile. You have shown you will move the goalposts, dismiss facts that inconvenience you, and lash out when basic history is corrected. If you are not willing to engage the argument in good faith, there is no point in further comments.

TL;DR baby's first dialectical and historical materialist breakdown: Germany in 1880 did not industrialize in a vacuum. It operated within a global capitalist system structured by colonial extraction. Raw materials from the periphery (cotton, rubber, minerals) fed German industry at prices shaped by imperial power. Protected colonial markets absorbed German exports. European finance, shipping, and insurance networks built on extraction facilitated German trade. Super-profits from the colonial system funded reinvestment and innovation in the core. Germany benefited from this system even before it had direct colonies. It helped sustain the system through demand, finance, and participation in the imperial circuit. That is how the material relations worked.

Also ai badjacketing me because you can't make a coherent point is cringe and you should grow up. The fact you talk so arrogantly on a topic you are so woefully uneducated about is embarrassing and honestly you should be embarrassed, but that's a good thing. You should channel this embarrassment I hope you feel into learning before speaking to avoid it in the future.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[+] encelado748@feddit.org -6 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

Ok, you won, my original claim that "Germany industrialized without colonial benefit" is false. I am defeated. I will claim that "Germany industrialized with minimal colonial benefit where minimal represent an economical input that is less then 5% of GDP by 1880".

then I will stop this charade. Have a nice day, king of worthless discussion

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

You cannot even graciously admit you were wrong. You have to make another bs claim pulled straight from your ass and cover it in sarcasm. "Minimal colonial benefit" defined by an arbitrary GDP percentage you just invented.

This was never about winning or losing. I was hoping that from exposure you might decide to do some research instead of spreading colonial apologism and "smarter Europe" nonsense that borders on race science.

Genuinely, if you just take the time to read the works I recommended and apply a proper analysis to history, you will be much more informed. Less likely to be embarrassed. Less likely to lash out when basic facts are corrected.

I wish you the best in growing up and finishing your education. Hopefully it broadens your horizons.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] encelado748@feddit.org -6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

I am so embarrassed in front of your clearly superior knowledge. You made so many unbiased relevant defining points tonight that I really struggle to reconstruct my flawed vision of global socioeconomic dynamics.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 9 points 5 months ago

Childish.

parent

[–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago (1 child)

Global production is 11K tons, almost entirely from the Empire of Brazil, not a colony of a European country

Fucking white trash dumbass.

The "Empire of Brazil" was controlled by ex Portuguese nobility and Portuguese bourgeois, in your bullshit time frame of 1880, Brazil was """""independent""""""" for only 55 years which is not enough time to recuperate from the colonial process, fuck slavery was abolished in 1888 by A FUCKING PRINCESS. The entire Brazilian nobility was trash European nobility that fled Napoleon.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] encelado748@feddit.org -5 points 5 months ago

Was the Empire of Brazil political autonomy controlled by Portugal in 1880? If the answer is no, then it was not a colony. Not that difficult to grasp. Was the US under Andrew Jackson a British colony? No, even if the local elite was European British elite of origin for the most part. Pedro II of Brazil considered himself Brazilian, born under an independent Brazil. Foreigner according to Portuguese law, educated in Brazil, with no loyalty to Portugal, he is considered one of the most important figure in Brazilian history.

parent

[–] m532@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 months ago

Dehumanization by a german nazi. How "unexpected". They can't do anything else anyways, only genocide, lose, and bootlick burgerfresser.

parent