Empires on the Edge of Chaos

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Here's an interesting documentary, in the form of a presentation/lecture - not sure if the vid would play at your place, but anyway, here's the link:

http://fora.tv/2010/07/28/Niall_Ferguson_Empires_on_the_Edge_of_Chaos

(Text summary here)

This guy here is prof. Niall Ferguson, apparently one of the most prominent historians and theoreticians of economics today. He's also a staunch opponent to Paul Krugman's ideas on the market. In this video he gave a lecture in front of some Australian dignitaries at the ABC, the main topic being the life cycle of empires from a historical and economic perspective. If we try not to pay attention to his pretentiousness and the occasional passive-aggressive responses to some of the post-lecture questions, he expressed a rather interesting idea:

The wide-spread notion among mainstream economists and historian theorists that empires gradually rise, develop, reach maturity, decline and go into oblivion (as a life cycle), seems to be at odds with what reality shows in practice. In fact, he argues, most (if not even all) empires show a tremendous tendency to fall down so abruptly that no one could ever predict when exactly that would happen and how.

Whats more, what we call empires usually comprise complex systems where apparent internal balance is what we see only on the surface. What is beneath, is a vast sea of largely random factors and events which stay in a constantly shifting equilibrium (much akin to the quantum fluctuations in space vacuum, which as a whole dont change its state very much, but which, when seen on the Planck scale, are a boiling ocean of wild events). That "overall equilibrium", after reaching a certain critical level of piled internal imbalances, is thus pushing toward a totally new qualitative level, and is only waiting for the "proper" moment, and the proper trigger (event), for the whole system to start crumbling down with incredible speed.

The examples are many: the Spanish empire, the Ottoman empire, the British empire, the Russian/Soviet empire, etc etc. I know this will now sound too worn-out (we've heard too many paranoid scenarios for the end of the current single global empire), but indeed, towards the end of the lecture, he makes a grim warning for America: the above mentioned critical moment is coming closer and sooner than many of us might be hoping for.

And whats that critical ingredient which tends to send empires crashing down? He says its the moment when expenditure for serving the payments of the interest on national debt exceeds the national-security / military spending. When that happened, Spain never came back to hold its empire again, the Ottomans saw theirs dissolving within a couple of decades (granted, with the help of some external factors), and Britain saw its world empire fall to pieces within just a few years after WW2, and that vacuum quickly being filled by new players on the scene.

Quite thought-provoking remarks, by any means. Guy's admittedly not too well versed on China, but his warning that people repeating the "China is full with discrepancies, it'll crumble down on its own and we'll emerge on top again" mantra are victims to their own wishful thinking and naivety.

Also, he may not be as good on economics as Krugman (who's mostly focused on trade anyway), but on the other hand his historical examples demonstrate quite eloquently his point that things are prone to shifting and turning on their head just like that, with a snap - rather than gradually and painlessly. Whats enough for that to happen is enough critical factors to pile up on top of each other (mostly economical, but also social, trade, international relations, and probably psychological too). When the weight of all that becomes too heavy to handle, the house of cards falls down as it cannot take any more weight. And then there's a major cataclysm. In a globalised world like the present one, that could mean a cataclysm of global proportions, rather than a regional one.

Thoughts?

Comments

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Actually the root of the collapse is much more subtle than that: the Ottomans were predominantly a Balkan power but their Balkan territories were overwhelmingly Christian. When the Europeans began the land-grabs and encouraged Christian independence, this became a major problem the Sultans never adequately resolved. By the time of the two Balkan Wars the question was when, not if, because all the richest and stablest domains of the Empire were now independent countries hostile to their former overlords.

Siding with the losing side of WWI very much did not help matters, however....though it must be noted that Sevres, the post-WWI peace treaty directed at the Ottomans was the most punitive of any of the WWI peace treaties...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Which is bullshit. The Second Siege of Vienna in 1688 was not so much the decline as what set the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire with everybody else. The decline began when the Balkan countries began to want greater autonomy, which the Ottomans were never able to provide adequately, but which for their own reason the Christian Great Powers were able to do rather moreso.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That's a general problem of Imperial systems: Empire-building is not the same thing as Empire-Sustaining and actually make existing problems far, far worse. The Ottomans for a very long time ran the most efficient government in Europe (remember, efficiency does not mean that theirs was a "good" or "nice" government, it just means they were good at it). By the time they needed to alter events they were up against Industrial powers, and the only societies to avoid conquest in the late 19th Century were Ethiopia, the Ottomans, and Japan.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

True, but by the same token it was Tsar Nicholas II who referred to the Ottoman Empire as the sick man of Europe, and we know how that war ended for both Imperial Russia and the Sublime Porte, no?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

That was a military loss, but nothing majorly indicative of something more serious within the Turks. By the same token-- it was a Polish general who won the day at Vienna, and well look what happened to Poland within about a hundred years-- wiped off the map, and the Ottoman Empire was still chugging along, quite nicely too.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Precisely. Military victories or defeats aren't really an indicator of the strength of a political system like an empire. I mean the guy who called the Ottomans the "sick man of Europe" died in a mass murder in Yekaterinburg in 1918 where the Ottomans actually lasted into 1922.....

[telemann.livejournal.com]

A bit morose of me, but I wonder if all the Sultans are buried in Istanbul or did they just use the traditional very plain burial habits of everyday citizens of the empire and have unmarked graves.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I don't know the answer to that question.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Yebo, the "in-the-making" part is what we refer to as the downturn. The guy focuses on the actual dissolution of said empire. In the case of the Ottomans, it took the Crimean War, the Russo-Turkish wars, the Balkan wars and WW1 for the Ottoman empire to finally figure out it couldnt hold on to its possessions, and it took them quite a while before a smart guy like Atatürk was born who could figure out that its best to cut the excessive appendages, heal what remains, reform and go on. So today we see a Turkey which is striving for a new role in the region (http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/556957.html), rather than being an obscure name which only remains in the books.

My English varies depending on my mood and level of laziness. It always has. B'sides i'm lazy on apostrophes :p

[telemann.livejournal.com]

My English varies depending on my mood and level of laziness. It always has. B'sides i'm lazy on apostrophes :p

Icelandic is your native language? I bet being cursed out in that has to sound, really vicious :P

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Oh you dont wanna hear our curses! Some of them can melt stones (or is it the volcanos?)

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

LOL this sounded like "kudos, you're a little less stupid today than you used to be". :)

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

It is, cause it's true.

[msretro.livejournal.com]

I don't speak a word more of Icelandic than I did a year ago, so, I think that noting this guy's accomplishment is definitely a compliment.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The problem with this is it misses the difference between immediate and deeper causes. For instance WWI began with the murder of Franz Ferdinand but it was a war decades in the making.

With the Spanish Empire it "fell" in the sense that during the Napoleonic Wars its American territories on the mainland were able successfully to fight and win independence wars. It still retained its Caribbean and Pacific territories for some time afterward.

With the Ottomans, their fall ran aground the reality of their being a Balkan Empire run by a Sunni dynasty....whose power base was built on overwhelmingly majority-Christian domains. The creation of Greece, Serbia, and the Russo-Turkish War of 1877 marked the moment where the disintegration was a when, not if moment.

With Imperial Russia, 1905 had weakened Tsarism, the First World War was the fatal injury that permanently destroyed it. The Imperial regime never fought the war well, and the endless string of defeats at the hands of the Germans and never being able to follow up victories against Austria-Hungary or the Ottomans were what led to the February Revolution. The October one came from Kerensky being even more idiotic than Nicholas II.

The Soviet collapse while rather immediate was due to the problems left over from WWII: a gutted civilian sector of the economy and an overmighty military that increasingly was the entire budget, which the Soviet economy was never able to afford. The attempt to build a global empire to rival the US only compounded this and the result was maintainable for just yea so and then that was over.

The fall of the British Empire lay in WWI, where the British accumulated one crippling debt-burden but promised the Indians independence after a certain point. If India went, so did the Empire become a house of cards. WWII comes along, Japan curbstomps the Brits at Singapore, India leaves the Empire and becomes India and Pakistan and the British Empire was over. The collapse was not a few years, it was at least 20 or 30.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Not in his lifetime. Well at least not on historical issues. Although he has submitted the other side being right on many occasions. :-)

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Google is your friend.

Also try asking him about cooking and knitting. Or maybe seeding autumn crops.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Sometimes. I am, however, perfectly willing to admit to getting something wrong when I do so.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. ;P.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Good that you mentioned the psychological factor. Very often it's not realities (political, social, economical) that are the factor #1. It's people's perceptions of what they think is 'reality' (see the current political discourse in the US), plus the expectations for the future (very relevant to the economic cycle, where an irrational panic moment could crash markets). Great summary as always. I'll definitely watch the lecture when I find a spare hour.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Haven't watched it yet, but Ferguson is usually fascinating to listen so this will be worth a watch. But if that's essentially what he's arguing, I'd say he's basically right.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Mind you, he also wrote this up in Foreign Affairs last year.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65987/niall-ferguson/complexity-and-collapse

"Declinism" has been a constant theme among conservatives and liberals who regularly use it to justify their respective agendas. Bear that in mind when you listen to this.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Yeah but he's extremely eloquent, and this is well worth a watch. Which is a trait you two share. :p

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

I call BS! :D

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

:P

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

I started listening to the lecture and I think the picture in this article is one of the five paintings he was talking about in the lecture. The life-cycle of an empire. The one here is "Part Four, Collapse". Then follows Desolation.

Cool stuff.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Not very cool for the empire which experiences it ;)

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Explain this to the Greeks and Egyptians rioting on the streets today ;)

[telemann.livejournal.com]

"Declinism" has been a constant theme among conservatives and liberals who regularly use it to justify their respective agendas.

You mean "We're in a bad way, so here's my understanding of the historical record, and we can fix this, IF you follow my advice....."?

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Kindasorta. Follow me, i have the awesomestest idea! :)

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

bless you for providing a text summary.

I'm not sure to what extent his hypothesis contradicts more traditional stories. I think it is useful to recognize empires, as it were, as complex systems and as such to realize that relatively small perturbations can result in cataclysmic events, like a world war or the downfall of an empire. but we should be careful not to see those perturbations as completely random and/or occurring in a vacuum. The proximate causes of the perturbation and the susceptibility of the complex system to that perturbation may well be long in the making and admit of clear analysis. In other words, we can argue that a small perturbation or set of perturbations caused WWI, to take one of his examples. In fact, I don't think anyone denies that. Similarly the recent financial crisis. It would be an error, though, to think, that pointing to those perturbations sufficed as an explanation for the resulting monumental events.

Here's a simpler example. My PC is a complex system of sorts. And, in fact, a relatively small event, e.g., inadvertently downloading a virus, could take it from optimal functioning to a useless lump of parts quite quickly. that doesn't mean it's not useful to consider how my PC could have been less vulnerable to that virus and/or that my PC's transition into a state of high vulnerability may have been a long time, relatively speaking, in the making.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Although it may appear that no empires have sudden falls and they just have long periods of decline when their power fluctuates up and down, before they eventually disintegrate... The question is to what extent is that it is just us having the benefit of hindsight?

At those times, what are now considered major events in the turning point of an empire might well have been seen within the context of previous tumultuous events that the empire had managed to struggle on through, especially the more long-lived empires.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I think it's mostly hindsight. To use Rome as an example, the idea of the "Fall of the Roman Empire" ignores that only the Western half of it "fell" and that the Eastern part kept on trucking as a Christian Empire into the 15th Century, at which point the Kaysar-i-Rum took over from the Basileus Romaion.

Similarly the British Empire lost India which proceeded to fight the First Indo-Pakistani War but did not completely disintegrate until the 1960s, and depending on how you see it the Commonwealth could be said to be the continuation of the Empire.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah, some historians don't talk of "the fall of the Roman empire," but rather, it simply morphed into other entities (e.g. Germanic kingdoms, the Holy Roman Empire, Eastern Roman Empire). According to Wiki, there are nearly 210 explanations on why that happened. *Whew* That's a lot of reading ;)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Give it time and the fall of the Soviet Union and the other European empires will have much the same gallery of explanations.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

*shrug* Historians need books to write, and I need things to read!

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Speaking about passive-aggressive responses, they were looking for it.

I loved how he nailed that man in the end.

Q: "Do you have any children? I have. If you had any, they could teach you a lot about debt."
A: "A cursory glance at Wikipedia would have shown that I actually have three children. ... About debt? I don't know about children, but I surely must have learned more from ex-wives."

Applause and laughter...

The guy who asked the question sits down embarrassed.

Ferguson: "My goodness, I shouldn't have said that." :-)

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Ah, that British humor!