much the same reasons, the caste system has continued to flourish in India
despite a series of conquests by non-Hindu forces.
Away from Asia, the progress of Abrahamic religions depended on similar
economic rationale. Bertrand Russell, writing about the adoption of
Christianity by Constantine, notes:
The support of the Christians, as a
single organized
bloc, was to be obtained by favoring them. Whatever dislike of the Christians
existed was unorganized and politically ineffective. Probably [Michael]
Rostovtseff is right in holding that a large part of the army was Christian,
and that this was what most influenced Constantine. However that may be, the
Christians, while still a minority, had a kind of organization which was then
new, though now common, and which gave them all the political influence of a
pressure group to which no other pressure groups are opposed. This was the
natural consequence of their virtual monopoly of zeal, and their zeal was an
inheritance from the Jews.
In essence, the thrust of the
argument is that the Emperor Constantine needed the Christians for his own
selfish interests. Their unitary organization made it easier for him to
implement social and economic changes, which helped to solidify his control
over the Roman Empire, finally pushing his rival Licinius, whose persecution of
the Christians sparked a revolt, into abdicating. Among his various reforms was
the introduction of hereditary professions such as butchers and bakers, a nod
to economic interests if there ever was one.
A few hundred years later, Islam's initial expansion was in turn fueled by a
change of circumstances for the otherwise nomadic desert-dwelling Bedouin
tribes. Joining up with Islamic armies was a way of employment, and offered an
escape from the dreadful poverty of roaming around the desert looking for means
of sustenance. Military successes provided access to trading wealth, and
therefore enhanced prosperity at a stroke, in turn allowing the adoption of
Islam as a self-fulfilling rationale. In modern times, increased prosperity in
Saudi Arabia and Iran have allowed those countries to fund pet projects
elsewhere, designed to further their own economic interests in the long run.
Civilizations and economics
Abrahamic religions, during their expansionary phase, always used their
supposed superiority as an excuse for inflicting ills on their conquests. This
was simply an extension of the rationale used for the caste system, in that
people with better economic prospects just happened to have been born with an
unfair advantage of belonging to the right caste, cult or religion. From a
social perspective, religion certainly provided an answer for expanding
economic girth.
As societies moved from addressing basic needs such as food and shelter to
greater living standards, questions on the treatment of other human beings were
common enough. In such cases, the overriding principle was to castigate the
victims for following barbaric practices, or worshipping the wrong god. Thus,
it could be explained, the essential role of the British in India was to
convert the "copper-colored pagans" to Christianity, even if in practice the
colonial authorities were more interested in plundering the country's wealth.
Within British society itself, greater economic prosperity was the greatest
factor in helping to implement social changes. Despite laws outlawing slavery
from many hundred years before, the practice flourished until the middle of the
18th century. The ability of society to outlaw the practice was greatly helped
by the Industrial Revolution, which replaced human input with machines,
allowing for an expansion in production without more costly manual and animal
labor. In much the same way, the agrarian US south resisted the demands of the
industrial Yankee north to end slavery, not because of religious or racist
tendencies, but because the economics of their situation demanded the continued
use of slaves.
Equally, enough industrialists in the north opposed the abolitionist movement
because of its potential to affect their economic well-being. The history of
civil rights in the US since then has depended much on continued economic
growth. Universal suffrage both for women and for blacks was implemented under
economic conditions that risked adverse results if the peace was not secured by
implementing reforms.
If successful civilizations can be explained by economics, so can failures. A
recent example is the collapse of support for the Taliban in Afghanistan in the
2000-01 period, well before the US invasion. The most important reason for the
population to move toward the Taliban in the first place was the Afghan civil
war in the 1992-96 period that pushed Afghans deeper into poverty. Thus their
embrace of the Taliban was more about ensuring economic security than adopting
strict religious practices. In the event, the Taliban failed to improve the lot
of the average Afghan, because of their stubborn insistence on adopting Wahhabi
practices such as severe restrictions on the role of women.
Such practices were all too common in Saudi Arabia, the main sponsor of the
Taliban, but only because Saudi society did not need its women to work. The
reliance on oil wealth rather than manufacturing allowed Saudi society to
emerge as a classic closed one, but clearly its export to more open economies
was not possible. Thus the trade-dependent Afghans simply could not afford the
Taliban-inspired practices, inspiring support for anti-Taliban fighters.
Tellingly, it is in urban areas such as Kabul and Jalalabad that the Taliban
were first ousted, as cities have more diverse economies than the rural
landscape.
So ...
I am confident that China will embrace political reforms, and India will
greatly enhance its social reforms, simply because the supporting
economic-growth rationale exists in both cases. Equally, I despair at the
prospects for most Muslim countries because the absence of economic growth
vastly increases the chances of their populations being radicalized, in turn
pushing these societies deeper into poverty.
Peace, love and goodwill to all men; bah humbug. Show me the money, honey.
