Chris: [WS:] "I think Woj is just expressing himself poorly/hyperbolically, and is simply saying that the relevant countries are better off today than if they had never been colonized, which may or may not be true and is impossible to verify.[WS:] "
[WS:] No, I am actually speaking with some precision of what is a standard procedure in any impact assessment - the evaluation of the net effect of an intervention being investigated as compared to no intervention (or alternative intervention.) That is the only meaningful way you can discuss this impact - otherwise you engage in propagandistic diatribes attributing all observed effects to the cause of their choice.
This is precisely what right wing propaganda hacks did when talking about the USSR - everything bad that happen there was attributed to the effects of communism. The left wing propaganda hacks proceed in a similar fashion - everything bad that happen in their favorite Third World countries is attributed to imperialism. This is bullshit, unconcerned with empirical facts, and I see no point in even responding to it.
Net effects of western atrocities simply mean the difference between what was already going on this respect, and what the westerners added or took away from it. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to understand that - but one needs to think analytically instead of blindly following the party line.
Tfast: "I feel the same way about Poland but I keep it to myself because such feelings can't be justified one way or the other. But I actually expect Poland would probably be better-off had it not been colonized by the French, Germans and then Russians. There is something about continuity of institutions that provides for stability even if they are slightly or quite despotic.
[WS:] Poland is actually a very good laboratory condition of the effects of foreign colonization. The western part was colonized by Germany in the 19th century - the eastern part - by tsarist Russia. The contrast between these two parts of the country can be interpreted as effects of different colonization styles. FYI, France never colonized Poland - it briefly liberated it during the Napoleonic wars.
Furthermore, the Soviet domination (not exactly colonization) of Poland had very positive effects on that country's economic development. However, I am not sure what the counterfactual would be - Yugoslavia? (no Soviet domination, but vast cultural differences, so not exactly a good comparison).
A somewhat similar argument can be made about the Philippines which experience two forms of colonialism - Spanish and American, with very different results and outcomes. While Spanish colonialism was pretty much plunder with little going back, the British, French or American colonialisms had far more beneficial effects.
Yoshie: "Japan is a good example that demonstrates this fact: the domestic ruling class who develop capitalism and modernity on their own, their power elites importing some cultural and scientific products of other nations at their convenience while rejecting others* at will, perform far better than the foreign ruling classes of empires that delay and deform development of capitalism in the hinterlands of their respective realms through colonialism and imperialism."
[WS:] But you miss the crucial point that Japan was forced to do that at the gun point, literally, as Japan was forced to capitulate to a single American gunboat. And do not forget the far reaching reform of the Japanese society after WW2 under the US occupation. Colonialism has always been based on local elites willing to cooperate with foreigners - this was the standard modus operandi of British colonialism (the indirect rule). Only Germans tried a more direct approach, but their colonialism was short lived.
So while I agree with you that the role of local elites is essential for development - that holds true for most colonial relations. And the role of those elites, in turn, depend on the resources (human and natural) they can mobilize locally.
Wojtek