A challenge for Marxists.

Cheezy the Wiz said:
I really don't understand what you're trying to argue with this statement.
Click to expand...

That you're defining class struggle to fit any other type of struggle. The fact that the majority of struggles aren't class related would otherwise seem to be evidence against the Marxist view.

That's not what I said, I said that the national contradiction arises first. Once the national contradiction and the colonized power becomes independent, then the more concrete questions of relations of power inside of that community make themselves plain.
Click to expand...

Sure, but why not then say that conflict between two nations or ethnic groups is more fundamental than that between the rich and the poor?

A similar thing happened in the golden era of liberal revolutions: 1848. The February Revolution created the Second French Republic, and in that event the bourgeoisie, peasantry, and proletariat were united against the monarchy. The mood was one of creating a Democratic and Social Republic for all Frenchmen. But the sharp conservative turn in the summer destroyed this illusion, and the proletariat realized that the bourgeoisie were not interested in this republican brotherhood, and the working districts of Paris erupted in terrific violence against the regime in June. While they had a common cause they were united, but once that was achieved the unity of cause was gone and they turned on each other. Marx observed these days and wrote that February was the "beautiful" revolution but June was the "ugly" one, because it was so much the more personal. Tocqueville observed that the goal of the revolutionaries was not to change the type of government (as had been accomplished in February), but, for the first time, to change the organization of society itself.

And that is the difference between national liberation and class liberation.
Click to expand...

Let's apply this, then. People in a colonized country revolt against their perceived oppressors, kick them out, but then realize that the oppression is still ongoing. So they turn to socialism and its various ideologies, or at least pay it lip service.

This makes sense as a narrative, but we're not talking about internal politics of countries, as I said; we're talking about the imperialism that precedes the class struggle of decolonized nations. You're arguing that imperialism is a huge component of capitalism but at the same time dismissing the reactions to imperialism which do not assert such.
 
As I understand it, the big component of anti-colonialist struggle, is struggle against exploitation by foreign capital. Nationalism only serves as amplifying force, provides additional common ground for people to unite.
 
Class warfare is, after all, almost always waged from above, rather than below.
 
Mouthwash said:
That you're defining class struggle to fit any other type of struggle. The fact that the majority of struggles aren't class related would otherwise seem to be evidence against the Marxist view.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you've defined "the majority of struggles," but no, the struggle against imperialism is a political struggle driven by material conditions.

Sure, but why not then say that conflict between two nations or ethnic groups is more fundamental than that between the rich and the poor?
Click to expand...

Because it's not, it's just the opposite. It's the muck that must be swept away so that the bare foundations can be plainly seen.

Let's apply this, then. People in a colonized country revolt against their perceived oppressors, kick them out, but then realize that the oppression is still ongoing. So they turn to socialism and its various ideologies, or at least pay it lip service.

This makes sense as a narrative, but we're not talking about internal politics of countries, as I said; we're talking about the imperialism that precedes the class struggle of decolonized nations. You're arguing that imperialism is a huge component of capitalism but at the same time dismissing the reactions to imperialism which do not assert such.
Click to expand...

You've fundamentally misunderstood the situation. See above.
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
I don't know how you've defined "the majority of struggles," but no, the struggle against imperialism is a political struggle driven by material conditions.
Click to expand...

So the native population has to be impoverished to revolt? Sorry, but that doesn't work for me. Even if Britain was exploiting India, their extensive modernization of the country wasn't plunging it into the third-world either.

The Palestinians especially do not feel oppressed because of what Israel has done to their economy. For them it is entirely a matter of land and dignity, and I'd be prepared to argue the point.

Because it's not, it's just the opposite. It's the muck that must be swept away so that the bare foundations can be plainly seen.
Click to expand...

I just think it's odd that things are always seen that way.
 
Mouthwash said:
So the native population has to be impoverished to revolt? Sorry, but that doesn't work for me. Even if Britain was exploiting India, their extensive modernization of the country wasn't plunging it into the third-world either.
Click to expand...

The entire subcontinent was systematically looted by the British, and their entire economy reconstructed to be a supplier of raw materials for British industry and its self-sufficient industries were destroyed. The wealth of the country and its laborers was syphoned off to Britain for more than 200 years. The fact that the British built a few railroads to facilitate that resource extraction is inconsequential to the great robbery that is called imperialism.

The Palestinians especially do not feel oppressed because of what Israel has done to their economy. For them it is entirely a matter of land and dignity, and I'd be prepared to argue the point.
Click to expand...

The 1999 negotiations fell apart precisely because the Palestinians were denied control over water, the most critical resource in the West Bank, and the Israelis would not budge on that. Land and the things on it are part of the economy, especially when your economy depends on olive groves and orchards (which are always the first things the IDF and Israeli settlers destroy). Palestinian areas are so impoverished for a reason: it is because the Israelis control access to resources and they ensure that settlers get them first.

I just think it's odd that things are always seen that way.
Click to expand...

That doesn't change the fact.

Hygro said:
Class warfare is, after all, almost always waged from above, rather than below.
Click to expand...

Class warfare is a loaded term I try to avoid. Class struggle is more nuanced, and it is waged by all at all times in a class society.
 
Saying that all struggles against imperialism are simply nationalistic struggles is like saying the 10% of the iceberg that is floating above the water is the entire iceberg. In the end anti-imperialistic movements are about regaining the resources that have been lost, and in that sense they are very much similar to class struggles.
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
The entire subcontinent was systematically looted by the British, and their entire economy reconstructed to be a supplier of raw materials for British industry and its self-sufficient industries were destroyed. The wealth of the country and its laborers was syphoned off to Britain for more than 200 years. The fact that the British built a few railroads to facilitate that resource extraction is inconsequential to the great robbery that is called imperialism.
Click to expand...

OK, fine, I don't know enough about the subject. I'll concede this.

The 1999 negotiations fell apart precisely because the Palestinians were denied control over water, the most critical resource in the West Bank, and the Israelis would not budge on that. Land and the things on it are part of the economy,
Click to expand...

Yes, but controlling water is strategic as well. There aren't bourgeoisie in Israel that are pushing for the occupation to continue, it's both the state and the nationalists that are responsible (I'm not even sure that it is a net gain for Israel).
 
Mouthwash said:
Yes, but controlling water is strategic as well. There aren't bourgeoisie in Israel that are pushing for the occupation to continue, it's both the state and the nationalists that are responsible (I'm not even sure that it is a net gain for Israel).
Click to expand...

And who controls the state my dear fellow?

Are you telling me there are not Israeli bourgeoisie making fortunes off the incredibly cheap land seized from Palestinians (a type of primitive accumulation comparable to the British Enclosure Acts)? Not profiting from the low wages paid to Palestinian workers, nor from the huge defense industry surrounding the IDF and its continual occupation and periodic assaults upon Palestinian territories and settlements in the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan, and the surrounding countries like Lebanon?
 
Cheezy the Wiz said:
The entire subcontinent was systematically looted by the British, and their entire economy reconstructed to be a supplier of raw materials for British industry and its self-sufficient industries were destroyed. The wealth of the country and its laborers was syphoned off to Britain for more than 200 years. The fact that the British built a few railroads to facilitate that resource extraction is inconsequential to the great robbery that is called imperialism.
Click to expand...

Now I see the logical fallacy here. You are applying a zero-sum game model on exploitation. "India would have been very rich and wealthy if the British has not exploit her for 200 years."

No, without modernization and other industrial, education, social-economical remodelling, the wealth of India would just stagnate in its pre-industrial level. The problem here is British did both things in the same time, "exploit" (zero-sum) or "loot" (negative-sum) wealth from India, and create wealth (positive-sum) in India. The thing is, modern imperialism exploits thing that would not be materially viable because of social-technology difference. In other worlds, west colonizers take away wealth that would not exist otherwise. Yes, this exploitation is immoral and unfair, but claiming that the indigenous population would have the wealth if the western colonization didn't happen, would be a fairy tale.

Now after some alternation of powers (west weakened by two world wars, national bourgeois in colonies gaining wealth from exploitation distributions, and gaining trust from colonizers as local collaborators), the national bourgeois rebelled against the colonizers. Some were hard fought both peacefully or violently (India, Vietnam, Algeria, Angola), but many sub-Sahara African colonies are considered as toxic assets and being largely abandoned by London and Paris.
 
plarq said:
Now I see the logical fallacy here. You are applying a zero-sum game model on exploitation. "India would have been very rich and wealthy if the British has not exploit her for 200 years."

No, without modernization and other industrial, education, social-economical remodelling, the wealth of India would just stagnate in its pre-industrial level. The problem here is British did both things in the same time, "exploit" (zero-sum) or "loot" (negative-sum) wealth from India, and create wealth (positive-sum) in India. The thing is, modern imperialism exploits thing that would not be materially viable because of social-technology difference. In other worlds, west colonizers take away wealth that would not exist otherwise. Yes, this exploitation is immoral and unfair, but claiming that the indigenous population would have the wealth if the western colonization didn't happen, would be a fairy tale.

Now after some alternation of powers (west weakened by two world wars, national bourgeois in colonies gaining wealth from exploitation distributions, and gaining trust from colonizers as local collaborators), the national bourgeois rebelled against the colonizers. Some were hard fought both peacefully or violently (India, Vietnam, Algeria, Angola), but many sub-Sahara African colonies are considered as toxic assets and being largely abandoned by London and Paris.
Click to expand...

False! Well, more like only partially true. Parts of India were already industrializing before British rule. In some cases, Britain deindustrialized those parts to keep them dependent on Britain. However, in other cases, Britain brought a modicum of industrialization. India could have been modernized without British rule, through diffusion of technology and industry and human capital and technical know how by those areas that were going through industrialization. What British rule did was ensure India's emergence as one nation, and not several nations.

I don't know if in the end India would have gained more absolute wealth with or without colonization, but claiming that India could not have reached where it was without Britain is a legitimizing myth of imperialists.
 
jackelgull said:
India could have been modernized without British rule, through diffusion of technology and industry and human capital and technical know how by those areas that were going through industrialization.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, there's a possibility in the diffusion of technology without military conquest and administrative colonization. This is what happens many many times in human history. However, modernization is a highly heterogeneous process in human history, where only a small core of nation (UK, France, and later Scandinavian, United States and German states) gains the traction and boomed in technology sector.

Without being subjugated to colonization, countries closer to the origin point of innovation will learn the how-to and being able to progress, such as the Scandinavian, United States and Germany catching up with UK, and further away, the modernization of Czarist Russia and Ottoman Empire.

However, the difficulty skyrockets as soon as the country is situated further away, Persia, Ethiopia, Thailand all failed and falling further behind as the time progresses. The only exception is Japan.

Had it be a world where colonization empire just fails (due to disease or other communication expense), the technology spread would be even slower since there is no capitalist incentive to develop and exploit. The only countries would emerge as successful modernized nations would be a ring around European advances. Russia, Ottoman Empire and Middle East would be the extreme.
 
plarq said:
Well, yes, there's a possibility in the diffusion of technology without military conquest and administrative colonization. This is what happens many many times in human history. However, modernization is a highly heterogeneous process in human history, where only a small core of nation (UK, France, and later Scandinavian, United States and German states) gains the traction and boomed in technology sector.

Without being subjugated to colonization, countries closer to the origin point of innovation will learn the how-to and being able to progress, such as the Scandinavian, United States and Germany catching up with UK, and further away, the modernization of Czarist Russia and Ottoman Empire.

However, the difficulty skyrockets as soon as the country is situated further away, Persia, Ethiopia, Thailand all failed and falling further behind as the time progresses. The only exception is Japan.

Had it be a world where colonization empire just fails (due to disease or other communication expense), the technology spread would be even slower since there is no capitalist incentive to develop and exploit. The only countries would emerge as successful modernized nations would be a ring around European advances. Russia, Ottoman Empire and Middle East would be the extreme.
Click to expand...

It is kind of strange that you think innovation- the kind required for industrialization- only could have happened in Europe. Especially considering that India and Britain were at relative tech parity until the colonization happened. Colonization occurred in India not because of technological inferiority by the Indians, but because the hostilities between various kingdoms in India could be exploited to allow Britain interfere as mercenary forces. What Britain did was squash the forces that fostered innovation required for industrial growth in Europe, and thus kept India in a state if infancy, to have only the industry Britain needed for it, with no regard to what the free market would dictate should happen there naturally. Is it possible that in the long run Britain could have poured more capital into colonizing and exploiting India then could have happened otherwise? Perhaps, but I am skeptical.
 
jackelgull said:
False! Well, more like only partially true. Parts of India were already industrializing before British rule. In some cases, Britain deindustrialized those parts to keep them dependent on Britain. However, in other cases, Britain brought a modicum of industrialization. India could have been modernized without British rule, through diffusion of technology and industry and human capital and technical know how by those areas that were going through industrialization. What British rule did was ensure India's emergence as one nation, and not several nations.

I don't know if in the end India would have gained more absolute wealth with or without colonization, but claiming that India could not have reached where it was without Britain is a legitimizing myth of imperialists.
Click to expand...

Excellent post, but on a point of fact, 'India' as it was called under the British Empire was immediately divided into two nations (India and Pakistan) on independence, and is currently three, Bangladesh having broken, almost immediately, from Pakistan. So even that isn't strictly true.
 
plarq said:
Now I see the logical fallacy here. You are applying a zero-sum game model on exploitation. "India would have been very rich and wealthy if the British has not exploit her for 200 years."
Click to expand...

No, I said that India had her wealth stolen from her for 200 years. The level of production involved does not change that fact. If anything, production was improved in India so that more of it could be stolen by the British.
 
Actually in the French case, the only "colonies" France kept are those where it accepted to pay the necessary money for the colonies not to seek independence. What we now call TOMs and DOMs are heavily subsidized.
 
Historically speaking, France took most of her colonies so as to be able to provide captive markets through tariffs, quotas, and other protectionist policies. Britain, which generally favoured free trade (having a significant advantage in it), took colonies in order to stop anyone else taking them first, and imposing tariffs, quotas, and other protectionist policies. Modern (ie, post-about-1970) colonialism is a slightly different kettle of fish, and I'm not sure how it fits into the Marxist, Hobsbawmesque view of things.
 
jackelgull said:
It is kind of strange that you think innovation- the kind required for industrialization- only could have happened in Europe. Especially considering that India and Britain were at relative tech parity until the colonization happened.
Click to expand...

On the eve of industrial revolution, the European countries' economies are on par--if not worse--than oriental societies such as India and China. The great difference is that the Europeans (especially Brits and Frenchmen) had already progressed in physics and chemistry so far that it will translate to engineering powers unavailable to India and China. So even if the two worlds are disconnected, the Europe will still have some advantage in that divergent point.

Colonization occurred in India not because of technological inferiority by the Indians, but because the hostilities between various kingdoms in India could be exploited to allow Britain interfere as mercenary forces.
Click to expand...

The best control group comparing to India is China. China cannot be colonized due to homogeneous population and a strong centralized government (Qing) and after that, waves of nationalist awakening and popular mobilization. Yet, at the time of India and Pakistan independence, both countries are economically more advanced than China. Okay, maybe it is a bad analogy since China had been torn by endless wars at that time, but India also share its fate of draft, revolutionary unrest and 1943 Bengali famine imposed by British Raj. The partition and sect violence between Muslim and Hindus alone cost half million lives and broken economic ties between India and Pakistan.
 
plarq said:
On the eve of industrial revolution, the European countries' economies are on par--if not worse--than oriental societies such as India and China. The great difference is that the Europeans (especially Brits and Frenchmen) had already progressed in physics and chemistry so far that it will translate to engineering powers unavailable to India and China. So even if the two worlds are disconnected, the Europe will still have some advantage in that divergent point.



The best control group comparing to India is China. China cannot be colonized due to homogeneous population and a strong centralized government (Qing) and after that, waves of nationalist awakening and popular mobilization. Yet, at the time of India and Pakistan independence, both countries are economically more advanced than China. Okay, maybe it is a bad analogy since China had been torn by endless wars at that time, but India also share its fate of draft, revolutionary unrest and 1943 Bengali famine imposed by British Raj. The partition and sect violence between Muslim and Hindus alone cost half million lives and broken economic ties between India and Pakistan.
Click to expand...

The answer comes down to political capital. The Chinese never "modernized" until the Communists took over and forced a program of modernization. Under the British Raj, India underwent modernization, that might have already come about without British aid. I mean, I suppose Britain dumped some capital into the process, but I believe the political will was already there. This is why Japan (among other reasons) entered the imperial game when other nations didn't. There was a lot of political capital behind modernization. Also, Japan caught the wave of sociopathic nationalism that was sweeping imperialistic countries at the time which allowed for the colonizing of Manchuria and other such places under the guise of Japanese superiority. I understand that imperialism is more complicated than just sociopathic nationalism, but I firmly believe that nationalism, especially of that variety is like a zombie virus. Either a nation catches,or it is destroyed by another nation that has caught it, except either way survival isn't guaranteed. Still, it is no coincidence that all imperialistic nations have caught it at one point in their history or another.


And as for the response to FP's post- okay, so there's three countries on the Indian subcontinent. Still less than what would have occurred without the British.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

pineappledan
New Ideology & Victory Design doc
Replies
1
Views
112
Brackenspore
Brackenspore
King Phaedron
Not living in America is a Denouncible Offense!
Replies
4
Views
2K
Quintillus
Quintillus
PDX Firefly
Millennia | Community Q&A II
Replies
7
Views
1K
Ita Bear
Ita Bear
A
No slavery challenge
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
antimony
A
CSD
[TUTORIAL] How to Set Persistent Variables in Pure Python
Replies
4
Views
404
CSD
CSD
Top Bottom