Can a Marxist (or anyone else) name a single instance of foreign rule being experienced as class oppression, rather than national? Keep in mind I'm talking about the population and not the actions or beliefs of the occupiers.
A challenge for Marxists.
- Thread starter Mouthwash
- Start date
ReindeerThistle
Zimmerwald Left
All of them.
But one that immediately came to.mind is India. The royalty in India and the bourgeoisie in India did quite well under British rule until 1947. The nature of inperialism is that it exports capital to extract surplus value. Some of that benefits the national ruling class.
The term for national bourgeoisie who do the bidding for foreign capital is called "comprador."
See Amilcar Cabral's "National Liberation and Social Structure"
There is also a good piece by Ho Chi Minh about."gold week," where he urges the national bourgeoisie of.Viet Nam to put up their gold to buy guns from the Chinese to fight the French, but the article's title escapes me.
But one that immediately came to.mind is India. The royalty in India and the bourgeoisie in India did quite well under British rule until 1947. The nature of inperialism is that it exports capital to extract surplus value. Some of that benefits the national ruling class.
The term for national bourgeoisie who do the bidding for foreign capital is called "comprador."
See Amilcar Cabral's "National Liberation and Social Structure"
There is also a good piece by Ho Chi Minh about."gold week," where he urges the national bourgeoisie of.Viet Nam to put up their gold to buy guns from the Chinese to fight the French, but the article's title escapes me.
You need to remember what I'm talking about, dude. Sure, you can point to aristocrats revolting or cooperating because how the foreigners affected their finances, but the consciousness on the street was always of a national directive (or just hatred of the occupiers). Case in point: Palestinian territories.
Sure, but did Indian nationalists talk about the dignity and sovereignty of India, Indian culture and religion, the brutality of the British, or did it talk about how the colonials were impoverishing the country and getting rich? It doesn't have to be all one or the other, but I'd wager that the former is by far the predominant theme, and the latter used as a component of it.
Which I don't find very relevant.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
While the divide between a comprador bourgeoisie and the working class of an oppressed nationality is very real, oppressed nationalities themselves constitute an exploited underclass just as do oppressed genders. This is why we speak of intersections where these different identities amplify or mitigate one another.
EnglishEdward
Deity
The Norman occupation of England following the Battle of Hastings 1066.
The successful Norman invaders simply replaced the defeated Saxon aristocracy,
and they were more effective at class oppression of the Saxon peasantry class.
This was not just a case of Norman aristocrats replacing Saxon aristocrats,
because there were not enough Norman and allied aristocrats; so many
Norman men of arms were upgraded in rank in the feudal order.
So there really is no way to disconfirm Marxism, by its methodology. National oppression just counts as another sort of class oppression!
In the interests of continued discussion, I think the pattern is that intrastate strife produces communist or class revolutionaries, while a struggle with a foreign occupier always manifests itself as nationalism. How many postcolonial countries do you know in which it was communists that threw off imperial rule? And yet almost all of them experienced a rise of revolutionary communism shortly after. I'm not qualified to speculate, but it just seems like it is attractive to countries after the shock of independence, as it provides solidarity and control (which reinforce nationalism rather than curtail it as Marxism predicts).
I don't think this applies to a new ruling class moving in. That kind of thing happened everywhere. I'm talking about a people and country that are under the rule of another country.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
That seems like a childish response to us saying that you've misconceptualized the issue.
This seems like a strange question. Nothing has ever been "just communists," nor have communists ever said it should be so. A communist party that's doing its job is leading a mass movement composed of a number of elements who all believe they have something to gain from the destruction of the present order. In some cases that's meant nationalists, in others it's meant religious elements, and in others it's meant liberals and anarchists.
It's certainly true that many anti-colonial movements have primarily pursued nation-building projects after independence, while nominally claiming the mantle of socialism, but that doesn't change the fact that their path is objectively anti-imperialist and thus anti-capitalist. The fact that Ghana or Tanzania formed a sort of national bourgeoisie after independence doesn't change the fact that British finance capital was weakened far more by their independence than if either had stayed a colony. A tiny bourgeoisie in the Third World won't save global capitalism when it falls in New York or The City.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Turks over the Armenians and Kurds. Germans over the Polish. Israelis over the Palestinians. Anglo-Saxon Americans over the various indigineous tribes of America. Northern Dutch over the Southern Dutch. Wallonians over the Flemish. Flemish over the Wallonians. Romans over the Gallians. Franks over the Gallians.
Do I need to continue? Certain ethnic group belong neatly to several elite or marginalised ethnic group. The reason why the Israeli occupation of Palestine is so durable is because a large part of religious, bourgeoisie and military class are drawn from Jews. Our rule over Belgium was less durable because the Southern Dutch had a sizable presence in the bourgeoisie of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Do I need to continue? Certain ethnic group belong neatly to several elite or marginalised ethnic group. The reason why the Israeli occupation of Palestine is so durable is because a large part of religious, bourgeoisie and military class are drawn from Jews. Our rule over Belgium was less durable because the Southern Dutch had a sizable presence in the bourgeoisie of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands.
If you conceptualize class oppression as also being any other kind of oppression, then it's beyond me how Marxism is falsifiable.
It must be noted though, ISIS and the Nazis both fall under your definition of 'communist party'.
Sure, but if it's the case that imperialism is driven by and maintains capitalism, then I'd like to pose the thread's question to you again. Why does nationalism fuel independence and not class solidarity?
I don't see how those are examples of class oppression (at least, that they were experienced as such). Maybe a concession could be made for the Southern Dutch, however they lived in the same geographical unit and were culturally similar; the same goes for the Flemish and Walloons. The European-American dominance over the natives doesn't count since there was an enormous technological and demographic gap between the two. But Israel's control of the West Bank, the Romans' over Gaul, Germany's over the Poles, these were all viewed as a foreign occupation and responded to accordingly.
I don't know anything about the first and last examples, so explanations would be helpful there.
ReindeerThistle
Zimmerwald Left
Okay, this is your OP. You wrote this, amirite?
So, then you say this:
ALWAYS of a national directive? Seriously? In 1920, 300 million of 350 million Indians didn't even call themselves Indians. You were Bengali, Punjabi, etc.
National Liberation Struggles usually involve the building of a national conscience, yes. In the case of India, the Indian Congress Party (of wealthy Indians) directed the mass motion toward hatred of England, while maintaining the caste system and diverting attention from their own class oppression.
Don't get me started on Palestine. The PA and the Israeli government are both screwing over the workers. Those aren't the rich getting tear-gassed in Gaza.
It was both.
And I don't care. It describes the situation.
The history of all society is the history of class struggle. I came from one class, and now work for another. Trust me, the wealthy understand class struggle.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Long-term occupation is nearly indistinguishable from de-facto sovereignty. In regards to Germany's rule over Poland, I was referring to the period up to 1919.
Well, the PKK is left-wing and most Left-wing Turkish parties are Pro-Kurdish. Most Armenian parties active in the Ottoman Empire were never on the right.
The aristocracy of the French ancien regime was at large drawn from Germanic Franks. The peasantry was largely Gallic of ethnic origin. Nowadays, this distinction is largely onerous, though it was important up to 1789.
As I said, resentment of the occupiers counts just as well. In a huge country like India it would be a more effective unifier.
Which kind of validates my point.
Tear-gas? You're thinking about the West Bank. Anyway, Palestine is a near-perfect example of violent nationalism as the entire goal is about reclaiming land. Social justice takes a backseat to that in the Palestinian mentality.
What does the PA is screwing over workers prove? However they affect their people is incidental to their collaboration with Israel; they are a puppet regime. The settlements are built to control the terrain and not at the behest of some plutocracy, as Eyal Weizman explains, so while Israel's actions can be called colonialism, it's not the same colonialism practiced by Europe.
Yes, but saying that "the British are getting rich off of Indian misery" is a statement of national oppression itself. What we're looking for are politics based off of class divisions.
ReindeerThistle
Zimmerwald Left
It's all class oppression.
EDIT: ...materialism rules the world. Force, in all its forms, rules the world. ALL governments are class dictatorships.
ALL.
Unsubscribing from this thread.
Moderator Action: If you think a thread is a troll thread, report it, rather than lashing out.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
EDIT: ...materialism rules the world. Force, in all its forms, rules the world. ALL governments are class dictatorships.
ALL.
Unsubscribing from this thread.
Moderator Action: If you think a thread is a troll thread, report it, rather than lashing out.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
It's almost like all oppression under capitalism is ultimately rooted in capitalism itself or something, right?
I didn't give a definition of a communist party, I gave a list of things that a communist party that's doing its job will be doing.
The answer is in the question. Because the pursuit of independence requires conceptualization of a nation to be independent. The thing is, imperialism is what creates national identity in this case, by grouping the entirety of the oppressed nation together into one single unit: The Colonized. It's the ideological side of imperialism: the crushing of native culture, the introduction of "superior" foreign culture, religion, customs, and the dichotomy between those who own and those who work. Imperialism is always racist, and at least part of the justification for the dominance of the empire is cast in terms of higher and lower races. All that has the effect of making the oppressed nations realize a national solidarity first.
As I said, though, a communist party that's doing its job ensures that the masses understand the link between capitalism and imperialism, such that the pursuit of independence is also the pursuit of proletarian class rule. But the challenge of turning a worker-led People's Republic into a proper proletarian class dictatorship is a huge one, and the risk is heightened even more due to the irate Empire meddling in domestic affairs from afar. More than a few African communist national leaders were assassinated by the CIA, MI6, or native warlords in their employ.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Cheezy, out of curiosity would you consider a communist?
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I'll take Reindeer's subscription 
Got nothing to say yet. Waiting for one of the below quotes to gain conversational traction. On one hand I can't think of an example that meets Mouthwash's premise, but on the other I'm vibing a false premise to begin with since virtually all colonialism past the age of modern nationalism was driven by profit-seeking. Then again much of the profit seeking was driven by political-military competition concerns of the monarchies (and hence their lovely intersection during WW1). But then the profit-seekers used the aftermath of WW1 to solidify their economic power that would allow them to more easily supercede national power.
Got nothing to say yet. Waiting for one of the below quotes to gain conversational traction. On one hand I can't think of an example that meets Mouthwash's premise, but on the other I'm vibing a false premise to begin with since virtually all colonialism past the age of modern nationalism was driven by profit-seeking. Then again much of the profit seeking was driven by political-military competition concerns of the monarchies (and hence their lovely intersection during WW1). But then the profit-seekers used the aftermath of WW1 to solidify their economic power that would allow them to more easily supercede national power.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
So Mouthwash, what you're asking for is an example of an occupation that benefited the ruling class of the occupied country, or?
Sure, but you are also making it a lot harder for anyone to prove that that is not the case. Countries don't typically occupy another country without some sort of benefit, and at least part of that benefit is presumably found among the ruling class. Who is to say that state power isn't more decisive?
OK, that's fair. Seems dangerous to permit the use of any old ideology in place of socialism, but that's trudging a bit off-topic.
I can't understand why you don't see this as evidence against communism. You believe that capitalism is a global system of oppression, and yet you don't see any reason why it should have been viewed as that by its victims.
An example of an occupation which was viewed by its victims as an example of class oppression. What it says in the title.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
I really don't understand what you're trying to argue with this statement.
It's a mass-movement. There's more than one kind of mass-movement.
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.
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.
Similar threads
