The Cold War-Communism vs Colonialism

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I think some might wish to reread Diamond's GG&S before blythely declaring the 3rd world to be better off today than before colonialism. In most cases, colonialism saw a marked decrease in standard of living and life span for the colonized. Many of those former colonies have yet to recover.
.

GGS hardly addresses that, IIRC.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Why should India be united? If uniting India by force is acceptable, why is uniting Europe by force unacceptable?

Cause most contemporay indians think its a good thing, and in fact blame the Brits for allowing partition.

[Berzerker]

Generally, good. In most case native populations were slaughtered only to a slightly larger extent that they would've been slaughtered by their bretheren, and the concept of introducing many technologies, and social engineering to the native peoples, followed by rapidly expanding trade led to an enormous increase in worldwide wealth which helped usher the modern age.

Like I said, "we had to destroy the village to save it". Was it good for a tribe to be nearly exterminated by "their brethren"? Strange argument, we killed them off to steal their lands because "their brethren" weren't quite as efficient as us at killing people. Two wrongs do make a right when defending colonialism... But not to the people wronged twice...

For who's good? That's actually a very good question, but it has an answer. The fact that the people who gained the most of imperialism were the the children of the imperialist people, or other whities doesn't really matter - People are people.

So it wasn't generally good for the people being killed off or removed from ancestral lands?

So, to recap:

-Since the morals of most of the natives of the time didn't preclude genocide by conqueror, no actual expectation utilities existed on the issue.
-Much more people were allowed to live and flourish in the imperial era than before.
-The ethnicity of said people shouldn't have mattered.

So its "good" to kill off people if you can put more people on their land? Ethnicity always matters to the imperial power, thats how "us and them" becomes a tool in the invasion of other peoples lands.

This argument that imperialism ended up improving living conditions is a bogus "justification", imperialists could have stayed at home (then they wouldn't be imperialists of course) and improved their lives and then peacefully introduced technological advancements to the 3rd world in exchange for resource ectraction. We're here to make your life better, resist and we will kill you.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
imperialists could have stayed at home (then they wouldn't be imperialists of course) and improved their lives and then peacefully introduced technological advancements to the 3rd world in exchange for resource ectraction.

That wouldn't have been possible. The great expansion of capitalism could only occur because of the plunder and pillage of the rest of the world. Capitalism is built on black skins, American genocide, the destruction of Asian economies. It took the treasure of a planet to start the economic system you so revere in one small corner of it.

Ultimately, the world will be better off because of it if the world becomes communist. If all it did was serve to make one corner of the world live like kings for a few centuries before the next dark ages, then it will have been a crime against humanity.

[Az]

This is the precise time to remind yourself of Marx, and the historic inevitability.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That wouldn't have been possible. The great expansion of capitalism could only occur because of the plunder and pillage of the rest of the world. Capitalism is built on black skins, American genocide, the destruction of Asian economies. It took the treasure of a planet to start the economic system you so revere in one small corner of it.

having written a paper way back in college on the relation of West Indian slavery to the british industrial revolution (which of course is not the same thing as capitalism) i must say that is not at all a settled view in the economic history profession. In fact, in say, the 17th century Netherlands, the trades for grain, metals, and naval supplies with the Baltic region was much more substantial than the trades in spices and other luxuries with the non-European world. And of course the basic institutions of capitalism began to grow in Venice and Genoa BEFORE 1492. The history is simply much more complex than that, as even a nuanced Marxist like Braudel makes clear (or unclear - hes VERY nuanced)


and still no response on the amazing Chinese death rates stand still what if. You know that by your logic, you can probably show that Zionism saved the lives of Israeli arabs, apartheid saved the lives of blacks, etc, since AFAIK in all those places death rates declined over the same period that you cite for China.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That wouldn't have been possible. The great expansion of capitalism could only occur because of the plunder and pillage of the rest of the world. Capitalism is built on black skins, American genocide, the destruction of Asian economies. It took the treasure of a planet to start the economic system you so revere in one small corner of it.

Ultimately, the world will be better off because of it if the world becomes communist. If all it did was serve to make one corner of the world live like kings for a few centuries before the next dark ages, then it will have been a crime against humanity.

theres a third possibilty thats much more likely, which is that the rest of the world undergoes capitalist industrialization.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Berzerker


This argument that imperialism ended up improving living conditions is a bogus "justification", imperialists could have stayed at home (then they wouldn't be imperialists of course) and improved their lives and then peacefully introduced technological advancements to the 3rd world in exchange for resource ectraction. We're here to make your life better, resist and we will kill you.

two problems with that.

1. In many parts of the world, the situation was simply too disorderly for that kind of exchange to work. Whichever tribe tried to enrich itself from resource extraction and trade was likely of find itself a juicy target for its neighbors. Alternatively, where there were stronger states, they were often too conservative to adopt new technologies, fearing (often rightly so) that the new technologies would lead to social changes they could not control. Note Japan, the premier case of adoption of western tech without conquest, largely did so out of fear of conquest.

2. The contest AMONG european states for influence. For much of the 19th century, Britain, in particular opposed the extension of European sovereignty, esp in africa, and in China. Direct rule was costly, and you could, at least in many places, trade without it. But Britain had the best industry, and lowest costs, and could outcompete other europeans in most markets. Countries like France, Belgium, and Germany (and Russia in central asia, IIRC) were inclined to directly occupy countries, in order to establish tariff barriers, which would keep British goods out. Britain had to either join the carveup, or see its industry excluded from all these markets, to the benefit not of the locals, but of Britains european rivals.

[Berzerker]

That wouldn't have been possible. The great expansion of capitalism could only occur because of the plunder and pillage of the rest of the world. Capitalism is built on black skins, American genocide, the destruction of Asian economies. It took the treasure of a planet to start the economic system you so revere in one small corner of it.

Stealing other people's resources isn't capitalism.

Ultimately, the world will be better off because of it if the world becomes communist.

Communism relies on stealing other people's resources.

1. In many parts of the world, the situation was simply too disorderly for that kind of exchange to work. Whichever tribe tried to enrich itself from resource extraction and trade was likely of find itself a juicy target for its neighbors.

Dis-order is not created by trade, its created by warfare and colonialism was about warfare. If a region was in dis-order, trade had a stabilising effect.

Why are we even debating whether or not colonialism was good or bad, it may have been good for the colonists but it was bad for the people who had their lands stolen. This is about the Cold War as an extension of colonialism and how western corporations, governments, and media lied to us.

[Berzerker]

We dont justify slavery by pointing out how American blacks are now better off than black Africans. Who knows how well off Africans may be had slavery and colonialism never existed. But this much is clear, I'm better off if no one steals my land - it doesn't matter how I choose to live my life, lacking material wealth or embracing it is irrelevant.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Berzerker


"Dis-order is not created by trade, its created by warfare and colonialism was about warfare. If a region was in dis-order, trade had a stabilising effect. "


I didnt say disorder was created by trade. I said (or implied) that trade required order. And in many places warfare (and other forms of disorder) existed prior to colonialism.


"Why are we even debating whether or not colonialism was good or bad, it may have been good for the colonists but it was bad for the people who had their lands stolen."

In some places, southern africa, the americas, etc colonialism was associated with the theft of native lands. In a great many places local landholding patterns survived under colonialism, or were disrupted by policies that were not theft.


" This is about the Cold War as an extension of colonialism"

except colonialism was in retreat during the period of the cold war. The relationship of the western side to particular domestic policies on landholding (and other matters)in the excolonial worlds simply seems to be more complex than youve allowed for.


" and how western corporations, governments, and media lied to us"

Its hard to establish that without first establishing the facts.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The history is simply much more complex than that, as even a nuanced Marxist like Braudel makes clear (or unclear - hes VERY nuanced)

Nuance never goes over terribly well on an internet forum. Bats and bricks must be used.

and still no response on the amazing Chinese death rates stand still what if. You know that by your logic, you can probably show that Zionism saved the lives of Israeli arabs, apartheid saved the lives of blacks, etc, since AFAIK in all those places death rates declined over the same period that you cite for China.

Zionism, without a doubt, improved the lives of Israeli Arabs, even if they aren't as good as Israeli Jews. There is a reason Abdullah and Faisal wanted the Israelis to be part of a greater Syria/Jordan.

I think, however, you'd find that the lives of Africans under Apartheid did not improve substantially. I can't cite a source, but I recall reading that the life expectancy of Africans under Apartheid was abysmal, and certainly much lower than Africans had before being annexed (especially the Hottentots). Colonialism was an unmitigated disaster for the colonized.

There is no guarantee that a capitalist China would have improved the living standards of the average Chinese. All we can do is speculate as to what might have happened, and that would be utter fantasy, regardless of what we thought up. You can't look at the other economies of the region as examples, because their growth was predicated on the existence of the PRC and the threat it posed to the various ruling classes of the Asian-Pacific Rim.

The existence of the USSR made life better for Western Europeans and Americans, who, in order to stave off the threat of revolution, created welfare programs, pensions, social security, legalized unions, etc. All this is under attack and diminishing everywhere in the world now that the Communist threat has abated.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Stealing other people's resources isn't capitalism.

You say that after the fact. In any event, I said the growth of capitalism was predicated on the theft of other's property. Capitalism requires a certain level of wealth to prime the engine, so to speak. That priming came from plundering the planet.

Communism relies on stealing other people's resources.

My heart weaps. Every social system that has hitherto existed relied on the theft of property or unpaid labor, even capitalism. Capitalism merely mystifies and clouds that relationship with a contract.

Dis-order is not created by trade,

BS! Spanish silver flooding into the Ottoman Empire created thirty years of disorder through massive inflation. Look at the effects of the British opium trade in China.

[Berzerker]

The dis-order in China was a result of the emporer trying to shut down the opium trade. Link to silver causing dis-order in Turkey?

Your heart weaps? You should like colonialism, it has so much in common with communism. Capitalism is not colonialism or mercantlism, the two forces behind European expansion. Where in the definition of capitalism does it say theft is necessary? If you want to blame capitalism for colonialism because the former followed the latter, then communism and every future system is tainted by the past.

[OzzyKP]

You guys were so close. You could have united in a glorious battle against imperialism, as brothers. But alas, yet another cap-com thread emerges.