The Cold War-Communism vs Colonialism

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The dis-order in China was a result of the emporer trying to shut down the opium trade.

The disorder in China resulted in the Emperor trying to shut down the opium trade, and that led to war.

Link to silver causing dis-order in Turkey?

Read any book on the Ottoman Empire, specifically the period between 1590 and 1620.

Capitalism is not colonialism or mercantlism, the two forces behind European expansion. Where in the definition of capitalism does it say theft is necessary?

What definition of capitalism? The one you Randroids came up with after the fact? Capitalism is not colonialism, no. But there is such a thing as capitalist colonialism, and colonialism was driven by capitalism, and vice versa. Mercantalism was a governmental policy, not an economyic system, and it corresponded to the first stage of capitalism, which was based on trade, i.e., merchants. Hence the name.

See, your problem is you want to look to a book for your definition of social reality, rather than looking at the actual history and creating a definition from that. Capitalism is the society that happened and the society we live in.

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.

I have no problem with that. I'm not the one who thinks his ideal society is pristine and without blemish. Marx himself said, the future society will be shaped by what proceeds it. We will enter socialism with all the prejudices and social consciousnesses created in capitalist society. It will take time for the new society to overcome that. Oh well. No one said socialism was easy. In fact, this historical experience shows us it's pretty freakin hard, and easy for things to go terribly wrong.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by 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.

I think we can agree that imperialism sucks with teeth and needs to be fought. I'm actually surprised that Berz looks upon America's conduct in the Cold War as imperialism. But hey, I'm not gonna look a gift horse in the mouth. Go Berz!

[OzzyKP]

See? Isn't that nicer? Lets all sing.

[chequita guevara]

Le Internationale

Arise ye workers [starvelings] from your slumbers
Arise ye prisoners of want
For reason in revolt now thunders
And at last ends the age of cant.
Away with all your superstitions
Servile masses arise, arise
We'll change henceforth [forthwith] the old tradition [conditions]
And spurn the dust to win the prize.

So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites the human race.
So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale unites the human race.

No more deluded by reaction
On tyrants only we'll make war
The soldiers too will take strike action
They'll break ranks and fight no more
And if those cannibals keep trying
To sacrifice us to their pride
They soon shall hear the bullets flying
We'll shoot the generals on our own side.

No saviour from on high delivers
No faith have we in prince or peer
Our own right hand the chains must shiver
Chains of hatred, greed and fear
E'er the thieves will out with their booty [give up their booty]
And give to all a happier lot.
Each [those] at the forge must do their duty
And we'll strike while the iron is hot.

[chequita guevara]

Bandiera Rossa

Avanti o popolo, alla riscossa,
Bandiera rossa, Bandiera rossa
Avanti o popolo, alla riscossa,
Bandiera rossa trionferà.

Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Evviva il comunismo e la libertà.

Degli sfruttati l’immensa schiera
La pura innalzi, rossa bandiera.
O proletari, alla riscossa
Bandiera rossa trionferà.

Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Il frutto del lavoro a chi lavora andrà.

Dai campi al mare, alla miniera,
All’officina, chi soffre e spera,
Sia pronto, è l’ora della riscossa.
Bandiera rossa trionferà.

Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Soltanto il comunismo è vera libertà.

Non più nemici, non più frontiere :
Sono i confini rosse bandiere.
O comunisti, alla riscossa,
Bandiera rossa trionferà.

Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Bandiera rossa la trionferà
Evviva Lenin, la pace e la libertà.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by aneeshm
That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard . Just in case you want to know , India's share of the world economy at time the British came to India : 22 % . Europe's share at the same time : 23 % .

I'd love to see how that was calculated.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

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.

It would have been difficulty for the United Provinces to trade abroad for spices or silks or porcelain without the ships to carry it in, or indeed the ships required to defeat Spain- as at Leyden for instance.

Spain's decline was accomplished also by the Dutch becoming carriers of Spanish goods.

Antwerp (which had been an entrepot port for the Spanish) also silted up, which led to a transference of trade north.

English trade with the Baltic was also important, as wood supplies and tallow (both essential for expanding navies both merchant and military) came from there.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Sir Og
Germany and Italy did it why not India?

Germany and Italy had been united before. India had never, ever been united before the British Raj. It's also quite a big larger than Germany and Italy put together.

[chequita guevara]

India had been mostly united several times. India, however, has never been a single people, like the Germans or Italians. Uniting India would be like uniting all of Europe.

[el freako]

Originally posted by aneeshm

That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard . Just in case you want to know , India's share of the world economy at time the British came to India : 22 % . Europe's share at the same time : 23 % .

When they left India , India's share was : 2 % .

"Force for the good . . . . ." ? Really ? Not good for India , at least .

Bull****!

India's growth rate under the British (1700-1948) = 0.35% a year
India's growth rate in the two preceeding centuries = 0.16% a year

(source: A. Maddison, "World Economic Statistics 1500-2001")

So the growth in incomes was higher during Britian's period of rule than the previous two centuries of 'freedom' (during which, I should add India was neither united or really free)

[Sir Og]

I am no expert on India but i have the impression that Indian languages are a lot closer than Europen languages and there aren't such great religious differences.

[Sir Og]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

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.

Quoted for truth

[Az]

Bull****!

India's growth rate under the British (1700-1948) = 0.35% a year
India's growth rate in the two preceeding centuries = 0.16% a year

(source: A. Maddison, "World Economic Statistics 1500-2001")

So the growth in incomes was higher during Britian's period of rule than the previous two centuries of 'freedom' (during which, I should add India was neither united or really free)

Thanks for the figures, man.

I guess that proves my point vis a vis India, also.


So, did we establish that euro imperialism was a force for good until the 20th century?

[aneeshm]

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.

That's only part of the story. In the case of India, for example, the Indian textile trade, which was once an exporter to Europe, was destroyed, physically, by the British. Indians were no longer allowed to manufacture textiles, so that Great Britain could sell India textiles instead.

For once , I agree with you . Hand-crafted textiles were banned , because even then we had the capability to swamp the British with high-quality cloth ( hand-woven stuff was much better in quality than anything England could produce industrially at that time ) .

Then British trade laws forced cotton farmers to sell to the British at low rates . Then took the cotton to England , processed it , and sold back the third-rate cloth at high prices , by destroying the indigenous industry .

As the British mills required indigo as a dye , food-crop farming was banned in many areas , and farmers were forced to grow indigo , with the result that the land was rendered barren and the farmer himself did not have enough food to eat ( because he was forced to sell to the British at low rates ) . Farmers who did not comply were . . . .disposed of , in rather unpleasant ways .

The British , to maintain control , instituted the Zamindari system , where one man would be given virtual control of the land on a village or set of villages , and everyone there would not own his own land , and thus was completely controlled by the said Zamindar ( "Zamin" means land , and dar means "one with" , or "owner of" ) . This ensured that farmers could be forced to do anything the British wanted them to do .

( Funnily enough , I come from a family where my grandfather was a Jagirdar , which means "One with a Jagir" , where Jagir means a piece of land ( usually a village or two ) , from which the Jagirdar is entitled to collect revenue . My family's Jagir was two villges . My family decided , during or before my great-grandfather's time , not to rely on tax revenue , and entered the housing/construction/real-estate development business . The grant of land was , however , still theirs . It was decided that all revenue collected would be invested back into the infrastructure of those two villages . Thanks to that decision , my grandfather is still known and respected in those villages , whenever he visits them .

My grandfather still has some of the land records of that period . He went on to become a lawyer , and finally a High Court Judge ( he's retired now ) .

It'll be interesting to see how 'poly reacts to my family history/background . )

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by el freako


Bull****!

India's growth rate under the British (1700-1948) = 0.35% a year
India's growth rate in the two preceeding centuries = 0.16% a year

(source: A. Maddison, "World Economic Statistics 1500-2001")

So the growth in incomes was higher during Britian's period of rule than the previous two centuries of 'freedom' (during which, I should add India was neither united or really free)

Are the incomes of Brits profiting from looting India included in that amount ? Because if you treat the East India Company as an Indian company , those figures could be right . I guess those figures include the money Brits made from their loot . . . . . . . . .

Also , as I've said in the previous post , that growth was mostly forced , and at the expense of human lives .

And how does that change the fact that India's share diped from 22 % to 2 % ? How does it change the fact that the Mughal emperor commanded resources ten times more than the richest European king of that time ?

So Az , it definitely does not prove your point vis-a-vis India . Communist Russia experienced growth rates of 110% under Stalin for some short periods of time . But that growth was at the cost of human lives . The Brits did the same thing , only more slowly . Nothing has been established . You apparently have no idea of the sort of stuff the Brits did in India . The atrocities are countless , and are both physical and economic . I can cite more if you want them .



@ Kuciwalker

It was calculated by reverse-engineering land-revenue records from those times .