Would America Have Been Better Off Without European Contact?

[Agnapostate]

I've taken to wondering whether America (as in the two continents and the surrounding islands in the Western Hemisphere, not the United States) would or would not have been better off had Europeans never made contact. I have the welfare of the Europeans at mind too; would everyone involved have been ultimately happier as a result? Would utility have been maximized, in other words?

This is not solely related to the deliberate massacres and ethnic cleansing that add up to the American Holocaust and most significant dispossession in human history to date; more significant is the fact that some anthropologists and historians (Dobyns, Crosby, etc.) estimate that ninety to ninety-five percent of the indigenous population died due to the importation of smallpox, typhus, measles, influenza, diphteria, etc. This is used as a basis for high counts of the indigenous population of the Western Hemisphere at the time of contact, with close to 100 million being present in these higher estimates, and only 8 million present in the lowest. The higher numbers are derived from observation of the infectious nature of European diseases that natives were not previously exposed to (and therefore not immune to), and extrapolation of the observed death rate to other societies that were known to have been affected, since Native Americans are the most genetically homogenous population to ever settle such a wide expanse of territory, as they're descended from a common founding population. With disease outbreaks continuing for several centuries, it's estimated that the death toll is in the tens of millions, if not 100 million. This seems more significant than the hundreds of thousands to a few million that were deliberately exterminated.

How could we claim that this was a desirable result?

What I most often encounter as an opposition point to this is the fallacy of arrested development, an ethnocentric assumption that Native Americans would never have progressed from fifteenth-century conditions. The agrarian lifestyles of the tribes and the brutal political and religious hierarchies of the urban states (the Aztecs, the Inca), are cited here. That doesn’t strike me as even slightly reasonable, since Europeans are hardly immersing people in water to cure them of illness or burning heretics and witches anymore. At a certain point of technological development, societies tend to reach the point of mutually assured devastation in the case of conflict, if not the mutually assured destruction that the introduction of nuclear arsenals has created. And since the Aztecs had a more advanced state of urban development and the Maya a more advanced stage of scientific development than the Spaniards that reached them, why would they have not continued thusly?

The only convincing evidence of an inhibition to technological development that I’ve seen is in the environmental determinism most popularly advocated by Jared Diamond in his Guns, Germs, and Steel. But would the gains produced by the importation of European technology have outweighed the losses incurred by their presence, more than 100 million unnatural deaths and the assorted other suffering that the indigenous peoples underwent?

Another sentiment I hear quite often is that since I have European admixture (and many other attributes facilitated by contact), I would not exist if not for European contact. I don't find this convincing, since any number of acts that I could not reasonably advocate the prohibition of would lead to my nonexistence, such as celibacy, contraception, abortion, etc. If rape had led to my existence, I certainly couldn't advocate that as a desirable social practice.

Vote and comment.

[Pavlov's House Party]

The discovery of the Americas was necessary for the establishment of a world market that capitalism could flourish under, which is in turn was necessary for the creation of an urban working class that can overthrow it. It is absurd to attach emotions and sentimentalism to historical processes, as the colonization of the Americas is as historically important as the feudal system, the Roman slave economy etc...

We must also recognize that the colonization was carried out in a brutish and murderous method, but the forces that colonized it; feudalism and later capitalism, were brutish and murderous systems.

[RedStarOverChina]

They would have been much better off, mostly because they would not have come into contact with Old World diseases that practically wiped out their population.

Plague is such a party-pooper. Spanish colonization was a day at the beach compared to it.

[Foldered]

It definitely depends on what you define as "better off," but yes, they would have been better off.

[Kléber]

The role of diseases like smallpox is generally exaggerated. It serves to absolve colonialism of the blame for enslaving and destroying peoples, similar to how overstating the effect of winter conditions during the second world war belittles the central role of Soviet workers and farmers in bringing down Nazism. Entire American peoples were wiped out through direct murder, either with weapons or overwork by European colonialists, and none of them were rendered helpless by illness, they put up military struggles that continue to the present day.

The question is sort of irrelevant because some imperialists would have found the place eventually. The resources of the Americas were what fueled the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Europe though. If the Chinese had gotten there in the early 15th C. or West Africans in the 14th, they could have been the ones who had the scientific renaissance and bourgeois revolutions, and took over the world with their navies.

[RedStarOverChina]

The role of diseases like smallpox is generally exaggerated. It serves to absolve colonialism of the blame for enslaving and destroying peoples, similar to how overstating the effect of winter conditions during the second world war belittles the central role of Soviet workers and farmers in bringing down Nazism. Entire American peoples were wiped out through direct murder, either with weapons or overwork by European colonialists, and none of them were rendered helpless by illness, they put up military struggles that continue to the present day.

The question is sort of irrelevant because some imperialists would have found the place eventually. The resources of the Americas were what fueled the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Europe though. If the Chinese had gotten there in the early 15th C. or West Africans in the 14th, they could have been the ones who had the scientific renaissance and bourgeois revolutions, and took over the world with their navies.

It is a combination of disease, oppression and genocide. We know that the diseases are MUCH MORE effective when the population is mal-nourished and deprived. But ultimately it was disease that wiped out much of the population.

We know that pre-Colombian South American population could be as high as 100 million. By 1650, there were only 8 million natives in South America.

Even if all the Spaniards did nothing but killing native people, they would not have been able to reduce the Natives numbers that radically. The sensible explanation was that under the severely oppressive colonial rule, the native Americans' immune system were overwhelmed by a long series of Old World diseases.

[which doctor]

No, because then we'd all still be running around in loin clothes, hunting buffalo, and sacrificing virgins.

But, seriously, I don't even know quite what this question means. Its useless to ponder historical 'what-ifs' especially ones that were so huge in terms of their effect on modern history. Its also even more pointless to think in terms of what would have been morally 'better' for the indigenous people living in the Americas (who came from Asia, I might add).

http://danedegenhardt.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/christopher_columbus61.jpg

[Red Saxon]

It indeed would have been interesting to see to what extent the native cultures flourished by themselves.

But, European discovery was inevitable.

[RedStarOverChina]

Yes, much to the chagrin of dogmatic Marxists.
Huh?

I think Marx made it quite clear how brutal the transition from less advanced societies into capitalism can be. The only dogma is that only capitalism can leads to higher stages of development, i.e., communism.

[Glenn Beck]

It's impossible to say. Even if it were the case that things would have somehow been worse had history taken a different path, that doesn't serve to justify the actions that were taken. Your question "would utility have been maximized" is a bad one. Not only is it impossible to answer but it's a worthless moral standard: it would be impossible to know the consequences in advance and any improvements in the situation would be only indirectly related to the disasters that occurred. Definitely not the kind of thing that could serve as a justification.


No, because then we'd all still be running around in loin clothes, hunting buffalo, and sacrificing virgins.

But, seriously, I don't even know quite what this question means. Its useless to ponder historical 'what-ifs' especially ones that were so huge in terms of their effect on modern history. Its also even more pointless to think in terms of what would have been morally 'better' for the indigenous people living in the Americas (who came from Asia, I might add).

http://danedegenhardt.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/christopher_columbus61.jpg

Jesus, you're a raging fucking bigot.

[khad]

No, because then we'd all still be running around in loin clothes, hunting buffalo, and sacrificing virgins.
Enjoy your infraction for racism. I guess us poor non-whites are incapable of any technological advancement without you white imperialists genociding a few million of us.

And you wonder why I always called Platypus a white supremacist outfit.

[RedStarOverChina]

Hm, I believe that was a joke.

[Glenn Beck]

Hm, I believe that was a joke.

A tasteless and racist joke. As if that were even the most racist thing in the post...

[khad]

Its also even more pointless to think in terms of what would have been morally 'better' for the indigenous people living in the Americas (who came from Asia, I might add).
This useless and pedantic statement, for example, is tacked on just so that this pseudo-leftist can try to delegitimize any claim that Native Americans might have to their homelands.

While territorial revanchism is always a problem, there comes a point where this white arrogance is just inhumane. What else do you want now that you've won? In North America, the Native American peoples have virtually ceased to exist.

[RedStarOverChina]

RSOC, That's the one I was referring to: capitalism/imperialism being inevitable for development.
I dont think capitalism is inevitable, it is purely by a series of co-incidences that Europe "discovered" capitalism---under the right material conditions.
I dont think Marx was a hard determinist like that either.

[RedStarOverChina]

I dont think what happened in 20th century socialist countries were anything beyond state capitalism, but that's topic for another discussion.

[OriginalGumby]

The way I look at this question is what side I would have been on at the time. Absolutely with the indigenous resistance to colonialism.

[Dr Mindbender]

i think with ever increasing awareness and curiosity of the world, contact between america and the europeans was inevitable, i dont see how it could have been avoided indefinitely.

Although i sometimes think maybe the Chinese would have handled the colonisation better had they been in charge.

[Ocean Seal]

Of course the Americas would have been better off without European contact early. The Aztec and Inca Empires were in their infancy and given their rapid expansion and technological advancement they could have caught up to the Europeans in certain aspects. And if a vaccine for smallpox were developed the devastation of millions of people could have been avoided. Given the proper time to develop; however, these Empires would have been imperial competition for the Europeans. Imperial competition would have brought about capitalism more quickly in both Latin America and Europe and thus communism more quickly and more effectively.

[RedStarOverChina]

i think with ever increasing awareness and curiosity of the world, contact between america and the europeans was inevitable, i dont see how it could have been avoided indefinitely.

Although i sometimes think maybe the Chinese would have handled the colonisation better had they been in charge.
China wouldn't have colonized the Americas...If the Chinese reached here we'd have the exact same reaction when we reached Eastern Africa: It's nice and exotic...But so what?

China doesnt colonize distant lands not because pre-modern China was really peace-loving...It wasn't. The way Ming China treated ethnic Hmongs in southern China was pretty appalling too. The Hmongs/Miaos were driven into infertile, mountainous regions of China in which they stayed until today.

As a Western missionary in Ming China observed, China does not invade and conquer other countries (when it could easily have done so) mostly due to an unique brand of imperial arrogance. Pre-modern Chinese people felt they had everything within the boundaries of China; wealth, knowledge, etc.

Venturing to the outside world was perceived to be an expensive and fruitless effort.

[synthesis]

I agree with which doctor's post. This kind of historical inquiry is pointless at best. It's nothing more than empty speculation; answers to the original question could span entire shelves at a library and still not come to any sort of meaningful conclusion. The number of factors involved, the sheer breadth of the question itself prevents us from arriving at anything other than a comforting delusion of knowledge, or, rather, clairvoyance.

I realize that I would probably be better served with a post that simply said, "Europeans are teh devil! The Aztecs were great people!" although I'm surely not implying the opposite. This question is simply too large to be satisfactorily resolved on a forum on the Internet. History cannot be simply reduced to "modes of production," and if Marx wouldn't agree with me here, he should.

[Palingenisis]

Id like to hear what First Nations people from the Americas have to say on this issue whether they are Maoist, Anarchist, Left-Communist or whatever.

[which doctor]

Id like to hear what First Nations people from the Americas have to say on this issue whether they are Maoist, Anarchist, Left-Communist or whatever.
Why would that matter? Would a person living in the 21st Century, who can claim some sort of blood lineage back to pre-Columbian American peoples, some how have a more qualified opinion on the matter? Perhaps I'm a descendant of the Gauls; want to hear my opinion on the Roman invasions?

Besides, there are no 'First Nations people' or 'Indigenous Americans' anymore, and to the extent that caricatures of these cultural identities get propped up, both on reservations and in the popular imagination, they are in fact quite reactionary, insofar as they wish to preserve culture for its own sake. That you are more concerned with one's supposed 'cultural/national identity' instead of their ideology, is a very conservative notion, since what you are insisting is that its ones past (their heritage) that determines their positions on things, instead of their independently formed political opinions. For any Marxist, or radical leftist for that matter, the point should be to get away from the past, and from nature, and from our heritage, to see what possibilities lie in wait for us in the future.

[A.R.Amistad]

The role of diseases like smallpox is generally exaggerated. It serves to absolve colonialism of the blame for enslaving and destroying peoples, similar to how overstating the effect of winter conditions during the second world war belittles the central role of Soviet workers and farmers in bringing down Nazism. Entire American peoples were wiped out through direct murder, either with weapons or overwork by European colonialists, and none of them were rendered helpless by illness, they put up military struggles that continue to the present day.

The question is sort of irrelevant because some imperialists would have found the place eventually. The resources of the Americas were what fueled the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Europe though. If the Chinese had gotten there in the early 15th C. or West Africans in the 14th, they could have been the ones who had the scientific renaissance and bourgeois revolutions, and took over the world with their navies.


The emphasis put on the role of diseases in the genocide is to counter the racist arguments of many white supremacists or subtle racists that the Native Nations were technologically inferior to Europeans, thus perpetuating the "savage" myth. By all military means the Aztecs should have been able to kick Cortez's ass if it hadn't been for their internal problems and because of disease. The Iroquois should have been able to keep a foothold in North America if their food supplies, trade routes, allies and of course physical health hadn't been decimated by both gun and germ.

[Psy]

China wouldn't have colonized the Americas...If the Chinese reached here we'd have the exact same reaction when we reached Eastern Africa: It's nice and exotic...But so what?

China doesnt colonize distant lands not because pre-modern China was really peace-loving...It wasn't. The way Ming China treated ethnic Hmongs in southern China was pretty appalling too. The Hmongs/Miaos were driven into infertile, mountainous regions of China in which they stayed until today.

As a Western missionary in Ming China observed, China does not invade and conquer other countries (when it could easily have done so) mostly due to an unique brand of imperial arrogance. Pre-modern Chinese people felt they had everything within the boundaries of China; wealth, knowledge, etc.

Venturing to the outside world was perceived to be an expensive and fruitless effort.

Yet feudal Japan's ruling class at the time was looking for imperialist expansion thus why Japan annexed Korea, Indochina and parts of China, Japan became isolationist not by choice but because its imperialist ambition failed horribly. If Japan found the America's like in Japan's colonies Japan would have slaughtered the natives in a attempt make the native docile, it never worked for feudal Japan but it is not like Japan would have changed its imperialist doctrine just because it found the Americas.

[the last donut of the night]

Why would that matter? Would a person living in the 21st Century, who can claim some sort of blood lineage back to pre-Columbian American peoples, some how have a more qualified opinion on the matter? Perhaps I'm a descendant of the Gauls; want to hear my opinion on the Roman invasions?

Besides, there are no 'First Nations people' or 'Indigenous Americans' anymore, and to the extent that caricatures of these cultural identities get propped up, both on reservations and in the popular imagination, they are in fact quite reactionary, insofar as they wish to preserve culture for its own sake. That you are more concerned with one's supposed 'cultural/national identity' instead of their ideology, is a very conservative notion, since what you are insisting is that its ones past (their heritage) that determines their positions on things, instead of their independently formed political opinions. For any Marxist, or radical leftist for that matter, the point should be to get away from the past, and from nature, and from our heritage, to see what possibilities lie in wait for us in the future.

Churchill once said the left was euro-centric, and this shows exactly why. Your previous post in this thread shows your racism and euro-centrism towards the native people. Just so you know, indigenous people still do exist; in fact, there are millions of them, they're not just caricatures of white leftists. The fact that you completely deny the existence of various ethnic groups isn't just stupid and wrong, it's completely racist. You're basically defending white imperialists' words that native struggles nowadays are fake and basically should be forgotten. Do you also think there were no Africans in South Africa, that there were no Palestinians in Palestine, and that because of that, those struggles should be forgotten?

But because you want to cover your racism under some kind of pseudo-Marxist, post-modern analysis, you back up these absurd claims with talk of "caricatures of cultural identities", which obviously is huge bullshit and again backfires against you, because now we all know your disgusting racism.

Now back to my first point: your euro-centrism. Capitalism in Europe has already turned the idea of a nation as ridiculous. Thence the claim, "no gods, no masters, no nations" is very correct. However, for indigenous people (who still exist, by the way) that claim is anathema to their existence. If anybody insists on the rejection of the Tupi, Nahuatl, Mayan, or Oglala nations, then fuck them. These are dying cultures, fighting against cultural and economic imperialism to this day, and to claim they don't even exist anymore is a huge disrespect. Why the fuck do we still have people like you in the left? I think the Bureau of Indian Affairs has a position for you as resident asshole.

[which doctor]

Just so you know, indigenous people still do exist; in fact, there are millions of them, they're not just caricatures of white leftists. The fact that you completely deny the existence of various ethnic groups isn't just stupid and wrong, it's completely racist.
Define 'indigenous,' and furthermore, explain why one should care whether or not a 'people' are indigenous.


You're basically defending white imperialists' words that native struggles nowadays are fake and basically should be forgotten. Do you also think there were no Africans in South Africa, that there were no Palestinians in Palestine, and that because of that, those struggles should be forgotten?What you fail to understand here, is that it that its not the people are doing the struggling that metter, but what politics are embodied in the struggle. I don't give a fuck whether or not they're 'native' people or not, but when the political justification for their struggle is reactionary, which it very often is, of course I'm going to criticize it.


But because you want to cover your racism under some kind of pseudo-Marxist, post-modern analysis, you back up these absurd claims with talk of "caricatures of cultural identities", which obviously is huge bullshit and again backfires against you, because now we all know your disgusting racism.LOL! Where am I ever a post-modernist? Seriously?! - identity politics, which is whats being engaged in this thread, has its roots in post-modernism. Besides, the point about caricatures of cultural identities is right on. The point is, that these so-called indigenous cultures can no longer exist under capitalism, without becoming caricatures of themselves. The historical conditions which caused, say plains indians to wear elaborate head dresses and outfits, and to dance around in circles and such in ceremony, no longer exist, but to the extent these practices continue, in the form of say pow wows, is nothing but a caricature of what they once were, and furthermore, is really bad politics. Shit like this is no different from the Germans and the Austrians, etc. who hold festivals to honor their past where they dress up in traditionalist peasant garb and sing folk songs about the fatherland. But I'm sure, when you buy your fair-trade Zapatista, cooperatively produced coffee beans, you are satisfied knowing you are helping to protect the lifestyle of a 'culture'


However, for indigenous people (who still exist, by the way) that claim is anathema to their existence.So? What does Marxism have to offer really poor, rural, undeveloped, so called indigenous communities? - not a whole lot. Communist revolution is ultimately a project of enormous modernization, and if this frightens you, I suggest you get out of the business.


If anybody insists on the rejection of the Tupi, Nahuatl, Mayan, or Oglala nations, then fuck them.Insofar as these cultures once existed, they no longer do now. If you go to Pine Ridge Reservation, looking for the Oglala people, you sure as hell won't find any, but you will find a bunch of alcoholics, gang-bangers, and really fucking destitute people, and perhaps the greatest crime committed against them, is that they haven't been integrated into capitalism, instead they've been isolated to waste away in rural ghettos, without any economic opportunity, besides of course the local casino. I would gladly tell any young person at a place like Pine Ridge, that they should fucking forget about their 'elders,' forget about the Rez, forget about their cultural identity, and move to the big city. This would be the real liberating move. Of course I understand that most of these people don't have the means to do something like this, but my point stands.


These are dying cultures, fighting against cultural and economic imperialism to this day, and to claim they don't even exist anymore is a huge disrespect. You're completely right - I don't give a shit about dying cultures and I don't see any value in the futile attempt to preserve a culture in the wake of its annihilation in the face of modernization.

Why the fuck do we still have people like you in the left?Funny, because I'm wondering the same about you! I'm still trying to wrack my brain to figure out when the preservation of culture became a Leftist demand. Hasn't it always been a conservative one?

[S.Artesian]

The role of diseases like smallpox is generally exaggerated. It serves to absolve colonialism of the blame for enslaving and destroying peoples, similar to how overstating the effect of winter conditions during the second world war belittles the central role of Soviet workers and farmers in bringing down Nazism. Entire American peoples were wiped out through direct murder, either with weapons or overwork by European colonialists, and none of them were rendered helpless by illness, they put up military struggles that continue to the present day.

The question is sort of irrelevant because some imperialists would have found the place eventually. The resources of the Americas were what fueled the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Europe though. If the Chinese had gotten there in the early 15th C. or West Africans in the 14th, they could have been the ones who had the scientific renaissance and bourgeois revolutions, and took over the world with their navies.

Not so in Mexico, where 90 percent of the indigenous population was wiped out due to disease, not slavery.

[which doctor]

Btw everyone, I do realize that my initial post in this thread was distasteful to say the least. It was intended to be provacative, and was said with a degree of sarcasm, and I included the picture just to piss people off. I'm well aware that not all pre-Colombian people wore loin clothes, hunted bison, or sacrificed virgins, but I think my point still stands - that we shouldn't romanticize lesser-developed civilazations, nor should we (I'm assuming many of us are the descendants of Europeans) feel guilty for the 'sins of our ancestors.'

[S.Artesian]

So? What does Marxism have to offer really poor, rural, undeveloped, so called indigenous communities? - not a whole lot. Communist revolution is ultimately a project of enormous modernization, and if this frightens you, I suggest you get out of the business.

First, we, Marxists, aren't in a business. Secondly, Marxism is not about modernization, you fucking pseudo-radical moron, it's about the emancipation of labor. Development of the means of production can provide a material, and passive, basis, but that development has nothing at all in common with your notion of modernization which amounts to nothing more, and there is nothing less, than obliteration of every specific culture that doesn't meet your criteria of not emancipation but...accumulation.


You're completely right - I don't give a shit about dying cultures and I don't see any value in the futile attempt to preserve a culture in the wake of its annihilation in the face of modernization.

Spoken like a real conquistador, a real General Black Jack Pershing. There are no such things as "dying cultures." There are cultures that are murdered, exterminated when placed in contact with capitalism. You want to embrace that? Go right ahead, you're lining yourself up right with the death squads, the thugs, the goons employed by the bourgeoisie to clear the land of such "obstacles" in Brazil, Indonesia, the Congo.

I'm sure you're right at home with King Leopold's modernization of the Congo, aren't you?

You line right up on that side, you sanctimonious piece of rancid rat fat. I'm right on the other side and looking forward to making contact with you and your dying culture.

Short version? Fuck off and die.

[which doctor]

First, we, Marxists, aren't in a business.
The business of making revolution? That you have to resort to picking on my word choice is revealing of your argument, or should I say lack of argument.


Secondly, Marxism is not about modernization, you fucking pseudo-radical moron, it's about the emancipation of labor.
:rolleyes: I invite you to pick up a history book and read up on the Russian Revolution, you might learning something you hadn't known before.


Spoken like a real conquistador, a real General Black Jack Pershing.
Is this supposed to be an argument? - because I'm not seeing one.


There are no such things as "dying cultures." There are cultures that are murdered, exterminated when placed in contact with capitalism.
Bullshit. Besides the history book, pick one up on cultural anthropology. Long before capitalism ever began, there were numerous cultures that vanished because of external pressures beyond their control. Capitalism didn't kill Cahokia. But besides what killed it, there's no reason to lament it. Additionally, capitalism/globalization over the past 300 years has been responsible for the disappearance of dozens of languages, and their corresponding cultures for the most part, which was an unavoidable thing, and would have happened under socialism as well. You have a very romanticized notion of anti-capitalism if you only understand it as a lament for all of the things capitalism has destroyed, instead of looking to the emancipatory potential within capitalism itself, which is the fundamental basis of Marxism anyways.


You want to embrace that? Go right ahead, you're lining yourself up right with the death squads, the thugs, the goons employed by the bourgeoisie to clear the land of such "obstacles" in Brazil, Indonesia, the Congo.
Seriously? This isn't an argument.


I'm sure you're right at home with King Leopold's modernization of the Congo, aren't you?
:rolleyes:

You line right up on that side, you sanctimonious piece of rancid rat fat. I'm right on the other side and looking forward to making contact with you and your dying culture.
Are there only 2 sides?


Short version? Fuck off and die.
LOL! Do I really make you so angry?

[Dimentio]

The Chinese would probably not have colonised America, since they did not have this scarcity which plagued European states of that time.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

American would have been better off for the Native Americans, most likely. However, I think that in the long-run, it would not have been better off. And yes, this is partly related to the advancements of European civilization that, in theory, benefit the future.

... Well, now I've changed my mind. I'll leave the other part up as I'm not 100% in either direction. There were so many different tribes and cultural aspects in North America at the time. It would've been nice to see them develop and contribute to the global culture. However, now I still can't decide. Contact doesn't automatically mean violent killing. The diseases would be unfortunately spread, but European trade with Aboriginals might have helped. I just know so little about Aboriginal culture and every once in awhile I find something out that's cool. I'm like "damn," what did we do. I wish we had incorporated that. I don't know where it was, but someone was telling me about working for what you need and ignoring the Western obsession with time. Sounds cool to me.

I'm not sure what to think about witch doctor's views, but I thought the post was pretty obviously sarcastic. I mean, the next paragraph begins with "But, seriously." That implies he wasn't being serious earlier. Seems to me a kind of satirical critique of right-wing justifications for colonialism. Yeah, he happens to also believe development and conditions were bad, but that's a valid consideration. Most of us don't have a "perfect harmony with nature" view of Aboriginals. Conditions were harsh when societies didn't have the technologies to deal with weather efficiently, grow food quickly, treat illness, etc. I know they had ways of dealing with all those things before someone jumps at me. It's just many of them were less efficient due to environmental and historical factors, whatever those happen to be. I kind of thought of Stephen Colbert type humor. Not everyone likes it, but I think it's a mistake to equate him with some sort of colonialist. I doubt he supports mass murder and exploitation. But the cultural changes in North America arguably created a population that is better off than the population that would be living here otherwise. Again, I say arguably because it's a view worth considering. I am very uncertain on this topic.

[the last donut of the night]

Define 'indigenous,' and furthermore, explain why one should care whether or not a 'people' are indigenous.

The native peoples of the Americas are indigenous because they were the first people to inhabit the land the way it was as the time the Europeans conquered it. Why should we care? We care because if we don't we support the European view and side: we support racism, ethnic cleansing, the decimation of culture, etc. Also, we also care because people have an emotional connection to their land; it's not really hard to see that.


What you fail to understand here, is that it that its not the people are doing the struggling that metter, but what politics are embodied in the struggle. I don't give a fuck whether or not they're 'native' people or not, but when the political justification for their struggle is reactionary, which it very often is, of course I'm going to criticize it.

What the fuck are you saying? Nobody here is practicing identity politics. We're very aware of reactionary claims made by native leadership -- claims made by groups such as the GOONs in 1970s Pine Ridge, for example. It's not uncommon for the leadership of native tribes, like the leadership of trade unions, for example, to make reactionary claims.

But you also think that even if radical politics are used in the struggles, they are reactionary, because they don't deny the existence of numerous ethnic groups and cultures. Is a native communist reactionary because he believes in defending his culture, customs, and languages against imperialism? Your babbling is disgustingly racist. Spoken like a true, white reactionary.


Besides, the point about caricatures of cultural identities is right on. The point is, that these so-called indigenous cultures can no longer exist under capitalism, without becoming caricatures of themselves.

That's not true at all. What's true is that international capitalism is diminishing and destroying these ethnic and cultural differences. The problem is that you're defending the deaths of cultures, languages, and ways of life as something necessary in the name of human progress. Also, by that logic, polyamorous relationships -- like they existed in hunter gatherer society -- cannot exist in class society, really. Should we defend patriarchy then, just because it's a product of capitalism? Because polyamorous relationships become caricatures in capitalism?



The historical conditions which caused, say plains indians to wear elaborate head dresses and outfits, and to dance around in circles and such in ceremony,

For somebody who claims that native cultures don't exist anymore, you sure sound stupid here, because not all Plains nations wear headresses or dance in circles. Not surprisingly, you also sound horribly racist, you sound much like Andrew Jackson. [The term "indians" is generally a disrespectful one, FYI]


is nothing but a caricature of what they once were, and furthermore, is really bad politics.

Bad politics? So I guess good politics is white, urban students is discussing how superior they are to other people?


Shit like this is no different from the Germans and the Austrians, etc. who hold festivals to honor their past where they dress up in traditionalist peasant garb and sing folk songs about the fatherland.

No, "shit" like this isn't, because the German and Austrian peasant classes don't exist anymore. However, native people, as I recall, do exist.

But I'm sure, when you buy your fair-trade Zapatista, cooperatively produced coffee beans, you are satisfied knowing you are helping to protect the lifestyle of a 'culture'


So? What does Marxism have to offer really poor, rural, undeveloped, so called indigenous communities? - not a whole lot. Communist revolution is ultimately a project of enormous modernization, and if this frightens you, I suggest you get out of the business.

If Marxism can't offer anything to poor villages in Oaxaca or the Xingu area of Brazil, I guess I'm not a Marxist anymore. Also, I didn't know we were a business. But maybe that's just you.


Insofar as these cultures once existed, they no longer do now. If you go to Pine Ridge Reservation, looking for the Oglala people, you sure as hell won't find any, but you will find a bunch of alcoholics, gang-bangers, and really fucking destitute people, and perhaps the greatest crime committed against them, is that they haven't been integrated into capitalism, instead they've been isolated to waste away in rural ghettos, without any economic opportunity, besides of course the local casino.

Reading this, I'd ban you if I could. So by your racist thinking, if you walk into Harlem, all you'll see is a bunch of crack-smoking, drunk, lazy, and violent niggers? If you walk into the Rio favelas you'll just see gang-banging, teenage mother, and smelly criolos? These people have been fully integrated into capitalism. They're the fucking dark side of capitalism. They're the people who suffered the most out of settler and European imperialism. They know the harshness of capitalism more than you. The fact that you pity them is even more disgusting because for all your bigotry, you also carry a drop of obnoxious white guilt.



I would gladly tell any young person at a place like Pine Ridge, that they should fucking forget about their 'elders,' forget about the Rez, forget about their cultural identity, and move to the big city. This would be the real liberating move. Of course I understand that most of these people don't have the means to do something like this, but my point stands.

"Hey, stupid Indian youth, how about you forget everything you have now, forget the last words of your language, your culture, your stories, and move to Rapid City, where the best job you'll get is being a drunk or a prostitute? I mean, your culture is worthless anyways, so fuck it, right? Also, forget that shit about liberation and socialism, that shit's only for French workers, not you brown people."



You're completely right - I don't give a shit about dying cultures and I don't see any value in the futile attempt to preserve a culture in the wake of its annihilation in the face of modernization.

Guess who you sound like? Like Columbus. Quite the revolutionary he was.


Funny, because I'm wondering the same about you! I'm still trying to wrack my brain to figure out when the preservation of culture became a Leftist demand. Hasn't it always been a conservative one?

See, this is your problem. Calling for the preservation of native cultures isn't the same as calling for the preservation of "white culture". One is reactionary, the other one isn't.

Ban now.

[khad]

Reading this, I'd ban you if I could. So by your racist thinking, if you walk into Harlem, all you'll see is a bunch of crack-smoking, drunk, lazy, and violent niggers? If you walk into the Rio favelas you'll just see gang-banging, teenage mother, and smelly criolos? These people have been fully integrated into capitalism. They're the fucking dark side of capitalism. They're the people who suffered the most out of settler and European imperialism. They know the harshness of capitalism more than you. The fact that you pity them is even more disgusting because for all your bigotry, you also carry a drop of obnoxious white guilt.

"Hey, stupid Indian youth, how about you forget everything you have now, forget the last words of your language, your culture, your stories, and move to Rapid City, where the best job you'll get is being a drunk or a prostitute? I mean, your culture is worthless anyways, so fuck it, right? Also, forget that shit about liberation and socialism, that shit's only for French workers, not you brown people."
Thank you for putting it so vividly. This succinctly pares down the general framework of the Platypus mindset. That the savages (like the Afghans) need to be civilized with napalm and that leftists should be going around supporting capitalism because, hey, the problem with the world is TOO LITTLE capitalism. He's not even a reformist. He's an out and out reactionary.


If you go to Pine Ridge Reservation, looking for the Oglala people, you sure as hell won't find any, but you will find a bunch of alcoholics, gang-bangers, and really fucking destitute people, and perhaps the greatest crime committed against them, is that they haven't been integrated into capitalism, instead they've been isolated to waste away in rural ghettos, without any economic opportunity, besides of course the local casino....So? What does Marxism have to offer really poor, rural, undeveloped, so called indigenous communities? - not a whole lot. Communist revolution is ultimately a project of enormous modernization, and if this frightens you, I suggest you get out of the business.
How cute. He thinks socialists are businessmen.

[gorillafuck]

Btw everyone, I do realize that my initial post in this thread was distasteful to say the least. It was intended to be provacative, and was said with a degree of sarcasm, and I included the picture just to piss people off.
You seem like the type of person who would make homophobic remarks around gay people because you think it's funny.

What is it with you and trying to justify right wing positions by using marxism? Is it some kind of fun intellectual game for you? Support for NATO in Afghanistan, Israeli atrocities, and now being an apologist for the almost total genocide of Native Americans.

[Lyev]

I think whichdoctor's initial post was more of a musing on the "what if" question, used in historical analysis. We simply don't know, because history has just happened the way it has. I am not at all apologizing for colonialism, liquidation of native people & their culture and imperialism -- they are wholly repugnant crimes -- and I don't think whichdoctor was apologizing for them. Back to the original question: I think yes, they would have been better off. Yet I don't see much point in speculating over stuff that has already irreversibly happened. Inasmuch as we're all leftists and/or Marxists, therefore it's quite evident we oppose imperialism % colonialism, along with it's socioeconomic repercussions today, unanimously and unconditionally. The point is, we don't know what would have happened if Europeans hadn't come into contact with America. Having said that, it can't have been much worse than what did actually happened. The discovery of the Americas (even Marx mentions it in the CM) paved the way for capitalism and imperialism, and what they are, globally, today. But if history had taken a different path (i.e. America was still unknown to Europe this very day) then how do we know how America "would have" progressed, technologically*. Anyway, the question seems a bit null. Please don't bite my head off though, I am merely speculating, just as everyone else is. And I am not defending imperialism.

*and perhaps culturally: massacres by conquistadors were arguably much worse, but the Mayans, Aztecs, Incas etc. did sacrifice quite a lot of people, incl. children. Having said that, this doesn't at all justify the liquidation of an incredibly rich and vibrant culture(s). Having mentioned their technology, it was surprisingly advanced for a civilization that had no access to metal. They did most of what they did (building vast temples and monuments) with obsidian and flint. an intricate calender, along with a developed mathematical system (they were one of the first civilizations to "discover" the number zero) and reasonably developed agriculture and farming. The whole ordeal (with stories like that of Pizarro and Cortes) is incredibly sad. Basically a whole way of life was eradicated just because some people deemed the indigenous people too uncivilized.

[khad]

I think whichdoctor's initial post was more of a musing on the "what if" question, used in historical analysis. We simply don't know, because history has just happened the way it has. I am not at all apologizing for colonialism, liquidation of native people & their culture and imperialism -- they are wholly repugnant crimes -- and I don't think whichdoctor was apologizing for them.
So that the solution he proposes is that the Native Americans need MORE capitalism and the final destruction of their society and whatever's left of their culture? If this final solution isn't an apology for ethnic liquidation, I don't know what is.


You're completely right - I don't give a shit about dying cultures and I don't see any value in the futile attempt to preserve a culture in the wake of its annihilation in the face of modernization.


So? What does Marxism have to offer really poor, rural, undeveloped, so called indigenous communities? - not a whole lot. Communist revolution is ultimately a project of enormous modernization, and if this frightens you, I suggest you get out of the business.Get real.

[scarletghoul]

Why is which doctor not banned yet ? He's made some of the most disgusting, bigotted, undoubtedly racist remarks and holds completely reactionary imperialist views.

OK sure maybe someone could take a silly mechanical-marxist eurocentric approach and think that colonisation was necessary for human progress bla bla bla; but to say that native american identity is completely worthless and backwards and that they need to join the great white mans capitalism or die in their own somehow self-induced poverty.... thats not a view that should be allowed on here.

[synthesis]

The reaction to which doctor's posts really spells out for me how vulgar an understanding of Marxism most people have here. Progress is inextricably tied to production, and until we come to terms with that basic fact, we will be stuck in the same fucking rut in which we've been stuck since the 60's.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Why is which doctor not banned yet ? He's made some of the most disgusting, bigotted, undoubtedly racist remarks and holds completely reactionary imperialist views.

OK sure maybe someone could take a silly mechanical-marxist eurocentric approach and think that colonisation was necessary for human progress bla bla bla; but to say that native american identity is completely worthless and backwards and that they need to join the great white mans capitalism or die in their own somehow self-induced poverty.... thats not a view that should be allowed on here.

I thought he was making the point that the colonization will benefit Aboriginals through technology advances in the long-run. Their ancestors will have a better life than they would otherwise, in theory.

I don't know if I agree, but people are really jumping on the gun here. He's still talking about it. I don't see why we don't let people we view as reactionary continue to debate for at least a short period of time. I wouldn't be friends with a white nationalist, let's say. If I found out a friend of five years managed to hide this from me, I'd be upset. However, I'd talk to talk to them about it to convince them otherwise. I don't want to lose someone in my life if I can avoid it.

Similarly, the communist movement can't afford to adopt an attitude of throwing people out of the "party" whenever they say something we think is reactionary. People need to feel free to consider various perspectives without worrying about judgments.

And when it comes to history, he might be off base. But what implications does his viewpoint have now? He doesn't think we should bother preserving cultures. To be completely honest, this is arguably the default decision and we should be justifying why to preserve them. I mean look at it this way. I don't have this view, but I could have a child. If whites became a minority, I might lose my culture. Why should I teach my child in a way that conceptualizes them as a victim who needs to regain a history they never participated in?

To better illustrate the point, consider adoption. If I adopted an Aboriginal child and raised them without giving them a social identity as Aboriginal, am I doing something wrong? And on what basis?

I think a notable defense of culture comes in the fact that Aboriginals are disadvantaged because of the errors of the past. But a critique could be made here. Do people deserve help only when our ancestors screwed them over? Can we let those who suffer from their own mistakes die or live in poverty? In many ways, the modern conception of "protecting culture" amounts to exactly that.

This is someone who has over 4000 posts and joined in 2005. I don't see why we can't be nicer when we see reactionary views - at least when it comes to our fellow leftists. Everyone him trying to defend himself and worried about removal. And if he changes his mind it will look suspicious.

I had an incorrect view at one point, and I got restricted. I researched the matter afterward and realized I was wrong. I still wasn't unrestricted because people were "suspicious of my quick turn around" and thought I was "secretly pro-life." I mean the "ban" and "restrict" chants around Revleft are so common it makes me wonder what kind of "free" speech everyone envisions in a communist society.

[Barry Lyndon]

I am not sure if I want whichdoctor banned, actually. I think we should keep him here as our resident reactionary whipping boy- and a reminder to all the comrades here of the true sickness of capitalist society, in that it can infect even its supposed 'critics' with its values of economic exploitation, classism, racism, militarism and imperialism, all under the thin veil of 'enlightenment' and 'progress'. Whichdoctor should be the resident leper, shunned and disgusted by all for the intellectual and moral travesty he is.


Insofar as these cultures once existed, they no longer do now. If you go to Pine Ridge Reservation, looking for the Oglala people, you sure as hell won't find any, but you will find a bunch of alcoholics, gang-bangers, and really fucking destitute people, and perhaps the greatest crime committed against them, is that they haven't been integrated into capitalism, instead they've been isolated to waste away in rural ghettos, without any economic opportunity, besides of course the local casino. I would gladly tell any young person at a place like Pine Ridge, that they should fucking forget about their 'elders,' forget about the Rez, forget about their cultural identity, and move to the big city. This would be the real liberating move. Of course I understand that most of these people don't have the means to do something like this, but my point stands.

Hey, I have actually BEEN to the Pine Ridge reservation, you piece of colonialist shit, and there sure as hell were Oglala people there. Yes, they are poor. Yes, I saw people who were clearly drunkards and drug addicts, but that's what tends to happen to a society that has been systematically assaulted and strangled for over 150 years without letup. Your explanation of their desperate situation arising from the fact that their 'not integrated' into capitalism- that is the whole goddamn point! The capitalist state never had any use for them, thats why it massacred them, drove them off their land, starved them by killing off the buffalo, seized their resources, marched what was left of them at gunpoint to reservations on the most barren, worthless land on the continent and have left them to rot there ever since. And your blaming them?? Fuck you!

I was 12 years old at the time, on a road-trip with my father out West. When we asked a woman as to where the site of the Wounded Knee Massacre was, she dropped everything she was doing and jumped into her car to direct us to the site of the massacre. She wanted us to know her people's history, the history of how her people were callously destroyed in order to make way for the march of capitalist 'progress', which consumes entire peoples, whole countries, whole ecosystems in order to feed itself, like the God Maloch, and still does so to this day, from the ghettoes of Chicago and Los Angeles to the slums of Sao Paulo to the streets of Baghdad and Kabul to the jungles of India. Seeing what this system is capable of transformed my entire life. It convinced me that what happened to these people must not happen, ever again, to anyone. That is part of what made me into a Marxist.

For you, your conclusion is: again, again, and again. And I'll laugh about it.
Rot in hell.

[synthesis]

I was 12 years old at the time, on a road-trip with my father out West. When we asked a woman as to where the site of the Wounded Knee Massacre was, she dropped everything she was doing and jumped into her car to direct us to the site of the massacre. She wanted us to know her people's history, the history of how her people were callously destroyed in order to make way for the march of capitalist 'progress', which consumes entire peoples, whole countries, whole ecosystems in order to feed itself, like the God Maloch, and still does so to this day, from the ghettoes of Chicago and Los Angeles to the slums of Sao Paulo to the streets of Baghdad and Kabul to the jungles of India. Seeing what this system is capable of transformed my entire life. It convinced me that what happened to these people must not happen, ever again, to anyone. That is part of what made me into a Marxist.

If that's your problem, perhaps you would be better served by primitivism than by Marxism.

[Ismail]

If that's your problem, perhaps you would be better served by primitivism than by Marxism.That's a one-line trollish reply. Try not to do it again.

[Kléber]

It is a combination of disease, oppression and genocide. We know that the diseases are MUCH MORE effective when the population is mal-nourished and deprived. But ultimately it was disease that wiped out much of the population.

We know that pre-Colombian South American population could be as high as 100 million. By 1650, there were only 8 million natives in South America.

Even if all the Spaniards did nothing but killing native people, they would not have been able to reduce the Natives numbers that radically. The sensible explanation was that under the severely oppressive colonial rule, the native Americans' immune system were overwhelmed by a long series of Old World diseases.
100 million is the highest estimate ever made, it was probably somewhere in the range of 10-50 mil.

"Ultimately" it was not disease because, as you noted, a community can handle disease much better if they have their political structure, economy, and medicinal infrastructure (primitive as it was, they had medicine) intact. Ultimately what defeated the indigenous peoples, robbed them of political independence and cultural hegemony, was European armies in warfare against the regular divisions of Mesoamerican and Andean empires, and the guerrilla detachments of various peoples who continue fighting today.

The European settlers did do practically nothing other than kill indigenous people, usually though overwork, for the first century or so when the depopulation happened. Compare the Caribbean to mainland Latin America. The Caribbean was almost completely depopulated of indigenous peoples, entire nations and cultures were wiped out forever; historical arguments continue over whether a single indigenous person from Cuba, Jamaica, or Hispaniola survived the initial colonization. In the rest of LA indigenous cultures survived in the millions where some enjoy varying degrees of autonomy. Is this because the Caribbean peoples were more susceptible to disease than Mexicans, Brazilians, etc.? No, it's because the colonizers had no respect for indigenous life in their first colonies, then they realized how expensive it was to import African slaves after killing off the native population, so reforms were enacted by church/state officials to stop the depopulation from the 1600's onward. Also, the Caribbeans despite their seafaring culture were stuck on islands whereas peoples on the mainland could escape being worked to death and instead retreat into the wilderness.

[synthesis]

That's a one-line trollish reply. Try not to do it again.

I'll do as I please, no offense. Your description of my post as 'trollish' only belies your ignorance of the topics under discussion. I will make as many such posts as I deem necessary to belabor the point that we are not primitivists.

This is most emphatically not to suggest that the cultures of underdeveloped economies are 'primitive' and therefore of lesser value, but that the post to which I was responding originated in primitivist philosophy, not Marxism.

Look, Marxism is not about this Manichaean perception of the world that is so incredibly prevalent here, as well as in other vulgar interpretations of Marxism, where capitalism is Satan, communism is God, Marxists are Jesus, and the workers are the sheep that must be led to the light. The wildly hysteric responses to which doctor's posts only betray the extreme sensitivity of the responders to arguments which highlight their misunderstandings of Marxism.

Marx recognized that capitalism is a necessary evil. In relation to the modes of production which precede it, capitalism creates the productive powers upon which the foundation of socialism is built. People like Barry Lyndon take the Marxist opposition to capitalism and believe that means we need to reverse the process - that's primitivism.

We need to go forwards, not backwards, and I can't be fucking bothered to write a post like this every time someone cloaks primitivist arguments in socialist rhetoric.

[FreeFocus]

Reading topics like these really piss me off as a Native. They really expose how ingrained white supremacy is in society, even among otherwise well-intentioned people. Still, a few people, most notably which doctor, can fuck off. If anyone suggests that I should let my language or culture die, or fail to support measures to preserve endangered cultures, it's an impossibility for me to consider them a comrade. In this regard, what makes you different from genocidal pigs like Custer or any other American/Canadian/white imperialist?

To answer the OP, it is impossible to even count the lives and cultural and human diversity lost through disease and colonization. We're talking about the biggest demographic catastrophe in human history. There's a lot of potential to create a just world in the wake of the horrors of the past 500 years, but to say even that justifies anything that happened is ridiculous.

The introduction of capitalism to the Americas has also done untold damage. I don't buy for one minute that capitalism is some "necessary stage" of human development, that you need to go through this hell to get to socialism, or that it's necessary for progress. What I know is that, prior to European invasion, my people had a form of egalitarianism, a form of socialism, where needs were provided for. This isn't to say society was perfect, or that the past should be idealized: far from it. I argue often against people in my own community who suggest that we need to reject all that is "white" and go back to living as our ancestors did (in some regards, we should, in terms of cultural preservation, life skills, etc).

Also, I've always found it funny how people revert to a "that's not Marxism" argument. Well, no one gives a shit, especially when they aren't a Marxist. Marxism is not the end-all be-all of human thought and understanding. It's really not unlike a Christian debating an atheist and using passages from the Bible as evidence, as if it is universally accepted.

[Barry Lyndon]

I'll do as I please, no offense. Your description of my post as 'trollish' only belies your ignorance of the topics under discussion. I will make as many such posts as I deem necessary to belabor the point that we are not primitivists.

This is most emphatically not to suggest that the cultures of underdeveloped economies are 'primitive' and therefore of lesser value, but that the post to which I was responding originated in primitivist philosophy, not Marxism.

Look, Marxism is not about this Manichaean perception of the world that is so incredibly prevalent here, as well as in other vulgar interpretations of Marxism, where capitalism is Satan, communism is God, Marxists are Jesus, and the workers are the sheep that must be led to the light.

Marx recognized that capitalism is a necessary evil. In relation to the modes of production which precede it, capitalism creates the productive powers upon which the foundation of socialism is built. People like Barry Lyndon take the Marxist opposition to capitalism and believe that means we need to reverse the process - that's primitivism.

We need to go forwards, not backwards, and I can't be fucking bothered to write a post like this every time someone cloaks primitivist arguments in socialist rhetoric. So you might have to put up with more of these types of posts in the future. Deal with it.

You are such a liar. I never said we have to reverse industrialization-where did I say any such thing?

And yes, I know that Marx wrote that the creation of capitalism was, at a certain historical stage, progressive in some of its aspects, for all the horrors and injustices that the triumph of capitalism entailed. I actually agree with him on that point, all large historical developments have both positive and negative outcomes, thats a truism. But that doesn't mean that I have to reserve moral judgement on what happened. Are you saying I should?

In addition, while capitalism may have been a revolutionary force when Marx was writing, that time has long since passed. It has continued and deepened its horrors at the expense of the vast majority of the world's people, and is now as out of date as the kings and feudal lords which preceded it, with no more historical, economic, or moral right to continue to exist.

And anyway, I was not politically developed at the time, I was 12 years old for fucks sake. All I was describing was my revulsion at discovering that the society I live in is built on genocide. While I have changed my mind and refined my ideas many times since then, my desire for a society where something like that does not happen ever again remains. It really is that simple.

[synthesis]

You are such a liar. I never said we have to reverse industrialization-where did I say any such thing?Well, the initiation of genocide in the Americas predated the existence of industrialization itself by centuries, so I don't really see how this is relevant.



And yes, I know that Marx wrote that the creation of capitalism was, at a certain historical stage, progressive in some of its aspects, for all the horrors and injustices that the triumph of capitalism entailed. I actually agree with him on that point, all large historical developments have both positive and negative outcomes, thats a truism. But that doesn't mean that I have to reserve moral judgement on what happened. Are you saying I should?

In addition, while capitalism may have been a revolutionary force when Marx was writing, that time has long since passed. It has continued and deepened its horrors at the expense of the vast majority of the world's people, and is now as out of date as the kings and feudal lords which preceded it, with no more historical, economic, or moral right to continue to exist.

And anyway, I was not politically developed at the time, I was 12 years old for fucks sake. All I was describing was my revulsion at discovering that the society I live in is built on genocide. While I have changed my mind and refined my ideas many times since then, my desire for a society where something like that does not happen ever again remains. It really is that simple.I don't see what any of this has to do with what I was saying. Personally, I don't really believe in the utility of debating whether something is "morally right" or not.

[Robocommie]

Maybe this is the perils of the Hegelian roots of Marxism - some people are always going to think in terms of progress, progress, at all costs, progress - and so find it completely acceptable to take peoples or societies whom they categorize as "stuck in the past" and just grind them down underneath the wheels of progress. Never mind the fact that when tribal societies are forced into modern globalized markets, it destroys them utterly.

It's also always particularly convenient that the people who suggest that these groups abandon their culture and ethnic identity to assimilate and adapt are never the ones who actually have to do any adaptation themselves - like classic racists, it's the people from barbarian cultures that have to change, not the "modernized" ones.

[S.Artesian]

Marx recognized that capitalism is a necessary evil. In relation to the modes of production which precede it, capitalism creates the productive powers upon which the foundation of socialism is built. People like Barry Lyndon take the Marxist opposition to capitalism and believe that means we need to reverse the process - that's primitivism.

We need to go forwards, not backwards, and I can't be fucking bothered to write a post like this every time someone cloaks primitivist arguments in socialist rhetoric.

Marx recognized capitalism as a historical necessity deriving from the pre-conditions of capitalism in those areas where it developed. He recognized that capitalism has a 'universalizing" tendency, which, however, required the destruction of other cultures and the destruction of all pre-existing direct social production, that is to say, production for use.

Marx did not endorse capitalist accumulation, and found that its historical necessity could only be, in Marx's total analysis, realised in its overthrow not in parading about its brutality, its oppression, its racism, its enslavement and extermination of peoples as "modernization."

Modernization is the "commidification" of Marxism into a package designed to fit comfortably within the colonial and imperial ideology of advanced capitalism, not to Marx's critique of such capitalism. Modernization is nothing but the "white man's burden" justification for slavery all dressed up in the cap and gown of bourgeois political science professor.

Those who oppose the exploitation of labor, the enslavement of people, the destruction of indigenous cultures that pre-exist capitalism are not "primitivists." They are those opposing capitalist accumulation, an opposition which is the very minimum requirement for any Marxist.

We oppose capitalist accumulation, period. When Lula wants to help his Brazilian bourgeoisie by building a dam that displaces the indigenous people, we oppose that, as "developmental" as that dam might be. We don't sort capitalism into "good" and "bad" features, or categories, just as capitalism itself is not concerned with good and bad, but rather the totality of accumulation.

When Suharto awarded concessions to friends and family to build cement plants, auto plants in Indonesia, and at the same time allowed international mining companies to displace thousands of people in the countryside to expand mining operations, thus driving them into the cities where they could expand the reserve army of labor, and provide cheaper labor to those owing the cement and auto plants, we oppose all of that, not out of any romance with forest living, but out of opposition to capitalist accumulation.

Those pseudo-modernists lifting every one of their off-key voices and singing their little hymns of praise to the great commodity god of "modernism" in the sky are rooted not in the tradition of Marxism, but in that of Christian evangelism, of missionaries; of slave-traders.

And your pseudo-erudite, but real ignorance of Marx's total analysis of capital, Kun Funa, places you squarely in that backward tradition of "socialists" in the service of capitalist accumulation.

[Barry Lyndon]

The company Whichdoctor and co. like to keep:

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/images/sturmer/ds9-44.jpg

Nazi propaganda from 'Der Strumer' portraying the Jew as the world's parasite, 28 September 1944.
Title: 'Vermin'.
Caption:
"Life is not worth living
When one does not resist the parasite,
Never satisfied as it creeps about.
We must and will win"

"Nits make lice!"- Colonel John M. Chivington, November 22, 1864.
In a speech he made in Denver justifying the murder of Native American babies. A week later, US troops under his command would murder hundreds of Cheyenne men, women, and children in the Sand Creek Massacre(present-day Colorado). They committed gang rapes, mutilation, as well as cutting off Native Americans genitals and displaying them as trophies.

Ah yes, historical necessity and 'progress'. Glad we no longer have to deal with all those annoying 'primitives' with their stupid 'identity politics'.

[synthesis]

The company Whichdoctor and co. like to keep:

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/images/sturmer/ds9-44.jpg
Nazi propaganda from 'Der Strumer' portraying the Jew as the world's parasite, 28 September 1944.
Title: 'Vermin'.
Caption:
"Life is not worth living
When one does not resist the parasite,
Never satisfied as it creeps about.
We must and will win"

...

Ah yes, historical necessity and 'progress'. Glad we no longer have to deal with all those annoying 'primitives' with their stupid 'identity politics'.

Ah, yes. Finally, we are able to return to the usual level of discourse here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum).

I'll be happy to address all other (utterly valid) criticisms of the argumentation I've presented when I sleep off some of this Seagram's.

[Barry Lyndon]

Ah, yes. Finally, we are able to return to the usual level of discourse here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum).

I'll be happy to address all other (utterly valid) criticisms of the argumentation I've presented when I sleep off some of this Seagram's.

It is not a 'reductio ad Hitlerum' when we are discussing genocide and you and whichdoctor are acting as apologists for it. When talking about the systematic extermination of millions of people deemed racially inferior for the sake of the dominance of a continental empire, Nazis tend to come up.

[synthesis]

OK, I haven't slept it off yet, but here are some preliminary questions of mine:


The introduction of capitalism to the Americas has also done untold damage. I don't buy for one minute that capitalism is some "necessary stage" of human development, that you need to go through this hell to get to socialism, or that it's necessary for progress. What I know is that, prior to European invasion, my people had a form of egalitarianism, a form of socialism, where needs were provided for.

What are needs? If I were a woman, and I had breast cancer, I would "need" chemotherapy... am I wrong?


We oppose capitalist accumulation, period.

Is any society's rate of scientific development not inextricably linked to accumulation of capital - period - even in the Soviet Union?



Those pseudo-modernists lifting every one of their off-key voices and singing their little hymns of praise to the great commodity god of "modernism" in the sky are rooted not in the tradition of Marxism, but in that of Christian evangelism, of missionaries; of slave-traders.

Beautiful rhetoric, but, I'm afraid, without much substance.

More to the point, I oppose Suharto's accumulation of capital through cement plants, but not the cement plants themselves. That's the issue at hand here.


hey, the problem with the world is TOO LITTLE capitalism.

My problem (and the problem of all Marxists) is not that the world has "too little capitalism," but that the products of capitalist production are distributed unfairly.

My problem is not that there is "too little chemotherapy," but that Native Americans (and others) do not have adequate access to chemotherapy. And my problem is that this will not change until there is a revolution which mandates equality of access to chemotherapy. (A microcosm of the broader argument, of course.)

[synthesis]

It is not a 'reductio ad Hitlerum' when we are discussing genocide and you and whichdoctor are acting as apologists for it. When talking about the systematic extermination of millions of people deemed racially inferior for the sake of the dominance of a continental empire, Nazis tend to come up.

OK, you got me... I love me some genocide. Nothing like some good old-fashioned evil shit to start your day right.

Sarcasm aside, whichdoctor and I are most certainly not acting as apologists for genocide, unless, as has been alleged, s/he has done so for the Israeli occupation forces, which is a different story entirely, in that it is occurring in the present tense.

There is a difference between acting as an apologist for genocide and understanding it as one tragic consequence of an increasingly global economic order. We do not merely seek to overthrow this order, but to assume control of it for the common good.

Otherwise, their suffering will have been for nothing. I know we are content with meaninglessness, but I can think of no better eulogy than to continue the agenda of the Left: to put people above the social constructions they create... including culture.

[S.Artesian]

OK, I haven't slept it off yet, but here are some preliminary questions of mine:

More to the point, I oppose Suharto's accumulation of capital through cement plants, but not the cement plants themselves. That's the issue at hand here.


Nobody is opposing cement plants. Again you demonstrate your fundamental ignorance of the core of Marx's work-- that it's not things that determine the practical existence of human beings, it's social relations. So you don't get to excise cement plants from Suharto's cement plants unless you oppose capital accumulation, which means the bourgeoisie's ownership and construction of cement plants; which means opposing the bourgeoisie's extermination, oppression, destruction of indigenous peoples.

Indeed that is the issue, as you locate yourself firmly in the tradition of reformism in the service of accumulation by attempting to abstract the means from the relations of production by not opposing the capitalist relations themselves which are embodied in the dispossession of indigenous peoples.

Are you equally as casual in regarding the Atlantic slave trade as a "tragic necessity" giving the historically "necessary" role of that trade in a certain period of capitalist development?

As has already been pointed out, what you don't grasp is that the immiseration of indigenous people, there destruction, extermination is exactly the modernization you find so necessary in an era when capitalism itself is not necessary.

There is no need to pave over every square foot of rain forets, of savanna, of triple canopy jungle with asphalt and build shopping malls, semiconductor fabrication plants, etc. To believe there is any necessity to do that is to miss what is clearly the issue at hand for Marx, the productivity of labor to which capital becomes an obstacle, and which productivity it can only contain through expanding destruction of the means of existence.

Go back to bed. Permanently.

[Lyev]

I'm surprised this quote(s) hasn't been mentioned. Whilst clearly condemning the immiseration that followed after the discovery of the Americas, for the indigenous people, I think he was in awe of the achievements that capitalism has, or is, capable of:
The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.

Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacturer no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry; the place of the industrial middle class by industrial millionaires, the leaders of the whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.

Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.

....

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

....

The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.Just thought it would be an interesting addition to the debate.

[Barry Lyndon]

1521: Spanish conquistadores under Hernan Cortez killed over 100,000 Aztec civilians in the course of seizing the Aztec capital Tenochticlan, many of them massacred after the city surrenders. The city of 300,000 is totally leveled.

1598: In retaliation for the killing of 11 Spanish soldiers by the Pueblo, a Spanish commander massacres 800 villagers and enslaves another 500 in Acoma, present-day New Mexico.

1623: During peace talks with a large delegation of the Pohawtans in Virginia, English colonists poison the wine, killing 200. Another 50 are murdered by hand.

1637: English expeditionary force attacks a Pequot settlement at Mystic River in present-day Connecticut, killing 600-700 people, many of them burned alive in their homes.

1782: Pennsylvania militia attack and massacre about 100 indigenous Christian converts at Gnadenhutten.

1832: Sauk and Fox 150 men, women, and children slaughtered by US Army units in present-day Wisconsin at Bad Axe.

1850: US Army slaughters 100 Pomo tribespeople in retaliation for the Pomo's killing of two white settlers who had been robbing and killing Pomos in the Blood Island Massacre, present day California. This began a policy of hunting down indigenous people all over the state until they were completely exterminated.

1862: US Army massacres 200 Shosone men, women, and children in the Bear River massacre in present-day Idaho.

1864: Colorado state militia under US Army Colonel John M. Chivington massacre 160-500 Cheyenne at Sand Creek while they gather around an American flag and a white flag of truce, which they vainly believed would stop the soldiers from shooting at them.

1868: US troops under Lt. Col. George Custer massacre about 100 Cheyenne on the Washita River, on land that was allocated to them by the US government. Only nine are warriors, the rest are old men, women, and children. Their chief, Black Kettle, leader of the same Cheyenne who were massacred at Sand Creek, is killed.

1870: Marias massacre- Armed white settlers led by a US army major attack a camp of Piegan natives in Montana and club, stab, and shoot to death about 173 people. General Philip Sheridan, the Civil War hero, personally intervened to prevent the commander, an alcoholic, from being put on trial.

1871: Nearly 150 unarmed Apache murdered by a combination of white settlers and Mexican and indigenous mercenaries at Camp Grant in Arizona, led by the former mayor of Tuscon.

1890: 300 Sioux are massacred by the US Cavalry at Wounded Knee, South Dakota. This marks the end of armed indigenous resistance to white colonization in North America until the 1970's.

Just to name a few.........

[which doctor]

I'm hardly the one here that people should be wanting to ban. The fight to preserve one's culture has always been a conservative move. These are all fundamentally right-wing positions that people are taking here, and then they defend themselves as Marxists :blink:. You may think that you're position is justified because you're on the side of the 'oppressed,' but wanting to preserve one's culture is conservative no matter how you look at it.

What's interesting to note though, is that this conversation is entirely framed in the context of colonialism, which ends up obscuring the debate. If one could ask "would American have been better off without European contact?", one should also ask its correlative: Would Europe have been better off without the Industrial Revolution? Surely only a primitivist would answer no, but by the logic of many of those in this thread, who are self-described Marxists, the answer would be no. Why does no one lament the destruction of a European peasant culture? - by your own logic, you probably should.

[which doctor]

1521: Spanish conquistadores under Hernan Cortez killed over 100,000 Aztec civilians in the course of seizing the Aztec capital Tenochticlan, many of them massacred after the city surrenders. The city of 300,000 is totally leveled.

1598: In retaliation for the killing of 11 Spanish soldiers by the Pueblo, a Spanish commander massacres 800 villagers and enslaves another 500 in Acoma, present-day New Mexico.

1623: During talks with a large delegation of the Pohawtans in Virginia, English colonists poison the wine, killing 200. Another 50 are murdered by hand.

1637: English expeditionary force attacks a Pequot settlement at Mystic River in present-day Connecticut, killing 600-700 people, many of them burned alive in their homes.

1782: Pennsylvania militia attack and massacre about 100 indigenous Christian converts at Gnadenhutten.

1832: Sauk and Fox 150 men, women, and children slaughtered by US Army units in present-day Wisconsin at Bad Axe.

1850: US Army slaughters 100 Pomo tribespeople in retaliation for the Pomo's killing of two white settlers who had been robbing and killing Pomos in the Blood Island Massacre, present day California. This began a policy of hunting down indigenous people all over the state until they were completely exterminated.

1862: US Army massacres 200 Shosone men, women, and children in the Bear River massacre in present-day Idaho.

1864: Colorado state militia under US Army Colonel John M. Chivington massacre 160-500 Cheyenne at Sand Creek while they gather around an American flag and a white flag of truce, which they vainly believed would stop the soldiers from shooting at them.

1868: US troops under Lt. Col. George Custer massacre about 100 Cheyenne on the Washita River, on land that was allocated to them by the US government. Only nine are warriors, the rest are old men, women, and children. Their chief, Black Kettle, leader of the same Cheyenne who were massacred at Sand Creek, is killed.

1870: Marias massacre- Armed white settlers led by a US army major attack a camp of Piegan natives in Montana and club, stab, and shoot to death about 173 people. General Philip Sheridan, the Civil War hero, personally intervened to prevent the commander, an alcoholic, from being put on trial.

1871: Nearly 150 unarmed Apache murdered by a combination of white settlers and Mexican and indigenous mercenaries at Camp Grant in Arizona, led by the former mayor of Tuscon.

1890: 300 Sioux are massacred by the US Cavalry at Wounded Knee, South Dakota.

Just to name a few.........

Of course the road of history is paved with the blood of innocents - I don't think anyone here denies this - but if you understand history merely as a spreadsheet consisting of dates and body counts, then you really don't understand history.

[S.Artesian]

Anybody here ever see The Way of the Gun?-- that opening scene outside the club when the woman is yelling at our heroes for sitting on her boyfriend's car. Remember the response?

Those are exactly the words I'd say to the arrogants, supercilious, sanctimonious bourgeois apologist, WD.

[S.Artesian]

I'm hardly the one here that people should be wanting to ban. The fight to preserve one's culture has always been a conservative move. These are all fundamentally right-wing positions that people are taking here, and then they defend themselves as Marxists :blink:. You may think that you're position is justified because you're on the side of the 'oppressed,' but wanting to preserve one's culture is conservative no matter how you look at it.

What's interesting to note though, is that this conversation is entirely framed in the context of colonialism, which ends up obscuring the debate. If one could ask "would American have been better off without European contact?", one should also ask its correlative: Would Europe have been better off without the Industrial Revolution? Surely only a primitivist would answer no, but by the logic of many of those in this thread, who are self-described Marxists, the answer would be no. Why does no one lament the destruction of a European peasant culture? - by your own logic, you probably should.


First, once again you are being dishonest. That is not how the discussion has been framed. The discussion as you framed it regards the "progressive" nature of capitalism in comparison to the "reactionary" response of those who think indigenous people and their societies need not be bulldozed, drowned, and burnt at the stake to the great commodity fetishism called "modernism."

Secondly: You may think you know something about Marxism; you may think there is some obligation among Marxists to justify capitalist destruction as a component of "progress," but the only progress that gets anyone is the progress of slaughter on a greater scale-- like for example how WW1 followed the destruction of indigenous peoples in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Or you might try WW2. Or the wonderful impact of modernization in Brazil.

We should also note, and for the record, how your justification of capitalist accumulation is fundamentally identical to that of the free marketeers of capitalism, who love pointing out the progressive nature of their markets and the wonderful results of entrepreneurship. This not just a coincidence

Your pom-pom shaking, and cheer leading for the great commodity god of capitalist accumulation gets nobody anywhere other than barbarism. So much for your modernism.

[Barry Lyndon]

I'm hardly the one here that people should be wanting to ban. The fight to preserve one's culture has always been a conservative move. These are all fundamentally right-wing positions that people are taking here, and then they defend themselves as Marxists :blink:. You may think that you're position is justified because you're on the side of the 'oppressed,' but wanting to preserve one's culture is conservative no matter how you look at it.

What's interesting to note though, is that this conversation is entirely framed in the context of colonialism, which ends up obscuring the debate. If one could ask "would American have been better off without European contact?", one should also ask its correlative: Would Europe have been better off without the Industrial Revolution? Surely only a primitivist would answer no, but by the logic of many of those in this thread, who are self-described Marxists, the answer would be no. Why does no one lament the destruction of a European peasant culture? - by your own logic, you probably should.

Oh shut up, Goebbels.

[Ocean Seal]

This isn't about culture preservation, its about preventing the equivalent of an atomic bombing of New York and California.

[synthesis]

Are you equally as casual in regarding the Atlantic slave trade as a "tragic necessity" giving the historically "necessary" role of that trade in a certain period of capitalist development?Chattel slavery is not a characteristic of the capitalist mode of production.

edit: Also, I've gotten so used to people putting words in my mouth that I let a big one slip by. (Sounds erotic.) I don't believe that genocide is a "tragic necessity." I said specifically that the capitalist mode of production is a necessary evil. Even if the practice of genocide was inextricably linked to the capitalist mode of production - which it is most certainly not - that doesn't justify anything, then or now. The real question is: how can the working class repossess the ill-gotten gains of these atrocities and use them for the common good, now, in the present?



Indeed that is the issue, as you locate yourself firmly in the tradition of reformism in the service of accumulation by attempting to abstract the means from the relations of production by not opposing the capitalist relations themselves which are embodied in the dispossession of indigenous peoples.How am I a reformist if I think the only real solution is revolution? (No rhyme intended.)


This isn't about culture preservation, its about preventing the equivalent of an atomic bombing of New York and California.You can't prevent an atrocity (or a series of atrocities) that has already happened.


it's not things that determine the practical existence of human beings, it's social relations. So you don't get to excise cement plants from Suharto's cement plants unless you oppose capital accumulation, which means the bourgeoisie's ownership and construction of cement plantsProduction also determines the practical existence of human beings. Humans do not exist in a vacuum devoid of all but social relations.


Go back to bed...I probably will. There were fucking chainsaws going outside my window since 6 o'clock in the fucking morning.


...Permanently. :blink: :bored: :crying:

[Ocean Seal]

I also can't prevent European contact with the Americas. The question was hypothetical so I posited the negative effects of one of the scenarios.

[synthesis]

I also can't prevent European contact with the Americas. The question was hypothetical so I posited the negative effects of one of the scenarios.

But, see, history doesn't work like that. If genocide had not occurred in the Americas, it could have just as easily occurred elsewhere. (Which it did.)

As long as we're throwing in huge parcels of Das Kapital, allow me to quote one (slightly reformatted) passage I believe is particularly relevant.


As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently decomposed the old society from top to bottom, as soon as the labourers are turned into proletarians, their means of labour into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialization of labour and further transformation of the land and other means of production into socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well as the further expropriation of private proprietors, takes a new form.

That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the labourer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many labourers. This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself, by the centralization of capital.

One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralization, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the cooperative form of the labour process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labour into instruments of labour only usable in common, the economizing of all means of production by their use as means of production of combined, socialized labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world market, and with this, the international character of the capitalistic regime.

Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolize all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organized by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself.

The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralization of the means of production and socialization of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder.

The knell of capitalist private property sounds.

The expropriators are expropriated.

[InuyashaKnight]

Of course

[Proletarian Ultra]

I've seen medieval Irish and Viking fishing settlements in Newfoundland. Not too long ago a Roman statuette was discovered in a burial mound in the Southwest; probably made its way overland from Eastern Canada. I could list more examples of pre-First Contact contact but there's no need.

The point is that First Contact is a myth. Contact between Europe and the Americas had been constant, though sporadic and small-scale. First Contact is a quasi-religious construct that settler societies build to justify themselves.

So the question isn't "contact or no contact?" I suppose you could ask "what if contact had remained peaceful?" if that's interesting.

Part of the problem is that colonization could not have happened without class contradictions already existing in Indian society; if native aristocrats weren't willing to sell out to settlers in return for European goods, for military aid in inter-aristocratic rivalry, or even for help quashing unrest among their own people, there would be no European conquest of the Americas.

Third point: which doctor as always is Revleft's #1 most skilled troll. Here he exhibits one of his best-developed ploys, which is to try and force a dichotomy where either you endorse imperialism or you're trapped into a naive lumpen-Rousseauite liberal multi-culti-ism.

[Barry Lyndon]

Part of the problem is that colonization could not have happened without class contradictions already existing in Indian society; if native aristocrats weren't willing to sell out to settlers in return for European goods, for military aid in inter-aristocratic rivalry, or even for help quashing unrest among their own people, there would be no European conquest of the Americas.

Third point: which doctor as always is Revleft's #1 most skilled troll. Here he exhibits one of his best-developed ploys, which is to try and force a dichotomy where either you endorse imperialism or you're trapped into a naive lumpen-Rousseauite liberal multi-culti-ism.

Yes, I think that our sympathy for indigenous peoples should not lead us to idealize their societies. The Aztec, from what I know about them, were like indigenous American Romans- an extremely advanced and sophisticated civilization but incredibly brutal and imperialistic. It's worth noting that the Spaniards would have never conquered Mexico without the help of tens of thousands of indigenous American allies who hated the Aztec and lept at the chance to overthrow them.
The Europeans also cleverly manipulated inter-tribal rivalries, selling muskets to rival tribes to slaughter each other-the French and Indian War was an example of this. Very few indigenous Americans had a notion of a pan-native common identity, Tecumseh being a rare example.

Whichdoctor's way of thinking on this issue is perfectly consistent with the positions he's taken elsewhere-either your for US drone bombers or your for the Taliban, either your for the IDF spraying white posphorus on Gaza or your for Hamas, either your for multinational corporate sweatshop labor or your for fuedalism and traditionalist ignorance. It entirely anti-Marxist in that it totally rules out any independent agency of the working class to forge an alternative to the two terrible choices he falsely poses as the only ones, a classic liberal 'lesser of two evils' position. The revolutionary struggles of people in Venezuela, Bolivia, Nepal, and Greece show that such alternatives are feasible, so that is why he spews virtriol and hatred against them.

[Franz Fanonipants]

The Americas would be different.

As someone with a pretty vested historical interest in the Spanish Colonial period, it's always interesting to me the degree that the most evil face of colonialism english speakers can dream up is the Conquistador. It's like the go-to insult.

That said, the whole issue is complex. The Encounter is so multivaried, with Christian visions of utopia and justice fighting hard against proto-Capitalism (or alongside it), Indian rivalries feeding imperial machinery, and modern Indian identities surviving every attempt at genocide thrown at them, that it's really hard to create a simplistic (+/-) verdict on the Americas post-1492. You can't make Indians out to be simple victims in the crush of history, they've utilized their own agency extensively and negotiated their position the best that an oppressed, colonized group can. So all the "HOW DARE YOU MALIGN THESE POOR, POOR PEOPLE" stuff is a little over the top.

On the other hand, which doctor, if he isn't just trolling, is a total simp with retarded 19th century views of progress.

EDIT

verdict: which doctor is clearly just plain retarded.

[which doctor]

On the other hand, which doctor, if he isn't just trolling, is a total simp with retarded 19th century views of progress.

EDIT

verdict: which doctor is clearly just plain retarded.
Mind backing this up? - or is your style more like shoot and run?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Mind backing this up? - or is your style more like shoot and run?

I don't know how I can back up the fact that you're retarded more than your posts have prior.

The thing is, regardless of your political orientation, calling out colonized people for their marginalization as "gang-bangers" or whatever other white bullshit you want to drag out is stupid. I don't care if you think Marx wrote that the Great White Way of Industrialism is the only way to CommuHeaven, if you can't understand the power of imperialism to destroy people's lives and community chances are you're kind of dumb.

And that's alright. I understand where you're coming from, I just think your premise is stupid and you're an imperialist stooge. If you want me to dig in and call you retarded a couple of times more, though, I'd be more than happy to.

E:

Of course, you are a pretty obvious troll, too...so there's that.

[black magick hustla]

this is a stupid question designated to politically discredit people.

would the world be better without civilization? would the world be better if trotsky had won the power struggle> lahlahlahla

[black magick hustla]

Churchill once said the left was euro-centric, and this shows exactly why. Your previous post in this thread

churchill is one of those old 60s burnt out nationalists that asks for thousands of dollars to speak to good for nothing leftists who lick his ass

[black magick hustla]

by the record i think cultural politics is the domain of nationalists and romantics who make a caricature out of a group's history. i dont want to get started about chicano identity politics which i know really well. to hell with culture and to hell with my heritage. i hope it burns. so which doctor is not the only one guys

[Obrero Rebelde]

@ "which doctor"

Just your screen name alone betrays your racism. That's already enough to piss people off.

What really should piss anyone off is that a racist should get to mouth off with impunity on RevLeft.

Yes, I believe in censoring racists.

[black magick hustla]

here is a fun story. the other day my black nationalist professor was whining about chicano academics looking for a "united chicano voice" because latin americans can be hella racist against black folk. it was like a grand battle of identity politic nuts. i am not a huge fan of modernity simply because i do not know the alternative of modernity, but to apply 21th century value judgements tio the affairs of 17-18th century men is completely ridiculous and its part of this tendency of left nationalists of making out of historical groups complete caricatures.

[which doctor]

calling out colonized people for their marginalization as "gang-bangers" or whatever other white bullshit you want to drag out is stupid.
My point was that there is no Oglala culture to really speak of at a place like Pine Ridge. Instead, you have poverty, crime, drug abuse, and corrupt politicians, all hallmarks of the ills of capitalist culture. So to speak of an Oglala people as distinct from an Oglala culture, is to falsely particularize a group of people as 'colonized,' and thus obscuring actual class relations and the presence of capitalism as a totality. Furthermore, the solution to this problem is not for the people of Pine Ridge to assert their Oglala heritage/culture, but to seek to move beyond it, and eventually through capitalism to socialism.


My point was that there was I don't care if you think Marx wrote that the Great White Way of Industrialism is the only way to CommuHeaven, if you can't understand the power of imperialism to destroy people's lives and community chances are you're kind of dumb.1.) Why do you keep insisting on speaking in terms of race? All it does is blur whatever argument you might be trying to put forth.
2.) Its a mistake to confuse imperialism with the development of the means of production. Although with imperialism, certainly came the development of the capitalist mode of production, the two concepts should not be viewed as synonymous. My point is that there's an emancipatory dimension to the commodity mode of production, and the development of a worldwide, capitalist totality. This is the fundamental premise of Marxism, and I don't know why that's so difficult to understand.



Of course, you are a pretty obvious troll, too...so there's that. Nope. I'm completely serious.

[the last donut of the night]

but to apply 21th century value judgements tio the affairs of 17-18th century men is completely ridiculous and its part of this tendency of left nationalists of making out of historical groups complete caricatures.

Then it's also ridiculous to claim women were oppressed under patriarchy in feudal Europe, because the concept of patriarchy, in the Marxist sense, is relatively new...but we still do that, don't we? We're not putting our judgments upon people, but like every normal human, we feel compelled to defend or empathize with oppressed groups -- hence the emotions flaring in this thread. Another part of this discussion is which doctor trying to defend a white supremacist POV under pseudo-Marxist dialogue.

[the last donut of the night]

My point was that there is no Oglala culture to really speak of at a place like Pine Ridge.

Since when do you define culture? I'm sure there is culture there; it does differ from white or black culture. However, being the white supremacist you've shown yourself to be, you have gone on the tangent that these alienated and colonized people have no culture to speak of, that their culture is nonexistant, so sure, they should forget and fuck it and "move to the city, forget their elders" (as you said before) and adopt white culture. Not too surprising, coming from you.



Instead, you have poverty, crime, drug abuse, and corrupt politicians, all hallmarks of the ills of capitalist culture.

By that logic, Black people in Harlem, morenos in favelas, or the Oglala people either have no distinct culture from the white suburbs of Malibu or Scarsdale, which is a crock of shit. Again, your advice is for them to conform to white culture -- which is something out-of-the-closet white supremacists would love.




So to speak of an Oglala people as distinct from an Oglala culture, is to falsely particularize a group of people as 'colonized,' and thus obscuring actual class relations and the presence of capitalism as a totality.

No, it's not, because people and culture are very different things. I can be Oglala and know nothing about my culture because Oglalas have their own genetic heritage, different from other ethnicities. Thus, peoples don't dissapear along with cultures, which even isn't the case here.



Furthermore, the solution to this problem is not for the people of Pine Ridge to assert their Oglala heritage/culture, but to seek to move beyond it, and eventually through capitalism to socialism.

I mean, we all know that making banners or exclamations about their culture will not be a solution for the Oglala culture to survive in capitalism. Capitalism must be destroyed in order for full liberation. Where we differ is that we believe socialism can keep and foster these cultures; you believe that socialism is a business and it's all about moving people to conform to white, European culture.

[synthesis]

by the record i think cultural politics is the domain of nationalists and romantics who make a caricature out of a group's history. i dont want to get started about chicano identity politics which i know really well. to hell with culture and to hell with my heritage. i hope it burns. so which doctor is not the only one guys

I certainly wouldn't go as far as you did in the latter half of your post, but the first half is spot on.

[the last donut of the night]

to hell with culture and to hell with my heritage. i hope it burns. so which doctor is not the only one guys

So what are you going to do? Fuck knowing Spanish, knowing your history, fuck it, right? I mean, if you forget your heritage, what will you have?

[Franz Fanonipants]

by the record i think cultural politics is the domain of nationalists and romantics who make a caricature out of a group's history. i dont want to get started about chicano identity politics which i know really well. to hell with culture and to hell with my heritage. i hope it burns. so which doctor is not the only one guys

No mames, guey.

pps. did you get beaten up by a bowl of menudo or what? why are you so mad...AT CHICANISMO?!

[Franz Fanonipants]

My point was that there is no Oglala culture to really speak of at a place like Pine Ridge. Instead, you have poverty, crime, drug abuse, and corrupt politicians, all hallmarks of the ills of capitalist culture. So to speak of an Oglala people as distinct from an Oglala culture, is to falsely particularize a group of people as 'colonized,' and thus obscuring actual class relations and the presence of capitalism as a totality. Furthermore, the solution to this problem is not for the people of Pine Ridge to assert their Oglala heritage/culture, but to seek to move beyond it, and eventually through capitalism to socialism.

If you can't see that people who are impoverished and denied the full "benefits" of capitalism are colonized, you continue to be fucking retarded. There IS a class structure on a reservation, this is entirely true, but you're entirely wrong in thinking that the existence of culture (to whatever degree it IS an asset) is somehow retrograde. Capitalism and Western modernization are not the only way out of "savagery", nor is whatever ridiculous 19th century view of an ideal society you have.

E: Of course, what bugs me is you've put me in the position of "defending" culture. I don't have a defense of any culture, as I think culture is transitory. BUT, I think that you don't have any critical capacity to understand the strategic use of culture against Capitalism/Western Development.


1.) Why do you keep insisting on speaking in terms of race? All it does is blur whatever argument you might be trying to put forth.
2.) Its a mistake to confuse imperialism with the development of the means of production. Although with imperialism, certainly came the development of the capitalist mode of production, the two concepts should not be viewed as synonymous. My point is that there's an emancipatory dimension to the commodity mode of production, and the development of a worldwide, capitalist totality. This is the fundamental premise of Marxism, and I don't know why that's so difficult to understand.

1. Cus I'm pretty sure you're white. Even if you're ethnically or genetically something else, you're still fucking white.

2. No, it's a mistake to confuse development of the means of production as liberation by further development. Imperialism uses dogmas of superiority to oppress and extract resources from groups demarcated as "lesser" to fuel development. This creates an unequal situation that cannot be ignored in implementing any form of anti-capitalism. The fact that you're blithely ignoring this makes me continue to believe you're essentially retarded and unable to contextualize your ideology. Also, you're still an imperialist stooge.


Nope. I'm completely serious.

lol

[S.Artesian]

this is a stupid question designated to politically discredit people.

would the world be better without civilization? would the world be better if trotsky had won the power struggle> lahlahlahla


The question is, if it's taken as only that question, not actually designed to discredit anybody, but rather simply irrelevant.

Obviously however, given the foaming reactionary response of WD there is more to the question than just the question. There's that manifest, and enduring, confusion of Marxism with "developmentalism," with making a fetish out of capitalist accumulation as something "progressive" in and of itself.

The question isn't nearly as stupid as WD's response. Would the world be better off without.... WD. Bet on it. Stone dead cinch lock.

[Devrim]

So what are you going to do? Fuck knowing Spanish, knowing your history, fuck it, right? I mean, if you forget your heritage, what will you have?

I am not particularly interested in 'my language and heritage'. Very few young people in my family can speak the language of my grandparents. I also know many people whose families have been through three languages in four or even three generations. Of course, there is a tragedy on a minute level of children not being able to communicate properly with their grandparents, but that is about it really.

Devrim

[Il Medico]

So what are you going to do? Fuck knowing Spanish, knowing your history, fuck it, right? I mean, if you forget your heritage, what will you have?
Who the fuck cares about your heritage? My best friend is a first generation Venezuelan immigrant, he doesn't know fuck all about Venezuelan history, nor does he give that much of a shit, cause it isn't what defines him, the culture he comes from isn't what is important to him. And no leftist should tell someone that what their ethic background is how they should identify who they are. It boggles the mind that any leftist would prob up a divison within the working class like this. If you lose the culture that you were born into (or your family comes from) what do you have left? Your class. It doesn't matter if your of an Italian background like I am or of a Hispanic background like dada, your still a worker (assuming your not a bourgeois) and that is how you should see yourself and how leftist should promote workers view themselves.

Anyways, as for the original OP question:

It seems like a really stupid question to me, I don't know how it could have been avoided, even if colonization didn't happen, the Americas couldn't stay isolated from the world and it would have to change regardless.

[black magick hustla]

No mames, guey.

pps. did you get beaten up by a bowl of menudo or what? why are you so mad...AT CHICANISMO?!

im not mad about it. nomas estoy medio molesto. cuando tienes un punado de gueyes en la universidad hablando sobre pinche aztlan y luego recitando poemas sobre como debemos de ser guerreros como nuestros antepasados (the same ones that built the pyramids on the back of slaves and removed the hearts of their enemies) i feel i dropped acid

[Lyev]

So what are you going to do? Fuck knowing Spanish, knowing your history, fuck it, right? I mean, if you forget your heritage, what will you have?The bottom line is -- of all the aspects of your identity, which is the foremost for you, that defines who you are? What's more important: your cultural heritage, or your class? I'm not saying, of course, that the 2 are totally dichotomous and incompatible, and I see nothing wrong with being proud of who you are, but it's an important choice for a Marxist.

[Robocommie]

The bottom line is -- of all the aspects of your identity, which is the foremost for you, that defines who you are? What's more important: your cultural heritage, or your class? I'm not saying, of course, that the 2 are totally dichotomous and incompatible, and I see nothing wrong with being proud of who you are, but it's an important choice for a Marxist.

I don't think the two are really that separate. Racism is generally an outgrowth of classism, and ethnic identity has broad implications to class identity that can't be removed.

[Lyev]

I don't think the two are really that separate. Racism is generally an outgrowth of classism, and ethnic identity has broad implications to class identity that can't be removed.In some cases (e.g. in Vietnam with Ho Chi Minh, or even in China with Mao, to some extent) class and patriotism seem to have become blurred. There are also cases (poor inner cities areas in Northern USA, like Harlem and Detroit and many areas of South Africa still) where ethnicity or race can play a part in socioeconomic divisions. In these examples, there's direct correlation between colour and class.

However, feelings of nationalism and cultural identity can often blur and confuse any feelings of class-consciousness. For an average worker that hasn't read Marx or knows next to nothing about class, whether they're of Polish, Somalian or Pakistani origin, will they feel as though they have more in common with people that have the same culture as them, and look and act the same? Or would they feel as though they have more in common with someone with a totally alien culture, that has a different shade of skin and speaks with a different accent?

Maybe in somewhere like Johannesburg where dire poverty is mostly the lot of native black Africans, and where's the still pretty much a white ruling class, there can't be a great deal of division between the working class. Although, they're more likely to unite over race than class. Race is much more outwardly obvious than class. Class is subtle.

Although, in somewhere like Britain, where we have had "waves" of immigration, with different groups of cultures and nationalities coming steadily since the 40s (in fact I think you're from England Robo, are you?) there are cities and areas, like Coventry, where there are "layers", so to speak, of identities. Now for you and me, it's obvious that Poles, Somalians, Pakistanis, Kenyans, Slovaks, Nigerians, Irish and Indian people are all from the class. However, they are clearly not of the same cultural identity, nationality or race. Identity can divide those of the same class.

Do you see my point? In some cases, race and class become blurred, or don't conflict, but in other cases they are the deciding factor in class-conscious and class struggle, or absolute lack of it. People know they're poor and that they've been given the totally most shittest opportunities in life, but race and nationality can and will distract, or they're divisive and utilized as scapegoats.

[black magick hustla]

i dont thinik its even a matter of class pride. i think class pride is also a bit silly because you did not choose to be in the botton of the social rung. identity is a bad dream. instead of holding to some thing you think you are supposed to do to just flow man. identifiy with individual ideas dont just formulate a whole identity of yourself from a grandiose grand narrative

[Lyev]

i dont thinik its even a matter of class pride. i think class pride is also a bit silly because you did not choose to be in the botton of the social rung. identity is a bad dream. instead of holding to some thing you think you are supposed to do to just flow man. identifiy with individual ideas dont just formulate a whole identity of yourself from a grandiose grand narrativeI'm not talking about "class pride" here, I am referring wholly to class consciousness, and how cultural identity can often obfuscate it.

[Franz Fanonipants]

im not mad about it. nomas estoy medio molesto. cuando tienes un punado de gueyes en la universidad hablando sobre pinche aztlan y luego recitando poemas sobre como debemos de ser guerreros como nuestros antepasados (the same ones that built the pyramids on the back of slaves and removed the hearts of their enemies) i feel i dropped acid

colonized person madder at his broader colonized brothers and sisters than at the colonizer.

news reel at 11.

I mean, real talk man, there's value to the creation of a national mythology. It isn't true, but Fanon talks about it very clearly belonging to a pre-revolutionary stage of consciousness. The fact that you're not engaging with those folks about moving past idealization of a ridiculously imperialistic power (I cheer Chichimecs, but that's cus I'm not even FROM Central Mexico) is pretty discouraging to me.

You're raging out on people who have more common interest with you than old White Power Marxism over there.

EDIT

plus, you know Raza are a better time to hang out with anyways.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Do you see my point? In some cases, race and class become blurred, or don't conflict, but in other cases they are the deciding factor in class-conscious and class struggle, or absolute lack of it. People know they're poor and that they've been given the totally most shittest opportunities in life, but race and nationality can and will distract, or they're divisive and utilized as scapegoats.

Europeans probably shouldn't talk about racial consciousness/awareness. At least in the context of the Americas.

Just cus they usually get it wrong.

And this is an example of you getting it wrong. Race and nationality in the US can actually make you aware that you've been given the totally most shittest opportunity. Being Black or Latino isn't a pass into automatic consciousness, but you'd better believe being Black or Latino makes you way more likely to be working class or lumpen.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Who the fuck cares about your heritage? My best friend is a first generation Venezuelan immigrant, he doesn't know fuck all about Venezuelan history, nor does he give that much of a shit, cause it isn't what defines him, the culture he comes from isn't what is important to him. And no leftist should tell someone that what their ethic background is how they should identify who they are. It boggles the mind that any leftist would prob up a divison within the working class like this. If you lose the culture that you were born into (or your family comes from) what do you have left? Your class. It doesn't matter if your of an Italian background like I am or of a Hispanic background like dada, your still a worker (assuming your not a bourgeois) and that is how you should see yourself and how leftist should promote workers view themselves.

Man.

You're white. You should probably get the fuck out of the "SO WHAT ABOUT YOUR HERITAGE!" tip.

I don't have any ties to "proud, Mexica warriors." I DO have ties to stories about my dad having to drink his own piss out of his shoe when illegally immigrating to the US because of a total lack of opportunity in Mexico for young men his age due to the way capitalism keeps the poor poor.

You'd better believe that aided the development of my revolutionary consciousness. You guys are fucking dumb if you think somehow being aware of your family's past relationship with capitalism in the case of colonized people is somehow detrimental to revolutionary consciousness.

[S.Artesian]

Chattel slavery is not a characteristic of the capitalist mode of production.



"Direct slavery is as much the pivot of our industrialism today as machinery, credit, etc. Without slavery no cotton; without cotton no modern industry. Slavery has given value to the colonies; the colonies have created world trade; world trade is the necessary condition of large-scale machine industry."

Marx to P.V Annenkov, December 28, 1846.

So tell me again, was slavery a "necessary evil"? Was it a tragic consequence which, however, Africans should have accepted and adhered to, and having accepted and adhered to, then embraced as their best "hope" for "progress"?

Was it progressive that African civilizations were destroyed, populations immiserated in the "necessary evil" of the slave trade?

Should Africans have abandoned any fidelity to their past, their history, their cultures, their languages, their musics, because such fidelity was "regressive" and not progressive as the "necessary evil"


The problem is not, as you put it, with capitalist "distribution." It is with capitalist accumulation. It is that accumulation that requires, and perpetuates the degradation, dispossession of indigenous peoples from land, from language, from community. Resistance to that accumulation's need for degradation is the progressive, and necessary good for the emancipation of all labor.

[9]

@ Franz Fanonipants:

you said to maldoror:



You're raging out on people who have more common interest with you than old White Power Marxism over there.

The implication clearly being that common interest is determined by race rather than class. So let me ask you this. Would you say that e.g. a black transportation worker in, say, New York City has "more common interest" with his black boss and Barack Obama and Richard Parsons than with a white transportation worker?



You'd better believe that aided the development of my revolutionary consciousness.

Class consciousness is central to 'revolutionary consciousness'; I don't see any indication that you have any conception of class at all.

[Franz Fanonipants]

The implication clearly being that common interest is determined by race rather than class. So let me ask you this. Would you say that e.g. a black transportation worker in, say, New York City has "more common interest" with his black boss and Barack Obama and Richard Parsons than with a white transportation worker?

Obviously not, but you're choosing an outlier. Black transportation worker has more in common with the white transportation worker, but has MORE in common with the hundreds of thousands of black men locked up in prison in America. Which is, of course, very clearly tied into class, as Black men basically fill up a lumpenproletariat role in the US. Race and class are pretty inextricably tied in the United States, again, there are outliers, but for the most part if you're Black, you're poor.


Class consciousness is central to 'revolutionary consciousness'; I don't see any indication that you have any conception of class at all.

That's cute.

My dad, after drinking piss out of his shoe came to America, worked as a jornalero and migrant worker on manual labor jobs. To this day, if you gave me the choice between feeling solidarity with a poor white from Appalachia and a spoiled junior from Monterrey, I'd obviously come down on the side of the white person. But, if you gave me the choice between that selfsame white man who can always fall back on white privilege (which is economic, unless, again, you're a total moron who doesn't understand the levels to which class and race interact) and the migrant agricultural workers I used to translate for and work with I'd choose my raza. That white guy has plenty of other white guys (alongside with the entire financial system of the country) willing to help him. My raza, not as much.

E:
To clarify, white privilege for poor whites is obviously a lie. But the illusion of being included in the broader realm of capitalist financial "success" often makes even working white folks far more likely to side with the rich than with others they share more economic interests in.

I mean this is basically America 101

[S.Artesian]

To this day, if you gave me the choice between feeling solidarity with a poor white from Appalachia and a spoiled junior from Monterrey, I'd obviously come down on the side of the white person. But, if you gave me the choice between that selfsame white man who can always fall back on white privilege (which is economic, unless, again, you're a total moron who doesn't understand the levels to which class and race interact) and the migrant agricultural workers I used to translate for and work with I'd choose my raza. That white guy has plenty of other white guys (alongside with the entire financial system of the country) willing to help him. My raza, not as much.

E:
To clarify, white privilege for poor whites is obviously a lie. But the illusion of being included in the broader realm of capitalist financial "success" often makes even working white folks far more likely to side with the rich than with others they share more economic interests in.

I mean this is basically America 101


If the poor white guy in Appalachia had plenty of other whites alongside and entire financial system of the country willing to help him, he wouldn't be a poor white guy in Appalachia.

I think that part of your argument indicates you don't know very much about the poor whites inside or outside Appalachia.

Opposition to capitalist destruction of indigenous people in its need for accumulation does not require, entail reflecting the prejudices and ignorance of that dominant mode of accumulation.

I mean yeah, this is basically America, where the most exploited, vulnerable, abused sector of the working class is made up of people of color, and not just people of color, but women and women of color.

So let's get a bit more real, and jettison the "white guy" theorizing.

[Agnapostate]

Has anyone else noticed that the people who characterized the OP as a stupid question seemed to offer stupider answers?

[Lyev]

Europeans probably shouldn't talk about racial consciousness/awareness. At least in the context of the Americas.

Just cus they usually get it wrong.

And this is an example of you getting it wrong. Race and nationality in the US can actually make you aware that you've been given the totally most shittest opportunity. Being Black or Latino isn't a pass into automatic consciousness, but you'd better believe being Black or Latino makes you way more likely to be working class or lumpen.Your saying because I'm from Europe I'm not allowed to comment on race in America? I'm white by the way. What I was really referring to, was a specific example in mind, when I was canvassing in Coventry once. I used to live in suburban London, which was very diverse, but now I live in a rural area of the UK which is probably 90% white and British.

Like I mentioned earlier, in Coventry, the poor, working class areas are also very multi-racial. There's layers, if you like, of immigrant populations. There's obviously the native British, who "were there first", then on top of that, there was Irish immigrants that came, then after this there was a wave from India and Pakistan, then on top of this there was Nigerian and Somalian, which still continues today, and with this as well, the most recent wave is Polish and eastern European immigrants.

You can see how the resentment must build up, for each new layer. These people are moving to England due to a lack of work, poor housing, weak infrastructure, or even war in the case of Somalia, I think. They're poor when they arrive, and stay poor, or become even poorer once they have settled down. There's obviously a lack of jobs and opportunities (not just in Britain, but pretty much globally) at the moment due the economic crisis. Even if there were jobs, albeit very poorly paid ones, as immigrant workers have next to no rights, let's not forget, many aren't even entitled to any sort of benefit.

Effectively, they're no better off than they were in their previous countries of origin. A key point for me is this: all of these different nationalities and culture share the same class. It's obvious they're proletarian, but it's race here that plays the decisive role, because, as I have said, it's easier to identify with your culture than your class.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I mean yeah, this is basically America, where the most exploited, vulnerable, abused sector of the working class is made up of people of color, and not just people of color, but women and women of color.

and again

and again

and again

[Franz Fanonipants]

Effectively, they're no better off than they were in their previous countries of origin. A key point for me is this: all of these different nationalities and culture share the same class. It's obvious they're proletarian, but it's race here that plays the decisive role, because, as I have said, it's easier to identify with your culture than your class.

Culture IS class.

I eat menudo and tripa. Why? Because my ancestors were members of a peasant or laboring class in Northern Mexico. Offal was the least expensive protein to supplement their diet.

Culture is class.

[Robocommie]

Crucially, I think it is important to state that the fact of racism and racially-centered exploitation complicates class struggle. While issues pertaining to race and culture do not supersede class lines, neither do class lines supersede all racial and cultural issues facing national minorities. That's very important to remember, and I think a more complete view of revolutionary charge takes that into account. Marxism ceased to be the same after Frantz Fanon.

[S.Artesian]

and again

and again

and again


I don't quite get your meaning. Could you explain?

[S.Artesian]

Has anyone else noticed that the people who characterized the OP as a stupid question seemed to offer stupider answers?

Yep. Noticed that. Said that.

[ZeroNowhere]

Has anyone else noticed that the people who characterized the OP as a stupid question seemed to offer stupider answers?
As I disapprove of this generalization, I shall simply note that I am not offering an answer to the OP because it is a stupid question.

[28350]

I voted no on this poll a while ago, and just recently came back to look at the thread.
I'd like to make it clear that I voted no not because I think colonialism had a positive effect on the "savage and undeveloped natives," but because I don't think (on principal) one can say just because one thing or another thing didn't happen that the world would be better off. I think usually other bad things would have happened.

If the question is reformulated to ask "Was European contact a net positive impact on America?", then my answer would be no.

[Agnapostate]

As I disapprove of this generalization, I shall simply note that I am not offering an answer to the OP because it is a stupid question.

That qualifies. ;)

[synthesis]

"Direct slavery is as much the pivot of our industrialism today as machinery, credit, etc. Without slavery no cotton; without cotton no modern industry. Slavery has given value to the colonies; the colonies have created world trade; world trade is the necessary condition of large-scale machine industry."

Marx to P.V Annenkov, December 28, 1846.

You completely misunderstood what is being said in that quotation. I'm not trying to play the semantics game, but when he says "direct slavery is the pivot of industrialism," he is supporting my statement that "chattel [direct] slavery is not a characteristic of the capitalist mode of production."

Here's where your "pseudo-Erudite" bluster (takes one to know one) betrays you; again, this is much more important than simple semantics. Much as the socialist mode of production is built by dissociating the productive powers of the capitalist mode of production from its accompanying social relations, industrialization and the capitalist mode of production were enabled by the centralization of wealth and ill-gotten productivity of slavery and colonization.

This becomes completely apparent when you view the passage from that letter in full. (Again, I've slightly reformatted it here.) I'm not necessarily in agreement with Marx here, but remember that this argument arose from the earlier statement (which we are still debating, of course) that one poster's crypto-liberal white guilt had anything to do with Marxism at all.


As for slavery, there is no need for me to speak of its bad aspects. The only thing requiring explanation is the good side of slavery.

I do not mean indirect slavery, the slavery of proletariat; I mean direct slavery, the slavery of the Blacks in Surinam, in Brazil, in the southern regions of North America.

Direct slavery is as much the pivot upon which our present-day industrialism turns as are machinery, credit, etc. Without slavery there would be no cotton, without cotton there would be no modern industry.

It is slavery which has given value to the colonies, it is the colonies which have created world trade, and world trade is the necessary condition for large-scale machine industry.

Consequently, prior to the slave trade, the colonies sent very few products to the Old World, and did not noticeably change the face of the world.

Slavery is therefore an economic category of paramount importance.

Without slavery, North America, the most progressive nation, would he transformed into a patriarchal country.

Only wipe North America off the map and you will get anarchy, the complete decay of trade and modern civilisation.

But to do away with slavery would be to wipe America off the map.

Being an economic category, slavery has existed in all nations since the beginning of the world.

All that modern nations have achieved is to disguise slavery at home and import it openly into the New World.I would respond to the rest of your post, but I think Marx himself just did it for me.

[S.Artesian]

You completely misunderstood what is being said in that quotation. I'm not trying to play the semantics game, but when he says "direct slavery is the pivot of industrialism," he is supporting my statement that "chattel [direct] slavery is not a characteristic of the capitalist mode of production."

Here's where your "pseudo-Erudite" bluster (takes one to know one) betrays you; again, this is much more important than simple semantics. Much as the socialist mode of production is built by dissociating the productive powers of the capitalist mode of production from its accompanying social relations, industrialization and the capitalist mode of production were enabled by the centralization of wealth and ill-gotten productivity of slavery and colonization.

This becomes completely apparent when you view the passage from that letter in full. (Again, I've slightly reformatted it here.) I'm not necessarily in agreement with Marx here, but remember that this argument arose from the earlier statement (which we are still debating, of course) that one poster's crypto-liberal white guilt had anything to do with Marxism at all.

I would respond to the rest of your post, but I think Marx himself just did it for me.


How stupid are you? Not a rhetorical question. Marx was wrote this in 1846. What industrialism do you think he is referring to? Non-capitalist industrialism? tted.

Was chattel slavery any less "pivotal" to industrial capitalism than the exterminations of indigenous peoples? Was the extermination of the indigenous peoples more part of capitalist reproduction than chattel slavery? Really, what progressive role has the dispossession of the indigenous people throughout the history of Mexico played? Sending the Yaquis to work on the hemp plantations in the Yucatan, where average life expectancy after arrival for the Yaquis was less than a year, that played a "progressive role" in the development of... yeah exactly what did that working to death accomplish for the benefit of humanity?

I bet in the Mexican Revolution of 1910--1921, you would be lining up with Carranza and Obregon against Zapata because after all, Carranza represented bigger capital, and Zapata just the indigenous pueblos of Morelos.

Your "argument" -- in reality not an argument, but a pose-- is that destruction of the indigenous cultures, dispossession of these peoples from their lands is essentially to the formation of capitalist property. And in that you are correct. The pose comes when you argue that such "enclosure" is progressive and is a "necessary evil" for human social, not capitalist, development, conflating the human, and social with capitalist, misidentifying development with accumulation.

Don't bother to answer the question at the beginning of this post. I know how stupid you are. Go right on equivocating, excusing, rationalizing, justifying capitalist accumulation. There's a portfolio and an investment bank waiting for you somewhere out there.

[synthesis]

How stupid are you? Not a rhetorical question. Marx was wrote this in 1846. What industrialism do you think he is referring to? Non-capitalist industrialism? tted.

I have become quite accustomed to the use of ad hominem invective on this forum to compensate for a complete lack of reading comprehension, intellectual engagement and argumentative ability, but this is one of the most egregious examples I've encountered thus far.

This is one of those times where someone is so far behind the curve that I don't even know where to begin. You are implicitly saying that "chattel slavery is a characteristic of industrial capitalism" and that is not what Marx is saying at all. He is saying that industrial capitalism as it existed in Europe was predicated on the slavery and colonization that had been occurring for centuries before the development of industrial capitalism. How stupid are you? :lol:



Was chattel slavery any less "pivotal" to industrial capitalism than the exterminations of indigenous peoples? Was the extermination of the indigenous peoples more part of capitalist reproduction than chattel slavery? Really, what progressive role has the dispossession of the indigenous people throughout the history of Mexico played? Sending the Yaquis to work on the hemp plantations in the Yucatan, where average life expectancy after arrival for the Yaquis was less than a year, that played a "progressive role" in the development of... yeah exactly what did that working to death accomplish for the benefit of humanity?

Your straw man is bursting at the seams.


I bet in the Mexican Revolution of 1910--1921, you would be lining up with Carranza and Obregon against Zapata because after all, Carranza represented bigger capital, and Zapata just the indigenous pueblos of Morelos.

...what?



Your "argument" -- in reality not an argument, but a pose-- is that destruction of the indigenous cultures, dispossession of these peoples from their lands is essentially to the formation of capitalist property. And in that you are correct. The pose comes when you argue that such "enclosure" is progressive and is a "necessary evil" for human social, not capitalist, development, conflating the human, and social with capitalist, misidentifying development with accumulation.

You're the one confusing development with accumulation (the only part of that which has any relevance to what I'm saying.) The accumulation is what must be combated for socialism; the development is what must be harvested for socialism.


Go right on equivocating, excusing, rationalizing, justifying capitalist accumulation.

Where have I done this? Quotes, please.


There's a portfolio and an investment bank waiting for you somewhere out there.

:confused:

[which doctor]

I'm hesitant to post again in this thread, because people tend not to actually debate my arguments, but instead just lob insults at me, but what upsets me is that tpeople like S.Artesian are essentially taking a very conservative political position in their 'critique' of the object of this thread, which can be alternatively understood as either being imperialism, colonialism, or the development of the means of production, but is best understood as a combination of the three.

When you invoke 'indigenous rights,' ultimately the appeal is made from a conservative position: the idea that people are somehow 'tied to the land,' that they somehow have some certain connection to a certain land, and this should be preserved as some ahistorical a priori fact. Part of it comes from this reactionary cultural relativism and the idea that a 'culture' ought to assert itself. But what's really frightening I think, is how the so-called Left's defense of 'indigenous rights,' comes idea that 'indigenous people' ought to remain pre-bourgeois subjects.

I don't deny that what happened in the process was utterly barbaric, but the stick of history has shit on both ends, and a question like "Would America Have Been Better Off Without European Contact?" completely dehistoricizes history. What does it mean to have been 'better off'?

[Il Medico]

Man.

You're white. You should probably get the fuck out of the "SO WHAT ABOUT YOUR HERITAGE!" tip. Nah mate, I think I'll stay in the debate. I am white yes, it has little to do with my point, though you seem to think so. You also seem to have this false view of "white people" as this homogenized collection of middle class guys who wear sweater vest and have a white picket fence out front of their houses, that the majority of whites in this country are not bourgeois or petty bourgeois.


I don't have any ties to "proud, Mexica warriors." I DO have ties to stories about my dad having to drink his own piss out of his shoe when illegally immigrating to the US because of a total lack of opportunity in Mexico for young men his age due to the way capitalism keeps the poor poor. My family were immigrants too, bit farther back though. I have stories of how my Italian great Grandfather came to this country looking for a better life for his brother and sisters after his parents died young. Of how he worked in shops in Little Italy for little money so that he could bring his family over, and how his brother worked for rich land owners back in Italy to feed his sisters and himself. Of how they survived the depression. I have other stories to, of how my German grand father had to drop out of high school and work at a butchers so his family didn't starve. Of the vague stories of my Far back Irish ancestors fleeing Ireland during the Potato Famine, cause there was no food. I was very proud of these stories, of how my family and the people and cultures they came from survived. The more I grew I realized that these thing were nothing special, nothing to be celebrated. That these stories were the same as the stories I heard from other workers, Mexican, Chinese, Russian, black, all the same, just with different details. A common suffering under capitalism, because of our class. We share something that is not unique to our cultural background, and that is something leftist, but moreover, workers need to understand.


You'd better believe that aided the development of my revolutionary consciousness. You guys are fucking dumb if you think somehow being aware of your family's past relationship with capitalism in the case of colonized people is somehow detrimental to revolutionary consciousness.Knowing how your family's past is indeed nothing detrimental. What is an obstacle to class consciousness that we all work to ferment is the identification of your people's past and current suffering as unique to your cultural group. To view the dividing line as race or sex, or sexuality, rather than class.

[S.Artesian]

I have become quite accustomed to the use of ad hominem invective on this forum to compensate for a complete lack of reading comprehension, intellectual engagement and argumentative ability, but this is one of the most egregious examples I've encountered thus far.

This is one of those times where someone is so far behind the curve that I don't even know where to begin. You are implicitly saying that "chattel slavery is a characteristic of industrial capitalism" and that is not what Marx is saying at all. He is saying that industrial capitalism as it existed in Europe was predicated on the slavery and colonization that had been occurring for centuries before the development of industrial capitalism. How stupid are you?

The explosion in the slave trade, the creation of the world markets through the slave trade is part and parcel is the immediate history of industrial capitalism. Without it, without all those elements Marx notes in his section on "original accumulation" or "primitive accumulation" you never get to capitalist accumulation and expanded reproduction. So if the primitive accumulation was necessary to capitalist accumulation, and capitalist accumulation is necessary to "progress" then what's your problem with supporting the Atlantic slave trade?

So that's the part on slavery. Now for the discussion of indigenous people.

Dispossession is critical to primitive accumulation, it is it's secret as it creates laborers who have nothing save their labor, and no use for their labor other than its value in exchange.

The problem being.... is that capitalism starts this process but it can no longer employ the "free" detached labor it has created. It marginalizes that potential labor force, compelling it to live on the fringes, or employing it only sporadically in SEZs or maquilladoras, only to interrupt the process, throw the laborers back into the shanty-towns, undo all the "progress" that has been made.

This is exactly what has happened in Africa with the IMF imposed programs, and the capitalist fomented civil wars of the 1990s and beyond.

But let's go back to the beginning. WD, argued, and you supported the notion, that "liquidation" of indigenous cultures was a necessary evil, a tragic consequence of capitalism, and as tragic as it may have been, it was, and still is, essential to the development of the productive forces that will emancipate all of humanity.

The problems with that argument are vast, in that it:

1. assumes the productive forces are not already advanced enough to support the emancipation of labor

2. assumes that "development" under capitalism is necessarily "progressive"

3. confuses capitalist accumulation with emancipation, when in fact the latter can only be achieved through the abolition of the former. Abolition of the former means opposing its expansion, opposing reproduction of capitalist property relations and supporting instead a revolution that will seize and reconfigure production for use, in which case there is simply no need for the dispossession of indigenous peoples or destruction of their cultures.

4. In response to my question as to whether you would be so cavalier in your treatment of the Atlantic slave trade, you stated that chattel slavery was not a characteristic of capitalism.

5. I don't know what characteristics you are talking about, but the Atlantic slave trade was certainly essential to the growth of capitalism, the fueling of capitalist accumulation. In fact it was certainly more essential than the extermination of indigenous people in the Americas. So if slavery was essential to "progress" then why your reluctance, and equivocation when it comes to endorsing slavery as the necessary consequence, and necessary precursor to "progress"?

6. When confronted with Marx's words on the necessity of chattel slavery to developing capitalism, you produce a response that is... to put it charitably, unintelligible. Literally. Makes no sense.

7. The era of capitalist contributions to social development is and has been over. Whatever "progress" capitalism achieves it achieves tangentially and at the cost of increased destruction and immiseration. Even prior to this era, supporting capitalist dispossession in the name of "progress" is an absurdity. Do you think Marxists should justify the enclosure of the common lands in England. Do you think for one second that such dispossession, which marches arm in arm with the growth of the world markets, and with slavery, represents "progress"? Or is progress found with those who oppose the enclosure movement; with the Diggers?

8. Your argument has the absurd component of supporting capitalist accumulation against the immediate struggles of the poor, the rural dispossessed, the indigenous in the hope of some future benefit to be gained when a perfectly developed capitalism secedes itself to a perfectly developed and conscious proletariat.

No such perfection exists. Capitalism is always mediated by the weight and form of its earliest and most primitive manifestations. It shapes the archaic, even non-capitalist relations of land and labor into production units for the world markets--whether it be the chattel slavery of the plantation; or after the overthrow of slavery, the reconstitution of the plantation and the plantation class through the use of terrorism against the new emancipated slaves; whether it be the haciendas and fincas of sugar and hemp production in Mexico employing tenant-laborers from the pueblos, or expropriating the penal labor of the resisting indigenous people.

9. You cannot answer a real question about the actual history of capitalism, and the actual content of your so-called "progressive" element of capitalism because questions of actual history are anti-thetical to your conversion of "Marxism" into an ideology of developmentalism and modernization as opposed to Marx's real work which was the analysis of capitalist and the "immanent critique" of its accumulation.

You cannot show concretely where capitalism's so-called development, its dispossession and liquidation of indigenous people has served any interest, other than the interest of capitalist accumulation.

10. If capital has failed to transform the pre-existing relations of land, labor, and landed labor in what are called less developed areas, that is not an indication of the need for more capitalism, for "Marxists" to urge the bourgeoisie on to greater efforts in brutalization of indigenous people.

Rather that is the marker, the trait, the index to the fact that the conflict between means and relations of production, the conflict between private property and the actual development of social production is NOT cyclical, but structural; a permanent index to the obsolescence of capitalism and its self-justification through ideological screens of "development," and "progress."

11. You are the one behind the curve, a good 140 years behind a curve that went flat when the bourgeoisie destroyed Radical Reconstruction in the US and restored the plantation owners to the Redemptionist governments of the South.

[S.Artesian]

I'm hesitant to post again in this thread, because people tend not to actually debate my arguments, but instead just lob insults at me, but what upsets me is that tpeople like S.Artesian are essentially taking a very conservative political position in their 'critique' of the object of this thread, which can be alternatively understood as either being imperialism, colonialism, or the development of the means of production, but is best understood as a combination of the three.

When you invoke 'indigenous rights,' ultimately the appeal is made from a conservative position: the idea that people are somehow 'tied to the land,' that they somehow have some certain connection to a certain land, and this should be preserved as some ahistorical a priori fact. Part of it comes from this reactionary cultural relativism and the idea that a 'culture' ought to assert itself. But what's really frightening I think, is how the so-called Left's defense of 'indigenous rights,' comes idea that 'indigenous people' ought to remain pre-bourgeois subjects.

I don't deny that what happened in the process was utterly barbaric, but the stick of history has shit on both ends, and a question like "Would America Have Been Better Off Without European Contact?" completely dehistoricizes history. What does it mean to have been 'better off'?

I have invoked no indigenous rights. I have made absolutely no claims about "ties" to the land. I oppose capitalist dispossession and destruction of indigenous people in the name of "development" and "modernization" as no such development or modernization occurs-- rather there is only the immiseration and marginalization of the indigenous people.

I oppose such actions of capitalism, just as I oppose capitalist expansion of factories; just as I oppose "third world nationalism" that justifies alliances with the bourgeoisie in the name of "development" against the predations of imperialism.

There is no social need and no social benefit to be gained from dispossessing indigenous people; from destroying their societies.

And lob insults at you? You are the one who explicitly admitted to making deliberately provocative statements to get a rise out of people. Well you got your rise you supercilious sanctimonious self-righteous clod, so quit whimpering.

[S.Artesian]

And one more thing-- while Kun Fana chooses to emphasize a line of Marx's taken from the paragraph in the letter about slavery, and thinks that one line separates "industrial capitalism" from chattel slavery.... that little bit of "emphasis added" cannot obscure the truth of what Marx is describing which was then,in 1846, present day industrial capitalism.

He says this directly, although without italics added:

"Direct slavery is as much the pivot upon which our present-day industrialism turns as are machinery, credit, etc. Without slavery there would be no cotton, without cotton there would be no modern industry."

Direct slavery is as much a pivot upon which our present-day industrialism turns as are machinery, credit, etc. EMPHASIS ADDED.

[Il Medico]

i dont thinik its even a matter of class pride. i think class pride is also a bit silly because you did not choose to be in the botton of the social rung. identity is a bad dream. instead of holding to some thing you think you are supposed to do to just flow man. identifiy with individual ideas dont just formulate a whole identity of yourself from a grandiose grand narrative
I would disagree in so much as that I think that the problem is not identifying with being a proletarian, but rather viewing yourself and other workers as a caricature of the proletariat.

[Invader Zim]

1521: Spanish conquistadores under Hernan Cortez killed over 100,000 Aztec civilians in the course of seizing the Aztec capital Tenochticlan, many of them massacred after the city surrenders. The city of 300,000 is totally leveled.

Source? Not that I doubt that Cortez waged a brutal and murderous campaign against the Aztec empire, but given the lack of sound demographic data, and general paucity of primary material generally, I find it difficult to see where these figures were arrived at.

[Vanguard1917]

There is a great deal of ahistorical moralism going on here. From a historical materialist, Marxist perspective, the European discovery of America had immensely revolutionary consequences because it gave way to the destruction of feudalism and made possible the creation of a global capitalist economy which would ultimately bring together virtually the whole of humanity under its umbrella.* This rise of global capital in turn made possible for the first time in human history a genuinely universal struggle for human emancipation, through its creation of an international working class.


* 'The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

[...]

'Modern industry has established the world market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its turn, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.'

- Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...festo/ch01.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm))

[Vanguard1917]

Never mind what Marx wrote in the nineteenth century.

Why? Is his analysis somehow incorrect? Was the European discovery of America not central to the rise of world capitalism?

[Vanguard1917]

That is not the point.

:confused: How can it not be the point? It is the crux of the problem.



can colonialism be progressive?


Colonialism can be an ahistorical term: colonies have existed in different stages of historical development. In some instances colonisation gave way to the development of the productive forces of society (e.g. the Roman colonisation of Britain); in other instances it didn't.

[S.Artesian]

:confused: How can it not be the point? It is the crux of the problem.



Colonialism is an ahistorical term: colonies have existed in different stages of historical development. In some instances colonisation gave way to the development of the productive forces of society (e.g. the Roman colonisation of Britain); in other instances it didn't.


Nope that is not the real issue at hand. The issue at hand is do we "accept" capitalist dispossession and destruction of indigenous peoples as somehow having a progressive consequence in that it supposedly, HERE and NOW, creates a material basis for revolution?

Do we support further, continued, capitalist accumulation because without capitalist accumulation we know there can be no overthrow of capitalist accumulation?

Do we think capitalist accumulation if "modernization?" Do we think such "modernization" will be practiced by a revolutionary socialist society regardless of its impacts on indigenous people?

Those are the issues.

Sure the exploitation of the "New World" was of benefit to emerging, and emerged capitalism. It was of benefit to the bourgeosie. That does not make capitalism of benefit to human society. It does not mean we embrace "modernization" as something "supra-classical," a "thing" that exists above and beyond classes.

We do not embrace it as such, first because IT IS NOT A THING. It is a social relation, and there is no THING of modernization separate and apart from capitalist "moderization," which is simply extermination in the service of accumulation. Secondly, because the relation of capitalist accumulation since 1870 creates conditions not for progress, but for regression, and recomposition of backward, archaic, relations as production units for the world markets-- for example the plantations in the Southern US; the haciendas in Mexico; the rubber and tea plantations in Asia. Thirdly, because capitalist development of the means of production is simply the prelude to greater destruction of all people. Fourthly, because organizing the working class means organizing the working class against expansion of capitalist relations, against expanding reproduction of capital, against capital accumulation EVERYWHERE, not just in some abstract idealized world where capitalism has FINALLY run out of people to exploit. To tolerate, or accept, or excuse capitalist expansion and liquidation of indigenous people is to bind the working class to the social domination of the bourgeoisie.

Those are the critical issues, and that is the reason the remarks of WD and his boosters are at heart, capitulationist.

[Vanguard1917]

Nope that is not the real issue at hand. The issue at hand is do we "accept" capitalist dispossession and destruction of indigenous peoples as somehow having a progressive consequence in that it supposedly, HERE and NOW, creates a material basis for revolution?

No, the issue as presented by the OP is how we should view the European discovery of America. I pointed out the reason why Marxists view it as a historical occurance with colossal revolutionary outcomes.

[Robocommie]

It shouldn't even matter if colonialism was progressive or not (and anyone who says that should be ashamed, really, because it's an abusive relationship and claims that it is of benefit is actually the pro-colonialist argument) as the point is entirely moot, and rested on a shoddy historiographical analysis. Saying that American colonialism had to happen so that capitalism could come about and then bring about Marxism is a falacious argument because it is completely teleological. It's like saying that the French Revolution had to happen so that Napoleon could fight his wars, or that WW2 had to happen so that the Soviet Union could become a superpower. It is entirely based on hindsight.

Karl Marx wrote his works based on material conditions as they were - to presuppose what he would write as though it was destined to come to pass is foolish in the extreme. Had American colonialism not occured, and the European economy had developed in a different way, then there would be different problems facing society and thus different theories would have been provided and expounded on to address them.

Historical materialism should not be seen as some kind of pre-ordained pattern of human society, which serves as a prophecy for economic development - Marx did not intend it to be used that way and that's not how we should see history. In light of that, it becomes an act of incredible callousness to acknowledge the atrocities and incredible calamities that befell the indigenous American peoples and yet disregard them as something that had to happen for the sake of future development. That's a teleological error of inhumane proportions. We must address human suffering as it exists, not as it fits our pattern.

[Vanguard1917]

Karl Marx wrote his works based on material conditions as they were

Indeed. He looked at historical facts and saw that the European discovery of America played a pivotal, epoch-creating role, in that it helped end the feudal era and 'paved the way' for the rise of the capitalist world market.

[Robocommie]

Indeed. He looked at historical facts and saw that the European discovery of America played a pivotal, epoch-creating role, in that it helped end the feudal era and 'paved the way' for the rise of the capitalist world market.

And if it hadn't happened that way, something else would have happened. I mean, is that all you drew on from my entire post, that one little fragment of a line?

[Vanguard1917]

And if it hadn't happened that way, something else would have happened.

I'd rather deal with history as it actually happened. Historical analysis = dealing with historical facts. Marxism proceeds from facts.

[S.Artesian]

No, the issue as presented by the OP is how we should view the European discovery of America. I pointed out the reason why Marxists view it as a historical occurance with colossal revolutionary outcomes.

The OP is not about the "discovery" of the Americas, as if such the Americas didn't exist, somehow, without European verification of its existence.

Nor is the OP about the impact of the European expansion into the Americas on the development of capitalism.


Nor was the controversy precipitated by discussing the impact of that expansion on the development of capitalism.


So would the indigenous people of the Americas have been better off without the expansion of Europe-- the answer is undoubtedly yes, and that's no speculation.

The controversy is about the continuing expropriation, dispossession of indigenous people and the destruction of their cultures, if that dispossession is something to be accepted, however grimly, as some sort of necessity, or whether it is incumbent on revolutionists to oppose such ongoing expansion of capitalist accumulation.

[Robocommie]

I'd rather deal with history as it actually happened. Historical analysis = dealing with historical facts. Marxism proceeds from facts.

Well then, I'd advise you go back and read the original post, because this whole thread is based on a historical supposition, and if that's how you want to play it (which is normally the right way to do it, I would agree) then you're a bit out of place in this thread.

[Vanguard1917]

The OP is not about the "discovery" of the Americas, as if such the Americas didn't exist, somehow, without European verification of its existence.

You're playing semantic games now. 'European discovery' means that it was a discovery for Europeans, not a discovery full stop.


So would the indigenous people of the Americas have been better off without the expansion of Europe-- the answer is undoubtedly yes, and that's no speculation.

Again, that's historical analysis as moralistic speculation (was this or that historical event 'good or bad'?, etc.). That's not what we should be engaging in.



Nor is the OP about the impact of the European expansion into the Americas on the development of capitalism.


How can we discuss the European discovery of America without placing it in its wider historical context, i.e. in the development and change of class society? Should we be preferring a decontextualised, idealist interpretation of historical events?

[Robocommie]

You're playing semantic games now. 'European discovery' means that it was a discovery for Europeans, not a discovery full stop.

Irregardless, it's not what this thread is about, which was S. Artesian's point.



Again, that's historical analysis as moralistic speculation (was this or that historical event 'good or bad'?, etc.). That's not what we should be engaging in.

In point of fact, moral issues and the assigning of guilt and praise is a major part of historiography.



How can we discuss the European discovery of America without placing it in its wider historical context, i.e. in the development and change of class society? Should we be preferring a decontextualised, idealist interpretation of historical events?

Well when dealing with a speculative question, like, "How would the Americas have developed without European contact?" then I think it's pretty much acceptable to disregard the context of European class structure. Not everything has to pertain to that, you know.

[Pavlov's House Party]

In point of fact, moral issues and the assigning of guilt and praise is a major part of historiography.

It is not however a part of Marxist historiography. What seperates marxist material analysis from bourgeois sentimentalism is precisely this.

[Invader Zim]

So would the indigenous people of the Americas have been better off without the expansion of Europe-- the answer is undoubtedly yes, and that's no speculation.

And it is a pointless piece of speculation. European development, in that period, made the 'discovery' inevitable; if it hadn't been Columbus, Vespucci, Cortez, and the passengers of the Mayflower, it would have been others. And like Cortez, etc. even if they didn't behave in the manner that they did, the native population of the America's would have been doomed. Despite the to the notion being espouced on this board, that the reason the indigenous Americans are in the position they are today is because of the treatment they recieved at the hands of the European conquerers, the reality is they died in their millions simply because the Europeans arrived and would have done so even if the Europeans had showered them with every kindness they could think of.

[S.Artesian]

Perhaps, but it was the OP in this thread. And not so pointless is the response it generated from the "developmentalists," as that confusion of Marxism with "developmentalism" has done consistent, and persistent damage going back a long ways, actually going back to circa 1870 and the romance of a section of the German social democrats with Bismarck.

[the last donut of the night]

I'm hesitant to post again in this thread, because people tend not to actually debate my arguments, but instead just lob insults at me,

That's hard to resist when you post such gems: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1754363&postcount=8

Or how about this:


i don't give a shit about dying cultures

[Robocommie]

It is not however a part of Marxist historiography. What seperates marxist material analysis from bourgeois sentimentalism is precisely this.

Historiography is historiography. When I study the subject at university, I'm not instructed in bourgeois sentimentalism or Marxist materialist analysis, but the practice and professional ethics of history.

[Barry Lyndon]

And it is a pointless piece of speculation. European development, in that period, made the 'discovery' inevitable; if it hadn't been Columbus, Vespucci, Cortez, and the passengers of the Mayflower, it would have been others. And like Cortez, etc. even if they didn't behave in the manner that they did, the native population of the America's would have been doomed. Despite the to the notion being espouced on this board, that the reason the indigenous Americans are in the position they are today is because of the treatment they recieved at the hands of the European conquerers, the reality is they died in their millions simply because the Europeans arrived and would have done so even if the Europeans had showered them with every kindness they could think of.

Let me clarify what you mean by that:
"And it is a pointless piece of speculation. The rise and development of the Third Reich, in that period, made 'The Final Solution' inevitable; if it hadn't been Hitler, Eichmann, Himmler, and the German settlers looking for Lebenstraum in the East, it would have been others. And like Himmler etc. even if they didn't behave in the manner that they did, the Jewish population of Europe would have been doomed. Despite the notion that the reason the Jewish population of Europe is almost gone today is because of the treatment they received at the hands of their Nazi rulers, the reality is they died in their millions simply because the Aryans arrived and would have done so even if the Fuhrer had showered them with every kindness they could think of"

You like how that sounds?

[Robocommie]

And it is a pointless piece of speculation. European development, in that period, made the 'discovery' inevitable; if it hadn't been Columbus, Vespucci, Cortez, and the passengers of the Mayflower, it would have been others. And like Cortez, etc. even if they didn't behave in the manner that they did, the native population of the America's would have been doomed. Despite the to the notion being espouced on this board, that the reason the indigenous Americans are in the position they are today is because of the treatment they recieved at the hands of the European conquerers, the reality is they died in their millions simply because the Europeans arrived and would have done so even if the Europeans had showered them with every kindness they could think of.

Oh hey, look everybody, the Vanishing Race myth.

[Pavlov's House Party]

Let me clarify what you mean by that:
"And it is a pointless piece of speculation. The rise and development of the Third Reich, in that period, made 'The Final Solution' inevitable; if it hadn't been Hitler, Eichmann, Himmler, and the German settlers looking for Lebenstraum in the East, it would have been others. And like Himmler etc. even if they didn't behave in the manner that they did, the Jewish population of Europe would have been doomed. Despite the notion that the reason the Jewish population of Europe is almost gone today is because of the treatment they received at the hands of their Nazi rulers, the reality is they died in their millions simply because the Aryans arrived and would have done so even if the Fuhrer had showered them with every kindness they could think of"

You like how that sounds?

This is absurd and immature. Godwin's law anyone?

[Robocommie]

This is absurd and immature. Godwin's law anyone?

The point he's trying to make is that there was deliberate action involved in American colonization and the genocide of Native Americans, and simply labeling it all as "inevitable" is ridiculous and it only really serves to completely absolve the actions of European and American imperialists by making it the result of vague, impersonal forces in history, as opposed to actions by responsible people.

No Marxist should be so callous as to simply dismiss an oppressed people as "doomed." It's weird, because these are the same arguments I hear to justify American expansionism from liberals and conservatives.

[Barry Lyndon]

This is absurd and immature. Godwin's law anyone?

It's not 'Goodwin's Law' when someone is being an apologist for genocide. I'm sorry, maybe I should be 'mature' like you and only recognize genocide when it happens to white Europeans.

[GreenCommunism]

if they simply went to conventional and ethically correct wars. the native americans would be in a much better situation right now both demographically and economically. thus to claim that it was inevitable is dumb. if the europeans wanted their land they could fight for it without widespread killing and delibaretly spreading diseases.

[Agnapostate]

On the downside, we would have been robbed of some comedic material.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs531.ash1/31140_1336488125710_1036291995_30859784_2115292_n. jpg

[the last donut of the night]

On the downside, we would have been robbed of some comedic material.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs531.ash1/31140_1336488125710_1036291995_30859784_2115292_n. jpg

Fuck you, honestly. This isn't the place for morbidly joking at the genocide and mass oppression of thousands of ethnic groups in this continent.

[GreenCommunism]

it's not joking about the genocide it's joking about immigration policy that the native americans did not enforce. though it's perhaps insensitive to do so in this topic. in my opinion even if the genocide and the diseases didn't happen such jokes would exist anyway.

also his argument that protecting a dying culture is right wing is stupid because forcing another people to abide by the culture of another is a shitload more rightwing than preserving it. and most leftist are for keeping dying languages alive.

[Devrim]

and most leftist are for keeping dying languages alive.

Why? Is it even possible in the long term?

Devrim

[Invader Zim]

You like how that sounds?

Indeed, I always enjoy seeing my arguments misrepresented, though I'll assume not deliberately. My argument isn't to excuse or absolve the brutalities of European expansion, rather to place them within historical context; and that context indubitably was that, given the impact of European pathogens on the indigenous population, unintentional widespread destruction. Nothing the European settlers could have done, short of turning their boats round and 'undiscovering' the America's, could alter that. Certainly the brutality of the Europeans exacerbated the situation, but even if they had not been brutal, we would today still be lamenting the near complete loss of the origional population of the Americas and anybody who says different severely needs to educate themselves.


The point he's trying to make is that there was deliberate action involved in American colonization and the genocide of Native Americans, and simply labeling it all as "inevitable" is ridiculous and it only really serves to completely absolve the actions of European and American imperialists by making it the result of vague, impersonal forces in history, as opposed to actions by responsible people.

No Marxist should be so callous as to simply dismiss an oppressed people as "doomed." It's weird, because these are the same arguments I hear to justify American expansionism from liberals and conservatives.

The near complete destruction of the indigenous population of the America's, was primarily the result of pathogens that migrated with the European settlers. The holocaust was the result of a specific political doctrine. The two are not synonamous. Don't confuse that, I am not denying or attempting to downplay the brutality of the European subjugation of the America's; but rather placing it in its actual historical context, as, at least in quantifiable terms, a relatively minor factor in the decline of the indigenous population. If stating that the discovery of the Americas was inevitable, and with it the spread of European disease to the indigenous population, strikes you as callous then might I suggest that you are in the wrong academic field. The job of the historian is to report the past as it happened to the best of his/her ability; it is not to present the past in a manner that panders to what you feal, on an emotional level, about the topic.



simply labeling it all as "inevitable" is ridiculous and it only really serves to completely absolve the actions of European and American imperialists by making it the result of vague, impersonal forces in history, as opposed to actions by responsible people.

What? 1. Do you deny that the socio-political and economic factors, that led to the emergence of the Renaissance, made European exploration to the West inevitable? 2. Do you deny that European pathogens destroyed the vast majority of the indigenous population of the America's? 3. Do you reject the basic tennets of historical materialism, which hold that structural forces, as opposed to individual actions, are indeed the engine of historical progress?

I do not see how answering 'no' to each of those questions is inappropriate for a leftist; though I would be highly suspect of any self-proclaimed leftist who answered in the positive.

[Invader Zim]

Historiography is historiography. When I study the subject at university, I'm not instructed in bourgeois sentimentalism or Marxist materialist analysis, but the practice and professional ethics of history.
May I ask what element of Historical study involves passing judgement on your subjects beyond the standards of their day, and producing an argument motivated by ideology rather than the facts?

[ZeroNowhere]

Fuck you, honestly. This isn't the place for morbidly joking at the genocide and mass oppression of thousands of ethnic groups in this continent.
This is a thread for historical speculation, not one with standards.

[Pavlov's House Party]

It's not 'Goodwin's Law' when someone is being an apologist for genocide. I'm sorry, maybe I should be 'mature' like you and only recognize genocide when it happens to white Europeans.

For fuck's sake, I don't think anyone here is denying genocide committed by Europeans. The European colonizers were brutal and inhumane in their treatment of the native populations of the Americas, but this is because feudalism and later capitalism, the systems which colonized it, were brutal and inhumane themselves.

Maybe you all should stop pretending to be Marxists, because historical materialism is the basis for Marxist analysis and theory.

[Pavlov's House Party]

What the the colonial and neo-colonial apologists do not understand is that opposition to colonialism has zilch to do with morals or sentiments. They need to explain why should we not care when genocide happens to colored people?

You obviously have never read anything written by Marx or Lenin on the subject.

There is a huge difference between the Imperialism of the Age of Discovery and the Imperialism of modern capitalism. Imperialism 600 years ago was necessary for the establishment of capitalism as a global economy, and the creation of an urban working class. You can't really have socialism without that:


The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonization of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

The feudal system of industry, in which industrial production was monopolized by closed guilds, now no longer suffices for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed aside by the manufacturing middle class; division of labor between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labor in each single workshop.


The imperialism of today is a stage of capitalism, where the concentration of production and capital lead to monopolies, when finance capital becomes more important than physical capital because industry relies on finance from banks so much, when international cartels of monopolies divide the world into different markets. Perhaps you should go pick up a book instead of shouting slogans all day.

[Invader Zim]

For fuck's sake, I don't think anyone here is denying genocide committed by Europeans. The European colonizers were brutal and inhumane in their treatment of the native populations of the Americas, but this is because feudalism and later capitalism, the systems which colonized it, were brutal and inhumane themselves.

Maybe you all should stop pretending to be Marxists, because historical materialism is the basis for Marxist analysis and theory.

Well, it depends on how 'genocide' is defined. Undoubtedly many European settlers in the 16th and 17th centuries waged brutal, indiscriminate wars against various indigenous groups. Indeed, as I have noted on this board before, there were even instances of crude biological warfare, where settlers sent blankets used by small-pox victims to various indigenous groups in an attempt to increase the rate in which the disease was transmitted. However these instances were rare, and people debating the justification for using the word must consider whether the destruction of the indigenous people was an ideological doctine of the settlers, or whether the wars were a by-product of an expansionist ideological doctrine. It is in that distinction that the suitability of the word genocide rests. That makes the issue as much a semantic one as it is a historical one.

But, ultimately that strikes me as a relatively an unimportant distinction given the result is the same.

[Barry Lyndon]

Indeed, I always enjoy seeing my arguments misrepresented, though I'll assume not deliberately. My argument isn't to excuse or absolve the brutalities of European expansion, rather to place them within historical context; and that context indubitably was that, given the impact of European pathogens on the indigenous population, unintentional widespread destruction. Nothing the European settlers could have done, short of turning their boats round and 'undiscovering' the America's, could alter that. Certainly the brutality of the Europeans exacerbated the situation, but even if they had not been brutal, we would today still be lamenting the near complete loss of the origional population of the Americas and anybody who says different severely needs to educate themselves.

That is EXACTLY the argument that neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers like David Irving make- that huge numbers of the Jews who died in the concentration/extermination camps died due to diseases, so therefore they weren't murdered. Anne Frank, after all, died of typhus, not Zyklon B, so I guess she doesn't count, does she? The bottom line is that the Spanish, French, British and United States colonizers deliberately created the conditions that enabled the indigenous Americans to die in large numbers- the Spanish forced the natives to labor in gold mines and missions, the US government herded them onto desolate reservations and slaughtered those who refused to do so. Even when we leave out outright murder and massacre, these policies were guaranteed to cause widespread deaths from starvation, overwork, disease and exposure. Really, I don't see much of a difference between the mines of Potosi in Bolivia and Buchenwald, only that one went on for much longer then the other and had more of a profit component, although the Nazis used prisoners as slave labor as well.

The only difference in these policies was determined by utility-Spain conquered parts of the Americas with the largest indigenous populations, so they found them useful as slave labor. The British and the United States simply wanted to seize their land and resources, so it murdered them or marched them to worthless plots of land at gunpoint. Please tell me what is 'unintentional' about a 90-95% death rate. Even the Black Death 'only' wiped out a third of the population of Europe.

If you transpose your arguments and change the words just a little bit, its very clear how racist and pro-imperialist your arguments are, even if you don't admit or even realize it yourself. I'm not the one who needs to be 'educated'.

[Invader Zim]

In point of fact, moral issues and the assigning of guilt and praise is a major part of historiography.

If I might be so bold, I don't think that is true and I suggest you delve further into your books. Historians, have long rejected that particular notion, in no small part because they realise that their judgements as much a part of history, and thus derived from their own surroundings, as the actions upon which they pass judgement. To quote the historian of the Soviet Union E. H. Carr,

"The process by which specific historical content is given to abstract moral conceptions is a historical process; indeed, our moral judgements are made within a conceptual framework which is itself the creation of history."

E. H. Carr, What is History, 2nd ed. (Basingstoke, 1986), p. 76.

Of course, Carr wasn't the firt to deflate this particular misconception. David Knowles, the eminent medievalist, made the same point in 1955.

David Knowles, The Historian and Character (Cambridge, 1955), p. 19.

And more recently, the famous historian of modern Germany and historiographer Richard J. Evans:

A historian who uses terms like 'wicked' or 'evil' about a person or persons in the past will only succeed in looking ridiculous."

Richard J. Evans, In Defence of History, 2nd ed. (London, 2000), p. 51.

Of course, that isn't to say that a historian cannot, and should not, note when a historical actor behaved in a manner deemed immoral by the standards of their time, or behaved in a manner in private that they denounced in public. Nor does it imply that a historian cannot write the piece in such a way as to provide the reader the opportunity to make their own moral judgement. But it is not for the historian to pass their own judgement, and those that do are missing the point of their job.

[S.Artesian]

Indeed, I always enjoy seeing my arguments misrepresented, though I'll assume not deliberately. My argument isn't to excuse or absolve the brutalities of European expansion, rather to place them within historical context; and that context indubitably was that, given the impact of European pathogens on the indigenous population, unintentional widespread destruction. Nothing the European settlers could have done, short of turning their boats round and 'undiscovering' the America's, could alter that. Certainly the brutality of the Europeans exacerbated the situation, but even if they had not been brutal, we would today still be lamenting the near complete loss of the origional population of the Americas and anybody who says different severely needs to educate themselves.

Anybody who knows anything about epidemiology knows that pathogens alone do not account for a 90% reduction in population over a period of 3 generations-- which is the course the debilitation of the indigenous population took in Mexico.

For that "effectiveness" over that extended period of time to occur, the pathogens have to be amplified, exacerbated by weakened social conditions of reproduction of daily life at a level insufficient to allow for immunities to spread through the population-- i.e oppression, exploitation, reduced subsistence, access to safe water, sanitation-- all those things that marked the encomienda, the mita, etc. etc. etc.


So you might want to try a bit of self-education yourself, comrade.

[Robocommie]

The near complete destruction of the indigenous population of the America's, was primarily the result of pathogens that migrated with the European settlers. The holocaust was the result of a specific political doctrine. The two are not synonamous. Don't confuse that, I am not denying or attempting to downplay the brutality of the European subjugation of the America's; but rather placing it in its actual historical context, as, at least in quantifiable terms, a relatively minor factor in the decline of the indigenous population.

In actual fact you ARE downplaying the brutality of American colonialism, because that is precisely what this "Disease did it all" argument amounts to. Does the concept of the Indian Wars mean nothing to you? Manifest Destiny? In the Politics forum, Prairie Fire managed to produce a rather complete and detailed explanation of why the actions of the United States in particular constituted an act of genocide against the indigenous populations, proposed and instigated by people within the US government and military. Massacres of women and children, the systematic annihilation of the buffalo herds so as to destroy the Plains tribes, the rounding up of Indians into reservations where they were given substandard food and supplies. The Sand Creek Massacre, Wounded Knee, the Battle of the Washita River - what could be your possible motivation to overlook ALL of these things and just fixate solely on the factor of disease?


If stating that the discovery of the Americas was inevitable, and with it the spread of European disease to the indigenous population, strikes you as callous then might I suggest that you are in the wrong academic field. The job of the historian is to report the past as it happened to the best of his/her ability; it is not to present the past in a manner that panders to what you feal, on an emotional level, about the topic.I'll thank you very kindly if you leave your evaluations of my suitability for this field to my professors, and likewise as to just what the job of a historian is. Furthermore, I'd kindly thank you to stop assuming that my argument is based solely on emotional pandering, and stop thinking so highly of yourself as the only repository of facts, above and beyond all bias.



What? 1. Do you deny that the socio-political and economic factors, that led to the emergence of the Renaissance, made European exploration to the West inevitable?Nothing in history is inevitable, that's an amateurish declaration of predestination. Events in history merely seem inevitable to us because we have the luxury of hindsight. However, stating that what DID happen is the only thing that COULD have happened, is a teleological error. In fact, it also goes against Marxist historiography, which emphasizes the role of class struggle in the historical process.



2. Do you deny that European pathogens destroyed the vast majority of the indigenous population of the America's?I certainly deny that disease was the only element in the reduction of the population, yes. Your assertion that that was the case is fairly fucking weak, and not even Jared Diamond makes that claim. You can understand that disease had an incredible impact on the American continent without going so far as to dismiss accusations of genocide on the part of European and American colonialists.



3. Do you reject the basic tennets of historical materialism, which hold that structural forces, as opposed to individual actions, are indeed the engine of historical progress?Will I be branded a heretic or a bad socialist if I say I'm not 100% down with historical materialism? You know, in all fairness, Marx and Engels were both rather adamant that historical materialism was meant to be used as a guideline of historical research, not some grand all-encompassing philosophy of history. But your stance is dangerous. By completely neutralizing the role of individuals within the mass, you're basically suggesting that we cannot hold individuals responsible for the social consequences of their actions. Adolf Eichmann, Cecil Rhodes, Leopold II of Belgium, all of them are merely agents of structural forces and thus can't be condemned. You talk about socio-political and economic factors in contrast to individual actions, as if politics, society and economics are some kind of bizarre gestalt consciousness, going about and directing the course of history, when in fact they are the sum total of the actions of individuals acting in congress with their classes.



I do not see how answering 'no' to each of those questions is inappropriate for a leftist; though I would be highly suspect of any self-proclaimed leftist who answered in the positive."Do you reject Satan, and all his works? Do you embrace the truth of historical materialism?" Suddenly your attitude is less and less of a historical debate and becoming a god-damn Inquisition. "Highly suspect"? "Self-proclaimed leftist"? Fuck off. I'm not the one who's perfectly comfortable with colonialism as long as it suits the purposes of global capitalism (oh, but only in the interests of later securing socialism, noble comrade!)


May I ask what element of Historical study involves passing judgement on your subjects beyond the standards of their day, and producing an argument motivated by ideology rather than the facts?

Firstly, the one that doesn't presuppose individual objectivity - the truth is, historians always have some bias or another, and the lack of appreciating that is what leads to the most egregrious violations of objectivity. Secondly, the one that rejects the silly notion of "standards of the day" in evaluating history. A peer of mine once related something a professor said to him in regards to this notion of judging history by it's own standards - that you always must seek out of a voice of dissent. You can't handwave away the cruelties and injustices of previous periods of history because of "contemporary moral standards." People often say that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson should not be so harshly judged because in their time, slave ownership was common. Well, how do you think the fucking slaves felt about that? Why is it so important to overlook their suffering? And what about the Franciscan friars and priests who wrote letter after letter back to Europe, strenously objecting to the brutality which the Conquistadors used against the indigenous Americans? Are they not contemporary enough?

Don't be so smug to assume that your own view of historical events are unobscured by latter-day interpretations of events which have come about to suit modern political agendas.

Furthermore, as to your objections of ideology, if you really ARE going to take the anti-humanist stance, I think it might be good to read Althusser and recognize that ideology is inescapable.


If I might be so bold, I don't think that is true and I suggest you delve further into your books. Historians, have long rejected that particular notion

"Historians" are not some monolithic bloc which all think the same and have the same perspective. In fact, the entire subject of historiography is itself the internal, professional debate over how history is to be written and approached.



Of course, that isn't to say that a historian cannot, and should not, note when a historical actor behaved in a manner deemed immoral by the standards of their time, or behaved in a manner in private that they denounced in public. Nor does it imply that a historian cannot write the piece in such a way as to provide the reader the opportunity to make their own moral judgement. But it is not for the historian to pass their own judgement, and those that do are missing the point of their job.Firstly, I will fucking thank you to understand that there is a time when I am writing as a professional historian, and operate by the ethics and standards of academic neutrality, and then there are times when I myself am writing as an individual capable of making moral judgements, and choose to operate in that way. Or are you actually suggesting that as a historian, I am not actually allowed to have personal opinions?

Are you so naive to believe that historians don't have their own personal moral views of historical figures and events? That they never look at things as tragedies or crimes, but are instead somehow capable of divorcing their own emotion wholly from their work and report history in a cold, rational, computer-like manner? I have yet to meet a single professional historian who has never had any kind of personal feelings on the subject of which they study, and I've met quite a few.

And who the hell are you to lecture on this, anyhow?

[Robocommie]

Anybody who knows anything about epidemiology knows that pathogens alone do not account for a 90% reduction in population over a period of 3 generations-- which is the course the debilitation of the indigenous population took in Mexico.

For that "effectiveness" over that extended period of time to occur, the pathogens have to be amplified, exacerbated by weakened social conditions of reproduction of daily life at a level insufficient to allow for immunities to spread through the population-- i.e oppression, exploitation, reduced subsistence, access to safe water, sanitation-- all those things that marked the encomienda, the mita, etc. etc. etc.


So you might want to try a bit of self-education yourself, comrade.

Indeed, rather recently I read William Chester Jordan's book on the Great Famine of the early 1300s. In it, he made the argument that it was not actual starvation that killed most of the people who died from the Great Famine, but from diseases that struck a population weakened by malnutrition.

[Zanthorus]

Will I be branded a heretic or a bad socialist if I say I'm not 100% down with historical materialism? You know, in all fairness, Marx and Engels were both rather adamant that historical materialism was meant to be used as a guideline of historical research, not some grand all-encompassing philosophy of history. But your stance is dangerous. By completely neutralizing the role of individuals within the mass, you're basically suggesting that we cannot hold individuals responsible for the social consequences of their actions. Adolf Eichmann, Cecil Rhodes, Leopold II of Belgium, all of them are merely agents of structural forces and thus can't be condemned. You talk about socio-political and economic factors in contrast to individual actions, as if politics, society and economics are some kind of bizarre gestalt consciousness, going about and directing the course of history, when in fact they are the sum total of the actions of individuals acting in congress with their classes.

If I might be so bold as to note that what Marx understood by the 'materialist conception of history' is a bit different to what many Marxists have made of it. We might make note here of the third theses on Feuerbach:


The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. Hence this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change [Selbstveränderung] can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.

Of course Engels conception of historical materialism is a bit different, the mistake is conflating Marx and Engels into the same person as a lot of "Marxists" do. Anyway this thread probably isn't the best place to discuss this.

[Invader Zim]

[QUOTYE=Barry]That is EXACTLY the argument that neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers like David Irving make[/QUOTE]

No, it isn't. the argument individuals such as Irving make is to A. downplay the scale of the holocaust. B. To reject a widespread ideological doctine, manifested into policy, to destroy European Jewery. C. The deny the existence of the tools employed to institute this policy, i.e. the gas chamber. D. absolve the key figures in the formulation of this policy of blame. All of which categorically are contradicted by the historical evidence; and to evade that problem Irving ignored and actively manipulated evidence to suit his agenda.

Contrary to what you may believe, that is not the same as noting the historical fact that the vast majority of indigenous population of the America's fell victim to pathogens unwittingly transmitted by the European settlers.

Indeed you seem to be completely ignorant of the extent the damage european diseases inflicted upon the indigenous populations before the European invaders had even fired a shot. Bernardino Vázquez de Tapia, said the following of the 1520-21 small pox epidemic:

"The pestilence of measles and smallpox was so severe and cruel that more than one-fourth of the Indian people in all the land died--and this loss had the effect of hastening the end of the fighting because there died a great quantity of men and warriors and many lords and captains and valiant men against whom we would have had to fight and deal with as enemies, and miraculously Our Lord killed them and removed them from before us."

This was just one small pox epidemic. In 1531-4 there was a measles epidemic, 1545 typhus and plague, 1550 mumps, 1559-63 influenza, measles, diphtheria and mumps, 1576-80; need I go on? Of course epidemics such as this, which wiped out vast portions of the indigenous population before the European invaders long before they came under the sphere of influence of the European invaders.


The bottom line is that the Spanish, French, British and United States colonizers deliberately created the conditions that enabled the indigenous Americans to die in large numbers- the Spanish forced the natives to labor in gold mines and missions, the US government herded them onto desolate reservations and slaughtered those who refused to do so.

Your argument is anachronistic, from first contact it is estimated that the population of America declined by some 90% within a single century. The diseases rate of expansion far exceeded that of European settlers. For example the people of Peru were inflicted by the same small pox epidemic that devistated the Aztecs in 1520, before Pizarro conquered the region. Similarly we know that the diseases had spread to the North, not only from the south but from the occassional costal contact from European explorers during the 16th century. As a result we know that the native population of Virginia was already in decline before the founding of Jametown in 1607.

See J. H. Elliott, Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America 1492-1830 (Yale, 2006), pp. 64-66.

Again, I am not suggesting that the settlers did not proceed to wage a devistating war of conquest and slavery against the indigenous population once they came under their sphere of influence. However attributing the decline of the indigenous population to this factor is ignore the considerably more serious damage inflicted by European contact earlier. This is a fact, and if you want to ignore it, so as to justify your rhetoric, then that is your perogative and problem; not mine.

Of course the actions of the Europeans once they began their policy of expansionism, which was made vastly easier by the demographic decline across the two continents, is another matter and certainly there is a strong argument to suggest was indeed a genocide, several aspects of which I have already outlined earlier. But that isn't the point of this thread, and nor is it my point; which was that regardless of their policies the influence of the pathagens the Europeans carried would have sent the indigenous population into decline. If you have a counter-argument to that, as opposed to screaching that I am a racist/imperialist and sophomoricaly describing the campaign of violence against indigenous peoples, which I have not denied, dismissed or even questioned, then please do voice it.




If you transpose your arguments and change the words just a little bit, its very clear how racist and pro-imperialist your arguments are, even if you don't admit or even realize it yourself.

This only proves that you don't grasp grasp either of the two historical scenarios or my actual argument, and are determined to keep it that by ignoring and dismissing all attempts at clarification. Let us actually examine your attempt to suggest that my argument is synonamous.

My argument is that the historical evidence all suggests that the very presence of the European settlers in the America's placed the native population into terminal decline, and that this would have happened regardless of their actual policies towards the indigenous population; that I agree were exceptionaly brutal.

You suggest that if I had made the same argument regarding the holocaust this would be holocaust denial. But this ignores several key facts; unlike in the case of the holocaust it was indeed disease that wiped out the vast bulk of the indigenous population, rather than an actual policy of industrialised violence aimed at systematicaly wiping out a population. In the holocaust that was simply not the case. While not to underplay the conditions that the Nazis wraught upon their victims, that led to the spread of epidemics in the various camps, the majority of those killed in the 'Final solution' were deliberately executed. Of course, as you have argued, a case can be made to suggest the European settlers, in addition to outright mass murder, engineered an environment that left the indigenous population exposed to disease and starvation. Of course, at that point, unlike in the scenario of the holocaust, we could debate whether that enviroment was constructed with genocide in mind or, whether it was the side effect of inflicting slavery upon the native population. But that seems a moot point when we consider that it is an objective fact that the bulk of the indigenous groups had been placed into terminal demographic decline, often before the individual group had even actually made direct contact with European settlers, by the Europeans entirely unintentionally.

But, i can admit when I'm wrong. Provide me with evidence that will show, beyond doubt that the pathogens that placed the indigenous populations into terminal decline were part of a deliberate ploy, from the point of first contact, to destroy the population and thus make my argument akin to holocaust apoloigism, and I will admit defeat and alter my position accordingly.


The British and the United States simply wanted to seize their land and resources, so it murdered them or marched them to worthless plots of land at gunpoint. Please tell me what is 'unintentional' about a 90-95% death rate. Even the Black Death 'only' wiped out a third of the population of Europe.

This argument doesn't work. It basically boils down to the contention that because the black death only killed a third of Europeans (which is actually a relatively low estimate, some go as high as suggesting upto 60%) therefore it is impossible that an entire series of pathogens all with multiple pandemics, which incidentally also inclued the plague, such as small pox, mumps, dysentery, measles, etc, could therefore not, over the course of a hundred and fifty years and many major outbreaks not reduce the continents population by an order of magnitude. This is an association fallacy.

Indeed, it seems that not only do you fail to grasp the basic historical events we are discussing, but you also have failed to apply basic arithmetic . On the assumption that each individual outbreak would only kill 20% of the population, which actually under-estimates a considerable number of individual outbreaks, such as the 1520-21 small-pox outbreak which is estimated to have killed upwards a quarter to a third of the population Mexico and Peru, among the most populous regions in the period, then it would still only require half a dozen individual outbreaks of that magnitude to reduce a population of 40 million to a quarter of that sum. And there were far more than a half dozen outbreaks of near biblical proportion, and that is how they were literally were described, over the course of the first 150 years of contact. Then it is necessary to consider the impact such widespread outbreaks of disease would have had on fertility, agriculture, and the basic economics of the society. At that point it doesn't require any leap of the imagination to understand why there was a population decrease of 80%, and that is before we factor in the brutalities of European expansionism.

[Robocommie]

Man, frankly I have lost sight of what the purpose of this thread even is. At this point we just seem to be trading unpleasantries like cannon fire. It's thoroughly unproductive.

[Invader Zim]

In actual fact you ARE downplaying the brutality of American colonialism, because that is precisely what this "Disease did it all" argument amounts to.

Firstly, I never suggested that "disease did it all", and to suggest otherwise is completely at odds with what I have actually written. I have noted the brutality of the European conquest many times in this thread, and provided examples of early biological warfare against the indigenous population. However, I am not going to pretend that the impact of disease against the indigenous population did not inflict crippling terminal damage to the indigenous population; because manifestly it did. This is a fact.

As I suggested that Barry above, if you can find evidence that casts this fact in doubt then please do share it, but until then your position is clearly at odds with reality.


what could be your possible motivation to overlook ALL of these things and just fixate solely on the factor of disease?

I haven't overlooked any of those above points, and indeed reference one or two of them; but I return again to the fact that even if these had not occured, it remains a fact that the indigenous population had already been placed into decline by European diseases. You have yet to provide any reason why I should reconsider that thesis.

A more pressing question is why have you utterly ignored what I have written in this thread, and constructed a strawman argument?


Furthermore, I'd kindly thank you to stop assuming that my argument is based solely on emotional pandering, and stop thinking so highly of yourself as the only repository of facts, above and beyond all bias.

Well, as you haven't presented any facts, I think my assumption is not only entirely justified but also correct.


Nothing in history is inevitable, that's an amateurish declaration of predestination.

Hardly, it is a statement of basic historical structuralism; that Columbus played functionary roles that certainly would have been played, if not by them, then somebody else sooner or later. If you genuinely believe that it is possible, in some fantasy historical alternative reality, that it is possible that Europeans would never have widely learned of the existence of the American continents and the subsequent result would have been similar, then I am afraid we must agree to disagree.


I certainly deny that disease was the only element in the reduction of the population, yes.

Strawman. I asked you if you accepted that disease "destroyed the vast majority of the indigenous population"; at no point did I claim it was the "only element". That is a position you have arrived at for me, not one I have actually posited myself.


without going so far as to dismiss accusations of genocide on the part of European and American colonialists.

This is of course another strawman argument. Again, I have at no stage denied the brutality of the European settlers to the native population; and your suggestion to the contrary is roundly disproved by even a cursary reading of my posts in this thread.


Will I be branded a heretic or a bad socialist if I say I'm not 100% down with historical materialism?

Certainly not by me. I for one do not buy into the notion that we can employ historical materialism to be assured of the outcome of future events. However, I would suggest that any person who rejects the tennets of historical structuralism belongs in OI.


By completely neutralizing the role of individuals within the mass, you're basically suggesting that we cannot hold individuals responsible for the social consequences of their actions.

No, I am not. I do not deny, for a second, that individuals play functionary roles. but I certainly deny that it was the will of individuals, as opposed to wider socio-economic factors, that led to the eventual European discovery and subsequent colonisation of the Americas, and everything that goes hand in hand with that. By the same token I entirely reject the naive notion that Hitler, Himmler, etc. would have been able to impliment the 'Final Solution' without a vast structure, comprising many thousands of individuals, aware of and actively aiding what was going on. Certainly Hitler and the upper echalons of the Nazi Party manifestly played a larger functionary role, but their campaign of violence and murder would have been impossible without a far wider social structure that not only brought them to power but allowed, and aided, them in their genocidal plans.


Suddenly your attitude is less and less of a historical debate and becoming a god-damn Inquisition.

So sayeth the man who is trying to castigate me as a pro-imperialist, genocide apologist akin to a holocaust denier. But the fact remains, your positions are a lot more suspect in a leftist than mine.


Fuck off. I'm not the one who's perfectly comfortable with colonialism as long as it suits the purposes of global capitalism (oh, but only in the interests of later securing socialism, noble comrade!)

Neither am I, perhaps you are conflating my argument with that of say Vanguard's?


the truth is, historians always have some bias or another,

I don't deny that. Indeed I would hasten to say that I am actually something of a historical relativist, to at least a limited degree. However, there is a vast difference between that and a person who ignored historical facts in order to support their ideological assertions; and that is manifestly what you are doing in regards to this topic.


"Historians" are not some monolithic bloc which all think the same and have the same perspective. In fact, the entire subject of historiography is itself the internal, professional debate over how history is to be written and approached.

Now you are the one being smug. You seem to assume that you are the only person here who knows something about historiography and how the acadamy operates. You are grossly mistaken.


Or are you actually suggesting that as a historian, I am not actually allowed to have personal opinions?

Certainly not; but I would suggest that if your personal opinions include passing judgements on the morality of historical actors, not by their own standards, but those of your own period and culture, then I certainly suggest you could better spend your time pondering something more meaningful. But that is just me.


Man, frankly I have lost sight of what the purpose of this thread even is. At this point we just seem to be trading unpleasantries like cannon fire. It's thoroughly unproductive.

On the contrary there is no 'we' here, you and Barry are the ones employing perjoratives like they are going out of fashion.

[Robocommie]

On the contrary there is no 'we' here, you and Barry are the ones employing perjoratives like they are going out of fashion.

Come off it, man. The last page and a half has included you demeaning my competence at my chosen field. Just because you don't cuss doesn't mean you're not making it fucking personal.

[Invader Zim]

Anybody who knows anything about epidemiology knows that pathogens alone do not account for a 90% reduction in population over a period of 3 generations-- which is the course the debilitation of the indigenous population took in Mexico.

For that "effectiveness" over that extended period of time to occur, the pathogens have to be amplified, exacerbated by weakened social conditions of reproduction of daily life at a level insufficient to allow for immunities to spread through the population-- i.e oppression, exploitation, reduced subsistence, access to safe water, sanitation-- all those things that marked the encomienda, the mita, etc. etc. etc.


So you might want to try a bit of self-education yourself, comrade.


Well, I study history, not immunology, epidemiology, or any form of science for that matter. My understanding of the topic is based upon what sources, such as the one I posted above, have to tell us about the past. They tell us that individual epidemics wiped out literally a quarter of the population of entire regions at a time. They also tell us that over the following years there were repeated smaller outbreaks of various diseases, that spread far beyond the area of initial contact, and that these outbreaks were soon followed by epidemics of other, equally deadly diseases.

They tell us that European settlers, in the North, arrived to a continent that was already undergoing a process of de-population. They tell us this because it meant two things, firstly that they believed that God had provided them with the land free of indigenous peoples for settlement and secondly that rather than being able to rely upon the indigenous population for slave labour, they had to begin importing slaves.

To quote John Winthrop writing to Nathaniel Rich,

"For the natives, they are all near dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess"

Quoted in Elliott, p. 66.

Now of course they then proceeded to kill and enslave those that remained (in greater numbers than they suspected), but as the source proves, in 1634, only 114 years after the 1520 and only 14 years after the departure of the Mayflower the impact disease had noticably had upon the indigenous population of North America, prior to the widespread expansion of colonies in the North.

Now, if you want to tell me that is impossible, and that the impact of disease was greatly exagurated in both the records of the indigenous peoples and that of the European settlers, then fine. Provide your source, I'm all for learning something new. But that is what historians sources tell us; and I have yet to be provided with a reason we should doubt that disease, unintentionaly transmitted to the indigenous population, was by far the biggest killer and certainly placed the indigenous population into massive decline, and would have done regardless of European settler policy towards them. As I have stated, repeatedly, I do not want to downplay of the brutality of the European conquest or deny that it occured; rather place its role in the decline of the indigenous population into its actual, historical, perspective.

[Robocommie]

Now, if you want to tell me that is impossible, and that the impact of disease was greatly exagurated in both the records of the indigenous peoples and that of the European settlers, then fine. Provide your source, I'm all for learning something new. But that is what historians sources tell us; and I have yet to be provided with a reason we should doubt that disease, unintentionaly transmitted to the indigenous population, was by far the biggest killer and certainly placed the indigenous population into massive decline, and would have done regardless of European settler policy towards them. As I have stated, repeatedly, I do not want to downplay of the brutality of the European conquest or deny that it occured; rather place its role in the decline of the indigenous population into its actual, historical, perspective.

Look, for the sake of understanding, I realized I said I was completely over this thread, but what's the purpose of making this contention? Has anyone disputed that disease played a big role in the decline? Because I certainly wouldn't. What's the greater point you're getting at? Because I really am getting the idea that we're beginning to talk past each other. My contention in this thread is that there were cultures and societies on this continent prior to European conquest, that they did not deserve to be conquered and enslaved, and they did not NEED to be conquered and colonized by Europe just so that European capitalism could develop, and then give rise to Marxism. That to me is an incredibly cold-hearted way of looking at real human suffering. Would the diseases have hit anyway, after they made their landing? Yes, but that doesn't change what happened afterwards nor does it justify it. Apparently you agree. What then is the point of arguing this?

And what the fuck is this about placing people who don't subscribe to the "tennets" of historical structuralism in OI? Trying to restrict me over this, now? Now the claims that Europeans should be condemned for their actions in American colonialism is anti-Leftist? That's completely absurd.

[Invader Zim]

Come off it, man. The last page and a half has included you demeaning my competence at my chosen field. Just because you don't cuss doesn't mean you're not making it fucking personal.

It is certainly true that I disagree with you on a number of core areas of historical theory, and think that the bulk of historians would be with me rather than you. But the most I have actually said is that you should perhaps read more; not suggest that you would make an incompetent historian when you actually finish your university career. If you want to take that to heart, then that is your choice.

You, on the other hand, along with Barry, have attempted to paint my position as synonanmous with holocaust denial and basically cherry picked, and decontextualised, my posts and even utterly ignored the very statements you have quoted in order to manufactor this charactature of my posts and position. And that ignores the multitude of perjoratives I have ignored. So if you want to get pissy, because I suggested you need to read more in your chosen academic field, then you may wish to consider what you have said to me.


ceased caring about your position,

Given the total, and clearly deliberate, misrepresentation of my position at every available opportunity, please forgive me for doubting if you ever actually cared about my position; beyond attempting to castigate it.


but what's the purpose of making this contention?

Initially very little, beyond passing comment on the value of the opening thesis of this thread. I certainly did not imagine that my comment, would be totally misrepresented - even after clarification - and require that I make repeated lengthy posts in both further clarification and defence of my own character.


Has anyone disputed that disease played a big role in the decline?

No, buy both you and Barry have equated, suggesting that disease played, at least in purely quantative terms, a far larger role than deliberate attempts to destroy the indigenous population, with holocaust denial. Naturally, I find that not only highly fucking offensive, but also grossly ignorant of both.



And what the fuck is this about placing people who don't subscribe to the "tennets" of historical structuralism in OI?

Upon reflection that comment doesn't say precisely my views on the subject and were written in the heat of the moment, so to speak; rather my origional comment was more precise; that I would be suspicious of someone who holds an individualist world view. I don't think that a radical leftwing ideology is easily compatable with an inherently conservative perspective, not only on historical development, but of the world generally.


Trying to restrict me over this, now?

Do you see a thread in the Rev Left members area suggesting your restriction? Similarly, I don't see a thread there calling for my restriction, despite the fact that you have asserted I am the equivelent of a holocaust denier, and imperialist to boot.


Now the claims that Europeans should be condemned for their actions in American colonialism is anti-Leftist?

That isn't what I have said, or suggested, at any stage in this thread.

[Robocommie]

It is certainly true that I disagree with you on a number of core areas of historical theory, and think that the bulk of historians would be with me rather than you.

I don't see that you actually know all that much about how I see historical theory.


But the most I have actually said is that you should perhaps read more; not suggest that you would make an incompetent historian when you actually finish your university career. If you want to take that to heart, then that is your choice.

If you're so sure that I need to read more on this, why don't you tell me what you believe I'M saying? Because as I said, I'm not sure we're not talking past each other.



You, on the other hand, along with Barry, have attempted to paint my position as synonanmous with holocaust denial

Yeah well, take that up with Barry, not me, he was the one who used the Holocaust analogy. From what I can tell, you're making the point that disease was the primary cause of the decline of Native American populations, and that nothing the Europeans did, kind or cruel, could have changed that. That's fairly self-evident. I don't see why it had to be stated in relation to my original post.



and basically cherry picked, and decontextualised, my posts and even utterly ignored the very statements you have quoted in order to manufactor this charactature of my posts and position.

I have tried to understand your position, in the context of this thread and what everyone else has said, as best as I am able. If you're so convinced that Barry and I are the ones being argumentative you might want to consider how hostile and confrontational your own tone is as well.



Given the total, and clearly deliberate, misrepresentation of my position at every available opportunity, please forgive me for doubting if you ever actually cared about my position; beyond attempting to castigate it.

Well how else am I supposed to take what you said in the context of this entire thread? Maybe you assume too quickly that your position is so clear and understandable before you presume that I deliberately misrepresented what your position was.

God this is stupid. I hate internet debates - they become arguing about arguments way too fucking often.

[Robocommie]

Initially very little, beyond passing comment on the value of the opening thesis of this thread. I certainly did not imagine that my comment, would be totally misrepresented - even after clarification - and require that I make repeated lengthy posts in both further clarification and defence of my own character.

Well come on man, you can't leap into the middle of a heated argument and expect not to be perceived as taking one side or the other, particularly when you start to criticize what I say as ignoring the proper historical context. (which I dispute is something I ever did.)



No, buy both you and Barry have equated, suggesting that disease played, at least in purely quantative terms, a far larger role than deliberate attempts to destroy the indigenous population, with holocaust denial. Naturally, I find that not only highly fucking offensive, but also grossly ignorant of both.

Well listen, if you walk into a thread where people are arguing about colonialism, and say, "I just want to point out that disease did far more than deliberate attempts at destruction of Indians" then don't be surprised if you come off as an apologist for said deliberate attempts, or at the very least, come off as someone who wants to minimize the impact of them, for whatever reason. That's certainly how you came off to me. As for the bit of Holocaust denial, I never said any such thing - that was Barry's accusation. I feel it was a mistake to invoke the Holocaust, nevertheless I sympathized with the spirit of what I thought he was saying.



Upon reflection that comment doesn't say precisely my views on the subject and were written in the heat of the moment, so to speak; rather my origional comment was more precise; that I would be suspicious of someone who holds an individualist world view. I don't think that a radical leftwing ideology is easily compatable with an inherently conservative perspective, not only on historical development, but of the world generally.


I don't have an individualist perspective on history, I simply don't have an anti-humanist perspective. I don't think it's fair of you at all to make that assumption. I also resent your accusation that I have an inherently conservative perspective - that's a rather broad assumption to make without knowing a lot more about me.



That isn't what I have said, or suggested, at any stage in this thread.

Well then why are we having this discussion even? Maybe we should both just calm the fuck down.

[S.Artesian]

Firstly, I never suggested that "disease did it all", and to suggest otherwise is completely at odds with what I have actually written. I have noted the brutality of the European conquest many times in this thread, and provided examples of early biological warfare against the indigenous population. However, I am not going to pretend that the impact of disease against the indigenous population did not inflict crippling terminal damage to the indigenous population; because manifestly it did. This is a fact.

Not all, but damn near all was your statement. Here it is:

" given the impact of European pathogens on the indigenous population, unintentional widespread destruction. Nothing the European settlers could have done, short of turning their boats round and 'undiscovering' the America's, could alter that. Certainly the brutality of the Europeans exacerbated the situation, but even if they had not been brutal, we would today still be lamenting the near complete loss of the origional population of the Americas and anybody who says different severely needs to educate themselves. "

Sounds like damn near all to me. Arguing an the basis of pathogens is an "unintentional" side effect is a little besides the point. What did the Spanish Conquest of Central and South America accomplish for Spain? Mercantile wealth-- in the form of gold, silver, pearls, etc. What was required for extracting that wealth-- labor.

How was that labor made dependent, subjugated by the Spanish? Through force, through disruption and destruction of the pre-existing relations of material production with the attendant catastrophic impact on the welfare of the indigenous population. To say that extermination by the spread of disease was unintentional is beside the point. It's as beside the point as saying that the degradation of the quality of life for the indigenous people of the plains of North America due to the destruction of the buffalo herds was not intentional because the European-origin traders only want the hides for trade, not to deprive the indigenous of a food source.

You don't get one without the other, that's the point.

[Agnapostate]

The vast majority of deaths were due to the spread of infectious disease, since there were not a sufficient number of invaders to massacre tens of millions of indigenous people in the first century of occupation. That sort of reasoning is actually typically used by white supremacists who boast that Europeans were *that much* superior to Amerindians in an Avatar type scenario. Many of the violent deaths in the initial years of contact were also committed by Indians fighting each other, but at the behest of foreign administrators, so I hold them responsible as we hold heads of state responsible for what they command their military forces to do.

I use the "genocide" label, but I'm not sure of its veracity, and I'd like to see this post by Prairie Fire and how she detailed it. The greatest issue for me is that while removal policies were the order of the day, the greatest massacres were incidental and orchestrated by diverse groups of invaders over centuries without a central administrator, which is how they became outstanding and famous to begin with.

[Robocommie]

I use the "genocide" label, but I'm not sure of its veracity, and I'd like to see this post by Prairie Fire and how she detailed it. The greatest issue for me is that while removal policies were the order of the day, the greatest massacres were incidental and orchestrated by diverse groups of invaders over centuries without a central administrator, which is how they became outstanding and famous to begin with.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1758462&postcount=13

That's the first post but she makes several more lengthy ones on the subject in that thread.

[Invader Zim]

Sounds like damn near all to me.

Certainly a vast majority.

As I have noted earlier, some historians have placed the decline of the indigenous population of the America's at near 80% just a century and a half after first contact. That means that by the beginning of the 17th century the vast majority of the damage done to the indigenous demographic had been inflicted. This is what the map of the America's looked like around:

http://www.ianchadwick.com/hudson/images/hakluyt%201599.jpg

Admitedly population estimates of the Americas range considerably, and only a small portion of that indigenous population lived in the North; but either way it is manifestly impossible that the Europeans had massacred or enslaved the majority of two continents people within the first century of their arrival when they only had the most basic, and indeed incomplete, notion of what the edges of the 'New' World actually looked like, and even less clue about its interior due to the simple fact that very few, and in many cases zero, Europeans had ever set foot there.


Arguing an the basis of pathogens is an "unintentional" side effect is a little besides the point.

Not given the fact that the point of this thread is to establish whether the the American native population would have been 'better off' without contact with Europeans. The fact that Europeans transmitted alien diseases into the environment that crippled the indigenous population strikes me as a highly pertinent fact to consider when addressing the OPs question. Indeed it strikes me as the single most important point to note as everything else, including what may or may not be genocide (as far as I see the evidence presented thus far, the jury is still very much out), was not capable of inflicting the kind of destruction that the European settlers, murderous as they might have been, inflicted purely by accident.

On the subject of genocide, the conflict I see arising, is as much semantic as it is historical, as I have noted earlier in the thread. The issue revolves around intent. Did the European settlers intend to destroy, in whole or in part, the indigenous population. Or rather did they intend to steal their land and enslave them, and disregard the consequences that wou have on the people and culture. It is possible to list compelling sources that support both sides of the argument. For example, and I recall this quote being posted on this board in the past:

John Quincy Adams stated "that hapless race of native Americans, which we are exterminating with such merciless and perfidious cruelty, among the heinous sins of this nation, for which I believe God will one day bring [it] to judgement."

You can also find references to George Washington, when fighting indigenous Americans calling for his troops to destroy the region in a slash and burn style campaign. But by the same token, it is possible to find examples of the US government providing vaccinations for the various, still deadly, pathogens that were still wiping out indigenous Americans in the 19th century. Hardly a useful policy if your intention is to destroy the people you are vaccinating. In short the issue is far from clear cut.

[S.Artesian]

Not given the fact that the point of this thread is to establish whether the the American native population would have been 'better off' without contact with Europeans. The fact that Europeans transmitted alien diseases into the environment that crippled the indigenous population strikes me as a highly pertinent fact to consider when addressing the OPs question. Indeed it strikes me as the single most important point to note as everything else, including what may or may not be genocide (as far as I see the evidence presented thus far, the jury is still very much out), was not capable of inflicting the kind of destruction that the European settlers, murderous as they might have been, inflicted purely by accident.


Clearly, IZ, if the question is, and is only, would the indigenous people of North American fared better without encountering Europeans, the answer is a simple, unequivocal "yes."

We can take any number of directions from that yes, but all roads stem from the original answer. We can follow Marx and list all the ways to expansion of trade, the influx of gold, etc. stimulated capitalism. We can state without capitalism, no socialism. We can say history can't be undone. Somebody would have expanded their trading territories. Somebody would have decided to settle in the Americas. That doesn't change the fact that the indigenous people of the Americas would have fared better without the imposition of European colonialism.

As for the "non-intentional" nature of genocide: Whether the colonizers intended to destroy the entire population or not is, quite frankly, immaterial. There's a part, I think in the Grundrisse, but maybe it's Theories of Surplus Value where Marx writes: "The price of beef may be high or low, but it always involves the same sacrifice for the ox." [quote if from memory, so I may be a little off]

And that nails the point-- intentional, non-intentional-- both involve the same sacrifice of the indigenous people.

In fact, if that were the point of the discussion, I don't think we'd have almost 300 posts here.

[khad]

You can also find references to George Washington, when fighting indigenous Americans calling for his troops to destroy the region in a slash and burn style campaign. But by the same token, it is possible to find examples of the US government providing vaccinations for the various, still deadly, pathogens that were still wiping out indigenous Americans in the 19th century. Hardly a useful policy if your intention is to destroy the people you are vaccinating. In short the issue is far from clear cut.
Right, and you can find rudimentary medical services in various concentration camps throughout history as well. Your argument is pretty much no argument. These instances can be pointed out, but they don't make any difference in the overall trajectory of history.

Of course, it's odd you'd even take issue with the matter of counting the Native American genocide.

After all, if someone claimed that Stalin killed 40 million people, you'd not only agree but would proceed to argue that Stalin killed everyone and their mother--twice.

Here's one of your classics, where you discount archival work and demographic study in favor of the hearsay of oral history about Stalin's repressions, and you even misrepresented your own cited sources to do so.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalin-killed-xxx-t107934/index.html?p=1506821#post1506821


I did read the Nove article (his article in that book you mentioned, which was edited by Getty), in fact, and I do not see how it significantly alters Ellman's starting point. He does deal with famine, which Ellman does not, and after introducing a number of uncertainties into the "official" demographic data, he suggests a total population deficit of 13-15 million (apparently there are some who suggest that the 1937 census was undercounted), of course, this includes people not yet born and collapse of birth rates immediately following famine, so the total population deficit from 1931-1937 is about 10 million. This is for the entire Soviet Union, not just Ukraine. Incidentally, the USSR suffered drought famines after the man-induced famine of 1932-33, which then raises the issue of whether or not Stalin was responsible for all the famine deaths.

Now to the meat of this thread --"direct" repression and the Great Terror. Nove goes on to use the lowball estimate of the Soviet population in 1939 as 168 million. Given the politically-suppressed figure of 162 million in the 1937 census, this represents an increase of at least 3 million per year, which is comparable to and even exceeds the growth rate from 1926-31. According to Nove, the abnormal deaths in the years of the great terror (37-38) do not show up as a major demographic blip.

As for incarceration. GULAG administered labor prisons, of course, were just a part of total incarcerations. The NKVD registered in 1955 that they had had files on 9.5 million detainees, but that is incomplete. There is a higher figure from Dugin that suggests is 11.8 (Ellman says 12), but that excludes deportees, which numbered from 2.5-5 million. It all depends on how you want to count, because not all deportees lived in prison-like conditions or even in special settlements. These deportee figures also included people who were not allowed to enter the major cities for a specified period.

Look, I don't see how these ranges of error do anything to discredit Ellman's starting point of 3.5 million repression deaths out of a total repressed of 12 million (which does not include famine deaths, as they are hard to ascribe). In fact it's downright pedantic of you to give me this much crap on an internet forum just to argue for an error range that might yield a +10-20% statistical result.

Incidentally, there is a Wheatcroft article (the very last one), which does some statistical work on the 1932-33 famine. Just taking the registered population, the total excess mortality registered by the civilian population was 3-4 million. However, if you add in non-civilian and unregistered people that can increase to 4-5 million. These are the sorts of statistical uncertainties and discrepancies we are dealing with. Perhaps useful if you want to be a specialist, but not in the context of this thread, which was started by a kid who wanted to ask how to disprove claims of Stalin killing 40 million people. Bottom line, Hitler killed many more people.

I find it nothing less than pedantic and hypocritical that someone like you is pounding the desk, demanding demography and not sensationalism.

[Vanguard1917]

Maybe you all should stop pretending to be Marxists, because historical materialism is the basis for Marxist analysis and theory.

It's interesting how readily Marxism's ABC gets ignored when Marxism becomes somewhat inconvenient. That used to be called opportunism.

[FreeFocus]

I just wanted to note that this thread has been really illuminating. It shows what some of my "comrades" really think about me, my culture, and my people and the problems we face.

[Robocommie]

I just wanted to note that this thread has been really illuminating. It shows what some of my "comrades" really think about me, my culture, and my people and the problems we face.

Well, you know you're an Indian when even Marxists don't give a fuck, man. :(

[ZeroNowhere]

I find it nothing less than pedantic and hypocritical that someone like you is pounding the desk, demanding demography and not sensationalism.More importantly, your gripes with IZ are quite irrelevant to the debate in this thread.


I just wanted to note that this thread has been really illuminating. It shows what some of my "comrades" really think about me, my culture, and my people and the problems we face.Hopefully it has made a good impression upon you, and you shall proceed to contribute something of substance in further posts.

[Vanguard1917]

"This is the ‘explanation of imperialism’ Otto Bauer finally gives: ‘In our opinion capitalism is possible even without expansion.’ This is the culmination of his theory of ‘isolated’ accumulation, and we are left with the consoling assurance that one way or the other, ‘with or without expansion capitalism will bring about its own downfall ...’

"That is historical materialist research method in ‘expert’ execution. So capitalism is also conceivable even without expansion. Indeed, for Marx the urge of capitalism to expand suddenly forms a vital element, the most outstanding feature of modern development; indeed, expansion has accompanied the entire history of capitalism and in its present, final, imperialist phase, it has adopted such an unbridled character that it puts the whole civilization of mankind in question. Indeed, this untameable drive of capital to expand has gradually constructed a world market, connected the modern world economy and so laid the historical basis for socialism. Indeed, the proletarian International, which is to make an end of capitalism, is itself only a product of the global expansion of capital. But all this is quite unnecessary, a different historical course is conceivable. Indeed, is anything ‘inconceivable’ for a powerful thinker? ‘In our opinion capitalism is conceivable even without expansion.’ In our opinion modern development is conceivable even without the discovery of America and the circumnavigation of Africa. If one thinks about it for long enough one can even conceive of man’s history without capitalism. Finally, the solar system is conceivable without our earth. German philosophy is perhaps conceivable without its ‘metaphysical clumsiness’. Only one thing seems to us to be quite inconceivable: that an official Marxism which thinks in this way could, as the intellectual avant garde of the Labour movement in the phase of imperialism, have resulted in something other than the miserable fiasco of Social Democracy which we have to witness today in the World War."

- Rosa Luxemburg (link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1915/anti-critique/ch06.htm))

As Luxemburg explains, capitalism is inconceivable without expansion. The European discovery of America was central to capitalist expansion. And, crucially, this expansion of capitalism has "gradually constructed a world market, connected the modern world economy and so laid the historical basis for socialism. Indeed, the proletarian International, which is to make an end of capitalism, is itself only a product of the global expansion of capital."

It is in this sense that the European discovery of America was historically progressive. I don't see how a rejection of this idea can be reconciled with a Marxist conception of world history.

[Invader Zim]

Your argument is pretty much no argument.

That is right Khad, providing documentary evidence, that as I recall you are a great fan of to the point of dismissal of all other forms of source material, that proves that the US government was vaccinating those it was intending to destroy, against pathogens that were destroying those same individuals at a massive rate is, of course, not at all an argument against there being an over-arching policy of genocide.



Of course, it's odd you'd even take issue with the matter of counting the Native American genocide.

I don't take 'issue' with it, beyond a passing interest on how the numbers are arrived at.



After all, if someone claimed that Stalin killed 40 million people, you'd not only agree but would proceed to argue that Stalin killed everyone and their mother--twice.

I do enjoy it when you enter threads Khad, you do most of the work for me. For example, you proclaim here that I am a fan of the 'big numbers' school in Stalin's genocide, then proceed to post a link to a thread where I concluded that the number Stalin killed is 'fundermentally unknowable', and in responce to your assertion that I must be a fan of the Conquest figure:

"Why would I want to argue in favour of Conquest's figures? He is on an extreme edge of the spectrum as far as this debate goes."

I wish everyone I argued with was as inflicted with 'foot in mouth' as you are.



Here's one of your classics, where you discount archival work and demographic study in favor of the hearsay of oral history about Stalin's repressions, and you even misrepresented your own cited sources to do so.
LOL< and you accuse me of 'misrepresentation'. Firstly I cited Nove's article as evidence as a fracture in the historiography, and nothing more.

"I would guess that you are familiar with Getty, well check Alec Nove’s addition to the volume he edited, Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives. What I take issue with here is the fact that this issue is being presented if it is done and dusted, as if there is not a major fracture in the historiography."

Your subsequent dissertation, which didn't actually address my point, which you have reproduced here for us, proves only your inability to grasp the point. Furthermore, in terms of misrepresentation, I certainly did not "discount" archival work and demographic study, any more than I 'favoured' the "the hearsay of oral history". Why lie when we can simply go and examine the thread that you have provided the link to?

"Do you put stock by the word of émigrés who are liable to tell you that tens of millions were slaughtered or archival information you know to have its own catalogue of problems. You can't discount either, but you can't trust either."

Furthermore, on the subject of accepting hearsay, you are the one who accepted the claim that George Orwell was a 'rapist', on the testimony of a woman who claimed to have been told that Orwell was a rapist by the sister of one of his victims; to relate the entire story here is what I posted at the time:

"After a little research, it turns out that the 'accusation' (which doesn't actually exist) comes from a recent edition of Jacintha Buddicom's Eric & Us. Eric & Us being the memories of Buddicom's childhood with the then Eric Blair. At no point in the text does Buddicom make reference to this attempted rape, and Buddicom memories seem near universally fond. The 'rape' issue comes in a postscript to this edition, placed there by the editor Biddicom's cousin Dione Venables. It reads not as an attempted rape, but rather a forceful attempt at seduction that the adolecent Blair gave up when he realised that she wasn't going to reciprocate his advances. While a certainly unsavoury episode, and it appears Orwell may well have had a very poor attitude to sex and relationships, assuming it is accurate but it was not attempted 'rape' by any stretch of the term.

Indeed the entire postscript is open to criticism because it is based on a letter penned by Buddicom to her sister. The letter was then destroyed, and years later the sister then imparted what she recalled of the letter to Venables who then includes it in her postscript. So Venables description of events was based entirely upon the testimony of a letter she never once saw. And of course neither parties involved, Biddicom and Blair, are here to tell us what actually happened."

Talk about buying into pure hearsay, you total fucking hypocrite.


I find it nothing less than pedantic and hypocritical that someone like you is pounding the desk, demanding demography and not sensationalism.

Where have I 'demanded' anything of the sort? I have questioned certain assertions, and requested a source be provided to support them. In the same manner I have provided sources to support my assertions.

Though on the issue of hypocricy, that charge works both ways. On the one hand we have you blindly insisting that it is only archival documentation that can prove anything of value in history, and that is why the low numbers school must be correct in the Stalin debate; yet will happily accept that what happened to the indigenous population of the America's was indeed a concerted effort at the destruction of the people, and that evidence suggesting that perhaps it was not deliberately engineered "don't make any difference in the overall trajectory of history."

Which is it?

[Barry Lyndon]

I just wanted to note that this thread has been really illuminating. It shows what some of my "comrades" really think about me, my culture, and my people and the problems we face.

I became a communist because I wanted to be, as Lenin once put it, 'a tribune of the oppressed'. Apparently that little detail is lost on so many so-called Marxists here.

[black magick hustla]

colonized person madder at his broader colonized brothers and sisters than at the colonizer.

this is a leftist forum. there is no value in jerking off other leftists in this context. i dont talk in the same way to average white people than leftists who are educated about the issue.




I mean, real talk man, there's value to the creation of a national mythology. It isn't true, but Fanon talks about it very clearly belonging to a pre-revolutionary stage of consciousness. The fact that you're not engaging with those folks about moving past idealization of a ridiculously imperialistic power (I cheer Chichimecs, but that's cus I'm not even FROM Central Mexico) is pretty discouraging to me.i engage with mexicans all the time. its really hard to engage with hard headed ideologues though. its easier for me to engage with average folk.




You're raging out on people who have more common interest with you than old White Power Marxism over there.i think there is a difference between average mexicans and "xicanistas". i have very little in common with warped "xicanistas" except that both of us are fucked by capital.




plus, you know Raza are a better time to hang out with anyways.it depends!

[bcbm]

As Luxemburg explains, capitalism is inconceivable without expansion.

indeed, and today the expansion continues in much of the third world in entirely new rounds of enclosures, etc. do we view these as historically progressive, and a necessary stage for communism? or do we oppose neoliberal accumulation?


It is in this sense that the European discovery of America was historically progressive. I don't see how a rejection of this idea can be reconciled with a Marxist conception of world history.

by using marxist methodology to explore history as deeply as possible and perhaps come to different conclusions about what historical possibilities existed prior to capitalism, as silvia federici and others have done?

[9]

"This is the ‘explanation of imperialism’ Otto Bauer finally gives: ‘In our opinion capitalism is possible even without expansion.’ This is the culmination of his theory of ‘isolated’ accumulation, and we are left with the consoling assurance that one way or the other, ‘with or without expansion capitalism will bring about its own downfall ...’

"That is historical materialist research method in ‘expert’ execution. So capitalism is also conceivable even without expansion. Indeed, for Marx the urge of capitalism to expand suddenly forms a vital element, the most outstanding feature of modern development; indeed, expansion has accompanied the entire history of capitalism and in its present, final, imperialist phase, it has adopted such an unbridled character that it puts the whole civilization of mankind in question. Indeed, this untameable drive of capital to expand has gradually constructed a world market, connected the modern world economy and so laid the historical basis for socialism. Indeed, the proletarian International, which is to make an end of capitalism, is itself only a product of the global expansion of capital. But all this is quite unnecessary, a different historical course is conceivable. Indeed, is anything ‘inconceivable’ for a powerful thinker? ‘In our opinion capitalism is conceivable even without expansion.’ In our opinion modern development is conceivable even without the discovery of America and the circumnavigation of Africa. If one thinks about it for long enough one can even conceive of man’s history without capitalism. Finally, the solar system is conceivable without our earth. German philosophy is perhaps conceivable without its ‘metaphysical clumsiness’. Only one thing seems to us to be quite inconceivable: that an official Marxism which thinks in this way could, as the intellectual avant garde of the Labour movement in the phase of imperialism, have resulted in something other than the miserable fiasco of Social Democracy which we have to witness today in the World War."

- Rosa Luxemburg (link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1915/anti-critique/ch06.htm))One word for you: Eurocentrism.

Wow, what a brilliant counterargument. Did you think of that all by yourself? Clearly Luxemburg is no match for you.

[Vanguard1917]

indeed, and today the expansion continues in much of the third world

I support workers in the 'third world' who oppose capitalism and call for socialism. But i also recognise that a working class and a working-class socialism could not exist on a global scale without global capitalism.



I have probably been too harsh on some of the Eurocentrists here. For the record I don't think they're motivated by white supremacy, though some may be. Its important to understand this is a sensitive issue for First World and Third World Marxists and it is not going to be resolved by quoting the words of Marx or Luxemburg as holy dogma.


There is nothing 'Eurocentrist' about the Marxist argument that you cannot have a world movement of workers for socialism without an international working class, and that you cannot have an international working class without capitalism on an international scale. This is Marxism's ABC. It is, despite your patronising claim, recognised by Marxists all over the world, not just those in the West.

[synthesis]

I don't intend to finish the debate I've started here, at least not in the near future, so if people want to take that as a "forfeit," feel free. Everyone with whom I have debated has made perfectly valid points, and the issue will not be concluded any time soon.


Its important to understand this is a sensitive issue for First World and Third World Marxists and it is not going to be resolved by quoting the words of Marx or Luxemburg as holy dogma.True; the debate, in my opinion, is whether capitalism is something to be combated or harvested and used as a foundation for a better world. As usual, the answer is a little bit of both.

I wish to clarify, however, that at no point was Marx being "quoted as holy dogma." I quoted Marx to address this perception that capitalism is the "root of all evil" throughout human history, that "capitalism" and "greed" were wholly synonymous in Marx's works - to show that these are symptoms of a vulgar, Manichaean interpretation of Marxism that has proliferated through the 20th century, all implementations of which having simply reverted to industrial capitalism - at best.

I don't believe in "development at all costs," but I also believe that socialism originates from, develops in, and is built upon the foundation of the excesses of the capitalist mode of production - so that "socialism at all costs," as we have seen, will simply "wither away" if it cannot harness the productive and developmental powers of capitalism - as much as we would like to believe otherwise.

[S.Artesian]

I don't intend to finish the debate I've started here, at least not in the near future, so if people want to take that as a "forfeit," feel free. Everyone with whom I have debated has made perfectly valid points, and the issue will not be concluded any time soon.

True; the debate, in my opinion, is whether capitalism is something to be combated or harvested and used as a foundation for a better world. As usual, the answer is a little bit of both.

I wish to clarify, however, that at no point was Marx being "quoted as holy dogma." I quoted Marx to address this perception that capitalism is the "root of all evil" throughout human history, that "capitalism" and "greed" were wholly synonymous in Marx's works - to show that these are symptoms of a vulgar, Manichaean interpretation of Marxism that has proliferated through the 20th century, all implementations of which having simply reverted to industrial capitalism - at best.

I don't believe in "development at all costs," but I also believe that socialism originates from, develops in, and is built upon the foundation of the excesses of the capitalist mode of production - so that "socialism at all costs," as we have seen, will simply "wither away" if it cannot harness the productive and developmental powers of capitalism - as much as we would like to believe otherwise.


That's too bad. After I made my best efforts at controlling my inherent vulgarity and posed some specific questions, I was hoping you might reconsider and answer them.

Let me reproduce them in the hope that you will give it a go, and I promise to eschew all vulgarities, insults.. [but not sarcasm] if you do so decide:


The explosion in the slave trade, the creation of the world markets through the slave trade is part and parcel is the immediate history of industrial capitalism. Without it, without all those elements Marx notes in his section on "original accumulation" or "primitive accumulation" you never get to capitalist accumulation and expanded reproduction. So if the primitive accumulation was necessary to capitalist accumulation, and capitalist accumulation is necessary to "progress" then what's your problem with supporting the Atlantic slave trade?

So that's the part on slavery. Now for the discussion of indigenous people.

Dispossession is critical to primitive accumulation, it is it's secret as it creates laborers who have nothing save their labor, and no use for their labor other than its value in exchange.

The problem being.... is that capitalism starts this process but it can no longer employ the "free" detached labor it has created. It marginalizes that potential labor force, compelling it to live on the fringes, or employing it only sporadically in SEZs or maquilladoras, only to interrupt the process, throw the laborers back into the shanty-towns, undo all the "progress" that has been made.

This is exactly what has happened in Africa with the IMF imposed programs, and the capitalist fomented civil wars of the 1990s and beyond.

But let's go back to the beginning. WD, argued, and you supported the notion, that "liquidation" of indigenous cultures was a necessary evil, a tragic consequence of capitalism, and as tragic as it may have been, it was, and still is, essential to the development of the productive forces that will emancipate all of humanity.

The problems with that argument are vast, in that it:

"1. assumes the productive forces are not already advanced enough to support the emancipation of labor

2. assumes that "development" under capitalism is necessarily "progressive"

3. confuses capitalist accumulation with emancipation, when in fact the latter can only be achieved through the abolition of the former. Abolition of the former means opposing its expansion, opposing reproduction of capitalist property relations and supporting instead a revolution that will seize and reconfigure production for use, in which case there is simply no need for the dispossession of indigenous peoples or destruction of their cultures.

4. In response to my question as to whether you would be so cavalier in your treatment of the Atlantic slave trade, you stated that chattel slavery was not a characteristic of capitalism.

5. I don't know what characteristics you are talking about, but the Atlantic slave trade was certainly essential to the growth of capitalism, the fueling of capitalist accumulation. In fact it was certainly more essential than the extermination of indigenous people in the Americas. So if slavery was essential to "progress" then why your reluctance, and equivocation when it comes to endorsing slavery as the necessary consequence, and necessary precursor to "progress"?

6. When confronted with Marx's words on the necessity of chattel slavery to developing capitalism, you produce a response that is... to put it charitably, unintelligible. Literally. Makes no sense.

7. The era of capitalist contributions to social development is and has been over. Whatever "progress" capitalism achieves it achieves tangentially and at the cost of increased destruction and immiseration. Even prior to this era, supporting capitalist dispossession in the name of "progress" is an absurdity. Do you think Marxists should justify the enclosure of the common lands in England. Do you think for one second that such dispossession, which marches arm in arm with the growth of the world markets, and with slavery, represents "progress"? Or is progress found with those who oppose the enclosure movement; with the Diggers?

8. Your argument has the absurd component of supporting capitalist accumulation against the immediate struggles of the poor, the rural dispossessed, the indigenous in the hope of some future benefit to be gained when a perfectly developed capitalism secedes itself to a perfectly developed and conscious proletariat.

No such perfection exists. Capitalism is always mediated by the weight and form of its earliest and most primitive manifestations. It shapes the archaic, even non-capitalist relations of land and labor into production units for the world markets--whether it be the chattel slavery of the plantation; or after the overthrow of slavery, the reconstitution of the plantation and the plantation class through the use of terrorism against the new emancipated slaves; whether it be the haciendas and fincas of sugar and hemp production in Mexico employing tenant-laborers from the pueblos, or expropriating the penal labor of the resisting indigenous people.

9. You cannot answer a real question about the actual history of capitalism, and the actual content of your so-called "progressive" element of capitalism because questions of actual history are anti-thetical to your conversion of "Marxism" into an ideology of developmentalism and modernization as opposed to Marx's real work which was the analysis of capitalist and the "immanent critique" of its accumulation.

You cannot show concretely where capitalism's so-called development, its dispossession and liquidation of indigenous people has served any interest, other than the interest of capitalist accumulation.

10. If capital has failed to transform the pre-existing relations of land, labor, and landed labor in what are called less developed areas, that is not an indication of the need for more capitalism, for "Marxists" to urge the bourgeoisie on to greater efforts in brutalization of indigenous people.

Rather that is the marker, the trait, the index to the fact that the conflict between means and relations of production, the conflict between private property and the actual development of social production is NOT cyclical, but structural; a permanent index to the obsolescence of capitalism and its self-justification through ideological screens of "development," and "progress."

__________

Now I don't think this argument was, is, has been, or ever will be about taking over the productive powers of capitalism, because there is no such thing as the productive power of capitalism. There is the productivity of labor, which productivity capital is compelled to amplify for its purpose of expanded reproduction, accumulation, valorisation of its current existence.

So the question should be, does amplifying the productivity of labor require maintaining, extending, capitalist accumulation, or the "form" of such accumulation-- namely, the aggrandizement of labor, the dispossession of indigenous peoples, the destruction of indigenous societies, the expropriation of pre-existing enclaves of simple production for direct use?

I think the answer to those questions is a big fat NO. As a matter of fact, I think without answering NO we won't ever develop a class consciousness capable of "harnessing" the productive power of labor to begin with.

[Robocommie]

I promise to eschew all vulgarities

Now, if you do that, I think it's only fair you start a separate thread somewhere consisting of nothing but the omitted vulgarities, for those of us who need the little extra pick-me-up each morning when we check the forum. ;)

[bcbm]

I support workers in the 'third world' who oppose capitalism and call for socialism. But i also recognise that a working class and a working-class socialism could not exist on a global scale without global capitalism.

and what about those who opposed capitalism during its birth?

[bcbm]

He is a Trotskyist-Menshevik who thinks a global capitalism is required for socialism (cuz it createz a globaal wurking clazz) and thus will never agree with those who oppose capitalism or imperialism.

i know, i've had this exact argument with him before. but its fun to beat a dead horse.

[synthesis]

That's too bad. After I made my best efforts at controlling my inherent vulgarity and posed some specific questions, I was hoping you might reconsider and answer them.Trust me, it has nothing to do with your vulgarity or pejorative argumentation; I've seen worse, by which I mean better. I just don't think this discussion can be any more productive (wink, wink) than it already has been. I will, however, venture to address some misunderstandings which, I believe, led to this debate in the first place.


The explosion in the slave trade, the creation of the world markets through the slave trade is part and parcel is the immediate history of industrial capitalism. Without it, without all those elements Marx notes in his section on "original accumulation" or "primitive accumulation" you never get to capitalist accumulation and expanded reproduction. So if the primitive accumulation was necessary to capitalist accumulation, and capitalist accumulation is necessary to "progress" then what's your problem with supporting the Atlantic slave trade?Again, I personally think that the Atlantic slave trade was one of the worst atrocities in human history. The debate was over Marx's perspective. Let me ask you a question; what exactly does this quote say to you?


It is slavery which has given value to the colonies, it is the colonies which have created world trade, and world trade is the necessary condition for large-scale machine industry.

Consequently, prior to the slave trade, the colonies sent very few products to the Old World, and did not noticeably change the face of the world.

Slavery is therefore an economic category of paramount importance.

Without slavery, North America, the most progressive nation, would he transformed into a patriarchal country.

Only wipe North America off the map and you will get anarchy, the complete decay of trade and modern civilisation.

But to do away with slavery would be to wipe America off the map .Moving on:


But let's go back to the beginning. WD, argued, and you supported the notion, that "liquidation" of indigenous cultures was a necessary evil, a tragic consequence of capitalism, and as tragic as it may have been, it was, and still is, essential to the development of the productive forces that will emancipate all of humanity.I supported WD in the sense that I believe the question in the OP is far too broad for an overly simplistic "yes" or "no" answer; that's a false dichotomy, and once it is recognized as such, you realize just how vast (and vague) the question is.

In every other sense, you're putting words in my mouth. I argued that the capitalist mode of production is a necessary evil for socialism, and that the colonization of the Americas was a tragic consequence of its development. I don't see cultures as being of more or even equal importance as the people who compose a culture.


assumes the productive forces are not already advanced enough to support the emancipation of laborIn every attempt at socialism thus far, they were not.

The problem is that without the productivity brought by industrialism and its accompanying technology, there is far too much manual labor that must be done, and an authoritarian state is therefore necessary to keep everything 'running smoothly." This is more or less universal throughout human history.


assumes that "development" under capitalism is necessarily "progressive"Growth is not necessarily progressive; development always has progressive potential, and socialism unleashes that potential.


In response to my question as to whether you would be so cavalier in your treatment of the Atlantic slave trade, you stated that chattel slavery was not a characteristic of capitalism.Capitalism is characterized by wage slavery, not chattel slavery; indirect slavery, as Marx puts it, not direct slavery. Capitalism is built on the productive potential of slavery and/or pre-capitalist labor relations.


When confronted with Marx's words on the necessity of chattel slavery to developing capitalism, you produce a response that is... to put it charitably, unintelligible. Literally. Makes no sense.Because that has nothing to do with what I fucking said. You're swinging at a pinata, but you're facing the wrong way.

This is exactly the kind of shit that made me lose interest in this discussion. This has nothing to do with "supporting" anything, and please fuck off with that whole "actual questions of history" business. Direct your logorrhea elsewhere, at least until you can engage what I'm saying without attaching your own bundle of presumptions in a fit of eisegesis. Unless you have a really good response, I'm out.

[S.Artesian]

KF:


Again, I personally think that the Atlantic slave trade was one of the worst atrocities in human history. The debate was over Marx's perspective. Let me ask you a question; what exactly does this quote say to you?

It is slavery which has given value to the colonies, it is the colonies which have created world trade, and world trade is the necessary condition for large-scale machine industry.

Consequently, prior to the slave trade, the colonies sent very few products to the Old World, and did not noticeably change the face of the world.

Slavery is therefore an economic category of paramount importance.

Without slavery, North America, the most progressive nation, would he transformed into a patriarchal country.

Only wipe North America off the map and you will get anarchy, the complete decay of trade and modern civilisation.

But to do away with slavery would be to wipe America off the map . What it means to me is that without direct slavery there would be no capitalist value in the Americas. It does not mean that the indigenous people, the indigenous cultures, the indigenous societies are without significance, humanity, vitality, etc. etc. Simply that without direct slavery capitalist value would have never achieved its penetration of the Americas.

When you add emphasis to a quote from somebody else, you ought to at least indicate they YOU are adding the emphasis; that it is not in the original.

Chattel slavery is not the essential relation of industrial capitalism, capital's determinant, so to speak. It was necessary, however, for its development. You argue that development always has the potential for progress. Which gets us back to the original question as to whether or not you see slavery as an tragic consequence of "development" akin to the "necessary" destruction of indigenous societies, but nevertheless with the "potential for progress" equal to that of capitalism's continued destruction of indigenous societies. It is that question that you ignore.

As for the productive forces in "every attempt at socialism not being developed enough..." you're lack of knowledge of history is matched here by your lack of logical argument.

1. The attempts at socialism failed not because the productive forces have not been developed enough, but because the socialism cannot be achieved in isolation. One country, two countries, or even a bloc where a deformed expropriation of the bourgeoisie is confined to such limits doesn't amount to socialism. You might as well argue that no prospects for socialist revolution exist, or existed anywhere, because the productive forces were not developed enough, and we know this because the revolution did not succeed. That's a circular argument.

2. The OP question quickly took the thread to the point not where WD or his ilk were bemoaning the tragic consequences of "development" on indigenous people, but were such consequences were/are endorsed and injected into a pseudo-Marxism that argues that continued dispossession and destruction of indigenous societies must occur and must continue to occur as "progress marches on," and to oppose that continued process is somehow "primitivism." Those are the issues with which you refuse to engage, preferring instead to dissemble and posture about "it's not that simple." Yes it is that simple. The socialist revolution is the product of a class recognizing its own emancipation from capitalist accumulation requires the opposition to such accumulation wherever it takes place and does not itself reproduce those methods and forms of accumulation. That's the concrete practical issue at stake, the very issue WD raised in his belligerent racism, pro-capitalist cheer-leading.

3. Do you project a "progressive" content to capitalist accumulation even today in the matter of dispossession of indigenous societies? The "developmental" content of capitalism is, and is only, in the social amplification of the productivity of labor. Social. Marx writes about social reproduction; that it is the conflict with the social reproduction of the productivity of labor, of amplifying the productivity of labor, the defines the limitation of capital. The social reproduction of the productivity of labor does not require extending capitalist destruction of indigenous cultures. Such destruction is based, not on the need for social productivity, but on the needs of private property to dispossess human beings from direct access to the means of subsistence. Socialism has no such need to dispossess indigenous people from their history, their cultures, their systems of direct production and consumption. Socialism's amplification of the social productivity of labor is a rational process, itself guided by need, and use, not ideological notions of progress and development.

4. Fuck off yourself, poser.

[Hiero]

Why does anyone care for "un"-historical theoriticals? This question only detract the attrotricites of the past and the present.

I have hear similar arguements used to aviod modern problems in Australia, when someone points out the gap between Indigenous and non Indigenous Australia the repsonse is "well they were worse off without us".

[Vanguard1917]

In that case, you are arguing the Menshevik case for the requirement of capitalism for socialism. As Lenin wrote and Stalin and Mao proved, it is possible for a backward capitalist or a semi-feudal country to come to socialism. Therefore, there is no need for capitalism to "create the conditions'" for socialism.

Sorry, but you're now talking desperate nonsense and making senseless accusations.

If you think that Lenin said 'there is no need for capitalism to create the conditions for socialism', you need to provide me with evidence.

In reality, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were Marxists and realised that it was world capitalism* which laid the foundations for the possibility of working class revolution. For Lenin, the proletariat was a product of world capitalism:

"The proletariat is the child of capitalism—of world capitalism, and not only of European capitalism ..."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm

And, crucially, Lenin emphasised that it was the discovery of America which played the pivotal role in capitalism's development:

"The development of trade, the development of commodity exchange, led to the emergence of a new class—the capitalists. Capital took shape at the close of the Middle Ages, when, after the discovery of America, world trade developed enormously ..."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/jul/11.htm

In future, try to make sure you have a leg to stand on before making futher accusations.


* No, 'world capitalism' does not mean the existence of capitalism in every single country in the world, but that capitalism has become the world's dominant social system.

[S.Artesian]

Now, if you do that, I think it's only fair you start a separate thread somewhere consisting of nothing but the omitted vulgarities, for those of us who need the little extra pick-me-up each morning when we check the forum. ;)

OK, I promise then to resume my vulgar ways in response to you request.

The more I think about this thread, the more I think the OP misses the primary question and that primary question isn't at all about the Americas. That question is simply, "Would Africa have been better off without contact with Europe?"

No question about the answer to that one, no matter what anyone things about the "developmental" potential of capitalism, is there?

[Robocommie]

OK, I promise then to resume my vulgar ways in response to you request.

The more I think about this thread, the more I think the OP misses the primary question and that primary question isn't at all about the Americas. That question is simply, "Would Africa have been better off without contact with Europe?"

No question about the answer to that one, no matter what anyone things about the "developmental" potential of capitalism, is there?

Well, it seems to me, if I may be so bold, that really what Agnapostate was asking is, "Can non-European societies develop without European intervention?" And then, thanks to which doctor I suppose, some folks jumped in and decided to veer this off course into an argument about whether or not capitalism needed the New World to develop and whether capitalism was needed for there to be socialism, which as I said earlier, I think is completely teleological and bass-ackwards. It's almost like saying that without polio, there could have been no Jonas Salk.

However, as to the earlier issue, I think that's a much more interesting conversation, though I should hope the answer is obvious. I was saying to a friend just the other day, that one of the tragedies of colonialism is that it forever ended the opportunities for colonized cultures to develop themselves, both economically, culturally, and politically, on their own terms. Instead, it eternally sealed them into a situation where they would be forced to develop in relation to the colonist. Anything that the colonist delivers to the colonized, whether it's industry, railroads, schools, clinics, will always be compared in contrast to that point, frozen in time, at which the colonized became the colonized. In other words, colonialism robs the colonized of their historicity.

[lombas]

Better off? You mean: with an avarage age expectancy up to forty (imagine that!) and, say, one chance out of five to die of rabies?

:blink:

[FriendlyLocalViking]

Being someone who lives there, the Viking is glad Europeans landed here. Now if only they'd been nicer when they landed....

Also, hereby declaring the Vikings did it before Columbus. 1006 > 1492

[Lenina Rosenweg]

If not for the Little Ice Age, the Vikings would have used Greenland as a stepping stone to colonization of the "New World". This would have been destructive of Native cultures but at least might have been less destructive than later European settlement was. As I understand the Vikings were not part of the proto-capitalist mercantilism which got started among European nation states somewhat later. Vikings and Native Americans in the Maritimes and New England would have been at a similiar technological level and Viking settlers would not have carried plague w/them. Norse paganism might have been more tolerant and less destructive than Christianity was. Today they'd be a hybrid Algonkquin-Norse culture in NE America. Maybe. The cultures would have met more on equal terms anyway. There could have evolved a unique non-Western culture.

[FriendlyLocalViking]

If not for the Little Ice Age, the Vikings would have used Greenland as a stepping stone to colonization of the "New World". This would have been destructive of Native cultures but at least might have been less destructive than later European settlement was. As I understand the Vikings were not part of the proto-capitalist mercantilism which got started among European nation states somewhat later. Vikings and Native Americans in the Maritimes and New England would have been at a similiar technological level and Viking settlers would not have carried plague w/them. Norse paganism might have been more tolerant and less destructive than Christianity was. Today they'd be a hybrid Algonkquin-Norse culture in NE America. Maybe. The cultures would have met more on equal terms anyway. There could have evolved a unique non-Western culture.

The most we woud have done was fight with them a bit, then probably sign a peace treaty and try to live together. I mean, the Natives had no gold or silver, so.... they didn't have anything we would have wanted bad enough to kill them for. The Viking thinks that if we could trade with them for food, everyone would have been happy.

[lombas]

If not for the Little Ice Age, the Vikings would have used Greenland as a stepping stone to colonization of the "New World". This would have been destructive of Native cultures but at least might have been less destructive than later European settlement was. As I understand the Vikings were not part of the proto-capitalist mercantilism which got started among European nation states somewhat later. Vikings and Native Americans in the Maritimes and New England would have been at a similiar technological level and Viking settlers would not have carried plague w/them. Norse paganism might have been more tolerant and less destructive than Christianity was. Today they'd be a hybrid Algonkquin-Norse culture in NE America. Maybe. The cultures would have met more on equal terms anyway. There could have evolved a unique non-Western culture.

I do not think Scandinavia in the 11th century was able to found permanent settlements, linked to the motherland, in America.

They couldn't do so in Greenland. All other colonies, like Iceland, are scarcely populated with (until the 20th century) few impressive improvements on an economic, social and cultural level.

[S.Artesian]

The most we woud have done was fight with them a bit, then probably sign a peace treaty and try to live together. I mean, the Natives had no gold or silver, so.... they didn't have anything we would have wanted bad enough to kill them for. The Viking thinks that if we could trade with them for food, everyone would have been happy.


You're not from York, England, are you?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I do not think Scandinavia in the 11th century was able to found permanent settlements, linked to the motherland, in America.

They couldn't do so in Greenland. All other colonies, like Iceland, are scarcely populated with (until the 20th century) few impressive improvements on an economic, social and cultural level.

I'm far from an expert in this but my understanding is that the Viking raids, explorations, and settlements from the 11th-14th centuries were the result of over population in Scandinavia. Nation states as such didn't exist but the Vikings did establish self sustaining polities In Normandy, the Danelaw, Ireland, and perhaps Kiev. Most places the Vikings may have converted themselves into a parasitic rulers of conquest states but they also settled into the local population. Settlements in North America would not have been "colonies" controlled by the home country but independant farming settlements.

Iceland and Greenland did maintain some tenous ties w/Europe. There were Catholic bishops in Iceland and for a time in Greenland.

[FriendlyLocalViking]

I'm far from an expert in this but my understanding is that the Viking raids, explorations, and settlements from the 11th-14th centuries were the result of over population in Scandinavia. Nation states as such didn't exist but the Vikings did establish self sustaining polities In Normandy, the Danelaw, Ireland, and perhaps Kiev. Most places the Vikings may have converted themselves into a parasitic rulers of conquest states but they also settled into the local population. Settlements in North America would not have been "colonies" controlled by the home country but independant farming settlements.

Iceland and Greenland did maintain some tenous ties w/Europe. There were Catholic bishops in Iceland and for a time in Greenland.

The Viking proudly proclaims that we settled all the spots you mentioned and more. We sailed all the way down the Volga river, peppering the shores with trading posts.

And independent farming settlements is exactly what we did. Eriksson wasn't commissioned by the king of Denmark, he gathered willing souls and they went on their own. That's what we did. Surprisingly democratic for "hairy, smelly barbarians", eh? ;)

When a Viking king wanted troops, he didn't command his subjects to rise up and fight, he had to convince each town to send troops to help him. Same with settlements. "You guys want to sail to find Vinland and settle there? You will? Awesome. Looks like we've got three ships and a hundred people. We'll have to make do with that."

[lombas]

I'm far from an expert in this but my understanding is that the Viking raids, explorations, and settlements from the 11th-14th centuries were the result of over population in Scandinavia. Nation states as such didn't exist but the Vikings did establish self sustaining polities In Normandy, the Danelaw, Ireland, and perhaps Kiev. Most places the Vikings may have converted themselves into a parasitic rulers of conquest states but they also settled into the local population. Settlements in North America would not have been "colonies" controlled by the home country but independant farming settlements.

Iceland and Greenland did maintain some tenous ties w/Europe. There were Catholic bishops in Iceland and for a time in Greenland.

The settlements in Greenland "ceased to exist" for some time, they were later reestablished. The same would probably have happened for the settlements further to the west.

I'm not an expert (on Viking history) either but the population theory remains unproven. Why would they then raid or settle far overseas instead of in their own hinterland? Yes, they did get political influence in Normandy and Sicily but this was by military and political means, not by demographic pressure. The elite Normans who invaded England in 1066 defeated the remaining "Danelaw" influence there. So it's entirely different from founding colonies on the American continent.

In the 11th century it was simply not possible for any European nation to sustain a permanent, lucrative settlement of the American mainland. Scandinavia had a good advantage in the field of naval technology (the rest of Europe had, well, almost no ships able to cross the Atlantic - compare also that one voyage with the Scotland-Iceland-Greenland hopping), so they were able to explore.

Anyway, I would not be sure that a Viking colony in America would have been good for natives. I don't see why we should give them any moral superiority to the English and French (and especially the Spanish) visiting from the 16th century on.

[lombas]

When a Viking king wanted troops, he didn't command his subjects to rise up and fight, he had to convince each town to send troops to help him.

This smells of Scandinavian romanticism. In feudal Europe, this was the rule for all monarchs. Where there were monarchs at all, that is. Large parts were independent no-one-knows-who's-in-charge-ocracies. If you would've told Raymond of Toulouse to cut that Crusader crap for the pope and go help his Boss in Paris, he would have mocked you on the spot (and probably have you flogged too).

[FriendlyLocalViking]

This smells of Scandinavian romanticism. In feudal Europe, this was the rule for all monarchs. Where there were monarchs at all, that is. Large parts were independent no-one-knows-who's-in-charge-ocracies. If you would've told Raymond of Toulouse to cut that Crusader crap for the pope and go help his Boss in Paris, he would have mocked you on the spot (and probably have you flogged too).

The Viking does not deny that he romanticised the Vikings, but he doesn't do it to excess. I admit the Vikings were big on violence, raiding and pillaging and the slave trade.

There were elements of the Vikings that deserve admiration. The Thing, our bravery, our brilliant tactics... Not to mention the beautiful weapons we created.

[Robocommie]

There were elements of the Vikings that deserve admiration. The Thing, our bravery, our brilliant tactics... Not to mention the beautiful weapons we created.

Our? We? As a man of Norwegian descent myself, let me remind you that Harald Hardrada is dead, man. Time to move on.

[La Comédie Noire]

Capitalism would have still developed in Europe even if they didn't colonize the Americas. It probably would have done so at a much slower rate and perhaps had it's power matched by an emerging nation of united Indians.

It would have been interesting no doubt.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

There are two issues coming up here. First what would be a socialist take on cultural revivalist movements? My guess is that if someone chooses to identify with a historic, especially non or pre-western culture, such as the Vikings, that's cool. There are Celtic revivalists, there was a guy in the north of England years ago who "became" a Lakota Souix-learned the language, rituals, etc. There are African-Americans who revive elements of Ibo,or Yuruba culture. I have an Italian-American friend who identifies with Tokagawa Japan and wants to "become" a ronin. Overall this repressents an intense alienation from capitalist commodity culture and an attempyt to reclaim or design a culture for oneself. Cultures from history lack a material basis for any recreation but they may add different ways of thinking.

The comment earlier on this thread (I believe) on Silvia Federici and alternate trajectories non-western cultures could have taken, bypassing capitalism, is fascinating.

Cities of the Red Night by William Burroughs (a complex but bizarre novel) recounts the story of a Captain Mission, a Quaker pirate captain who set up a utopian socialist colony in West Africa in the 17th century. Burroughs hypothesisis what might have happened had this project been able to succeed. A vast, non-capitalist society straddling the equator rivaling the West. Probably ahistorical.

Murray Bookchin somewhere talks about different directions Europe could have taken in the 16/17th centuries.

[FriendlyLocalViking]

There are two issues coming up here. First what would be a socialist take on cultural revivalist movements? My guess is that if someone chooses to identify with a historic, especially non or pre-western culture, such as the Vikings, that's cool. There are Celtic revivalists, there was a guy in the north of England years ago who "became" a Lakota Souix-learned the language, rituals, etc. There are African-Americans who revive elements of Ibo,or Yuruba culture. I have an Italian-American friend who identifies with Tokagawa Japan and wants to "become" a ronin. Overall this repressents an intense alienation from capitalist commodity culture and an attempyt to reclaim or design a culture for oneself. Cultures from history lack a material basis for any recreation but they may add different ways of thinking.

Precisely. That's how the Viking can be both a Viking and a socialist. Norse communalism and Norse Pagan values mesh rather nicely with socialism. There's a big community/brotherhood aspect to it. If someone tries to fuck with your comrade, you will defend him to the death, no questions asked, no reward required. Even if you don't know him/her all that well, if you can recognise them as a comrade, they are just as worth fighting for as yourself.

Not to mention that Odin approves of my political views, and encourages them.

Capitalism ruins this communal attitude, encouraging people to work only for themselves, neglecting others. The Viking does not approve.

[Vanguard1917]

For materialists, it does not matter if Lenin or anyone else said it.

You were the one who falsely attributed an idea to Lenin. You bizarrely argued that Lenin thought socialism could come about without capitalism. And you failed to provide any evidence for this.



We have the evidence that advanced capitalism was not required in Russia


But capitalism was required, even if it was a capitalism which was not as advanced as it was in Western Europe. As Lenin pointed out, where industrial capitalism did exist in Russia, it was highly developed. There were industrial centres in which hundreds of thousands of workers were employed. This high concentration of labour rivalled even the most advanced capitalist countries. As a result, thought the Bolsheviks, workers in Russia were in a position to play a leading role in a socialist revolution. The Bolsheviks argued that capitalism in Russia had developed to a sufficient enough degree.

And, vitally, the Bolsheviks argued that the Russian proletariat could take power in Russia precisely because capitalism was a world system! It was precisely because of capitalism's international nature that the Bolsheviks insisted that workers could take power in a backward capitalist country like Russia. This was because, for the Bolsheviks, the success of the Russian revolution depended on the success of revolution in other countries.



Here Lenin was stating a factual analysis. He was wrong if he assumed that world capitalism had actually developed because of the [European discovery of America].


Yes, he must be, simply because you say so.

You have not provided a single bit of logical argument to back up your grand and rather eccentric revisions of Marxism.



However he and all the Bolsheviks were quite adamant in their anti-Menshevik stance, which said that capitalism had to develop in Russia before socialism can be reached.



As we saw above, they argued that capitalism had sufficiently developed in Russia for workers to be in a possition to take power. You, on the other hand, made the entirely anti-Marxist, idealist argument that socialism can somehow come about in the absence of the historical epoch of world capitalism.



Why not? That is a meaningless and contradictory statement. It is called world capitalism, but it is not present everywhere in the world!


It was called world capitalism because, as i said, it had become the world's dominant social system. (Having probs reading, brah?)

[S.Artesian]

Vanguard1917 makes the essential points, but as a point of historical accuracy, those arguments that he attributes to Lenin are actually the arguments Trotsky advanced in Results and Prospects. This is the view that Lenin took over and made his own in 1917 upon his return to Petrograd with Trostsky joining the Bolsheviks and the slogan "All Power to the Soviets" being advanced.

Comrade GB states:
For materialists, it does not matter if Lenin or anyone else said it. We have the evidence that advanced capitalism was not required in Russia or China during the Bolshevik and Maoist rule respectively for socialism to develop.Materialists would never argue that advanced capitalism was not required for socialism. What materialists would and should argue is that the apparent backwardness of Russia and China was infused with, and fused with, advanced capitalism in uneven and combined development. Materialists would argue that this uneven and combined developed was evidence that advanced capitalism as capitalism would, could, no longer develop the means of production without initiating the conflict between the means of production and relations of production, with those relations being private property.

[eyedrop]

While Viking worship has quite a few fascist connotations, Vigrid and their norse rituals e.g., FriendlyLocalViking seems to me to just be a roleplaying troll, although with a slightly amusing method, the Vikings weren't only the barbaric people they usually are depicted as.

They were a communal people with a quasi direct-democracy in their "tings". I do suspect however that the family who brought the most swords to a "ting" usually won the disputes. Their loyalties usually lied with the family/tribe they belonged to.

Plenty of other pre-capitalist farmers communities had a communal society in the past as well.

[Pavlov's House Party]

European colonialism, if it led to "world capitalism", would have created indigenous American capitalists, however in reality, it just created genocide and indigenous American dead bodies by the millions.

This is because the indigenous Natives had no means of production to produce capital with, and in North America there was not a lot of valuable commodities they could trade with as in the South. In Africa for example, contact with European slavers created some wealthy tribes with proto-capitalists who sold slaves to the Europeans. Perhaps the Aztec, Peruvian and Mayan states could have become some kind of indigenous capitalist countries, but it wasn't capitalism that saw them first: it was reactionary Spanish feudalism that crushed them. Feudalism had no need to create trading partners in the Americas, they just wanted the raw materials like gold, silver etc.

[synthesis]

Chattel slavery is not the essential relation of industrial capitalism, capital's determinant, so to speak.

That's all I was trying to say.



1. The attempts at socialism failed not because the productive forces have not been developed enough, but because the socialism cannot be achieved in isolation. One country, two countries, or even a bloc where a deformed expropriation of the bourgeoisie is confined to such limits doesn't amount to socialism. You might as well argue that no prospects for socialist revolution exist, or existed anywhere, because the productive forces were not developed enough, and we know this because the revolution did not succeed. That's a circular argument.

I think my analysis is more empirical, but to each their own.



2. The OP question quickly took the thread to the point not where WD or his ilk were bemoaning the tragic consequences of "development" on indigenous people, but were such consequences were/are endorsed and injected into a pseudo-Marxism that argues that continued dispossession and destruction of indigenous societies must occur and must continue to occur as "progress marches on," and to oppose that continued process is somehow "primitivism." Those are the issues with which you refuse to engage, preferring instead to dissemble and posture about "it's not that simple." Yes it is that simple. The socialist revolution is the product of a class recognizing its own emancipation from capitalist accumulation requires the opposition to such accumulation wherever it takes place and does not itself reproduce those methods and forms of accumulation. That's the concrete practical issue at stake, the very issue WD raised in his belligerent racism, pro-capitalist cheer-leading.


3. Do you project a "progressive" content to capitalist accumulation even today in the matter of dispossession of indigenous societies? The "developmental" content of capitalism is, and is only, in the social amplification of the productivity of labor. Social. Marx writes about social reproduction; that it is the conflict with the social reproduction of the productivity of labor, of amplifying the productivity of labor, the defines the limitation of capital. The social reproduction of the productivity of labor does not require extending capitalist destruction of indigenous cultures. Such destruction is based, not on the need for social productivity, but on the needs of private property to dispossess human beings from direct access to the means of subsistence. Socialism has no such need to dispossess indigenous people from their history, their cultures, their systems of direct production and consumption. Socialism's amplification of the social productivity of labor is a rational process, itself guided by need, and use, not ideological notions of progress and development.

There is a difference between the past and present tense.


4. Fuck off yourself, poser.

:crying:

Seriously, though, I'm not exactly big on historical atrocities myself. My central argument is that historical speculation is pointless at best.

[S.Artesian]

Seriously, though, I'm not exactly big on historical atrocities myself. My central argument is that historical speculation is pointless at best.

That's fine. I'm not big into speculation. I engaged the discussion to counter the "modernization" distortion of Marxism that finds something "progressive," no matter how tragic, but progressive nevertheless, in the dispossession and destruction of indigenous people. There is simply no need for it. And there is every need to oppose it in order to develop class consciousness, and consciousness of organizing production for need, use, rather than accumulation of value.

I think, the non-lamented departed WD to the contrary notwithstanding, socialism has much to offer indigenous peoples-- first the cessation of exchange fed civil wars that capital has fanned in Africa; secondly an end to forced dispossession for purposes of locating factories close to cheap sources of raw materials and energy; thirdly reciprocating, non-exploitative medical, and educational support with an end to the intrusion of tourism.

And that's just for starters...

[Robocommie]

That's fine. I'm not big into speculation. I engaged the discussion to counter the "modernization" distortion of Marxism that finds something "progressive," no matter how tragic, but progressive nevertheless, in the dispossession and destruction of indigenous people. There is simply no need for it. And there is every need to oppose it in order to develop class consciousness, and consciousness of organizing production for need, use, rather than accumulation of value.

I think, the non-lamented departed WD to the contrary notwithstanding, socialism has much to offer indigenous peoples-- first the cessation of exchange fed civil wars that capital has fanned in Africa; secondly an end to forced dispossession for purposes of locating factories close to cheap sources of raw materials and energy; thirdly reciprocating, non-exploitative medical, and educational support with an end to the intrusion of tourism.

And that's just for starters...

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Agnapostate]

I approached the issue based on what I expected would be utilitarian intuitions: It's preferable to not sustain tens and possibly up to a hundred million deaths and countless additional suffering than to do so. The assumptions of decelerated social and technological development so popular among white supremacists didn't seem appealing, since various Amerindian societies (primarily around Mesoamerica and the Andes), had acquired and sustained higher rates of such development than many or most European societies. The key issue would have been transmission, which might have been impeded because of geographical factors.

But I also don't know enough about the topic to speculate. It's probable that the only people that do are anthropologists and other social scientists that have studied the topic for decades, and there would still be disagreement.

[Franz Fanonipants]

The Viking proudly proclaims that we settled all the spots you mentioned and more. We sailed all the way down the Volga river, peppering the shores with trading posts.

And independent farming settlements is exactly what we did. Eriksson wasn't commissioned by the king of Denmark, he gathered willing souls and they went on their own. That's what we did. Surprisingly democratic for "hairy, smelly barbarians", eh? ;)

When a Viking king wanted troops, he didn't command his subjects to rise up and fight, he had to convince each town to send troops to help him. Same with settlements. "You guys want to sail to find Vinland and settle there? You will? Awesome. Looks like we've got three ships and a hundred people. We'll have to make do with that."

you know, guys, i like roleplaying as much as the next guy.

but really, uh...what?

[Franz Fanonipants]

There are two issues coming up here. First what would be a socialist take on cultural revivalist movements? My guess is that if someone chooses to identify with a historic, especially non or pre-western culture, such as the Vikings, that's cool. There are Celtic revivalists, there was a guy in the north of England years ago who "became" a Lakota Souix-learned the language, rituals, etc. There are African-Americans who revive elements of Ibo,or Yuruba culture. I have an Italian-American friend who identifies with Tokagawa Japan and wants to "become" a ronin. Overall this repressents an intense alienation from capitalist commodity culture and an attempyt to reclaim or design a culture for oneself. Cultures from history lack a material basis for any recreation but they may add different ways of thinking..

This is possibly (one of) the most ridiculous thing(s) I've ever read on the internet. Go home.

Being an unbearable otaku or cultural appropriationist oughta get you a badge of shame and ostracism, not a "way to defeat that capitalism!" pat on the back.

[S.Artesian]

you know, guys, i like roleplaying as much as the next guy.

but really, uh...what?


I only like role playing under the right circumstances with the right woman, or right women. Sometimes even with the wrong woman.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

This is possibly (one of) the most ridiculous thing(s) I've ever read on the internet. Go home.

Being an unbearable otaku or cultural appropriationist oughta get you a badge of shame and ostracism, not a "way to defeat that capitalism!" pat on the back.

Okay, the examples I mentioned could be seen as "lifestylist" hobbies but I was attempting to bring up a real life issue. The issue of Cornwall independence was discussed-should revolutionaries support this? Do what extent does the Cornish working class have a distinct identity from the English? Irish Gaels is not a spoken language except in remote areas of Western Ireland. Its taught in schools and traffic signs in cities are in Gaelic. There are many other examples. Is this progressive or middle class wankery?

The "national question", including that of a perceived national culture, can be a complex issue. The important thing is to foster class consciousness and working class solidarity. Having said this any project for human liberation has to have an element of creativity and play.

We are given a manufactured and manipulated culture though the corporate media, branding, viral marketing, etc.Sterile, antiseptic and with an overwhelming message to consume. Of course many subcultures also fit into this, just another pre-packaged consumerist " lifestyle". What is wrong with attempting to design one's own culture though? There are views of the steampunk sobculture-perhaps similiar to the late 19th/early 20th c. Arts and Crafts movement-as an attempt to reappropriate culture for human needs.

[Lyev]

He is a Trotskyist-Menshevik who thinks a global capitalism is required for socialism (cuz it createz a globaal wurking clazz) and thus will never agree with those who oppose capitalism or imperialism.Trotskyism and stagism are diametrically opposed you moron. I know you'll come back with the retort "but Trotsky was part of the Mensheviks", well he quit them in favour of the Bolsheviks. He then formulated the theory of permanent revolution in direct opposition to the stagist theories espoused by the Mensheviks; this being a theory, that by its very nature, entails an alliance with the "progressive national bourgeoisie". This is an alliance that all Marxists should reject, so please don't conflate the two in the name of sectarian one-up-man-ship.

[Robocommie]

Okay, the examples I mentioned could be seen as "lifestylist" hobbies but I was attempting to bring up a real life issue. The issue of Cornwall independence was discussed-should revolutionaries support this? Do what extent does the Cornish working class have a distinct identity from the English? Irish Gaels is not a spoken language except in remote areas of Western Ireland. Its taught in schools and traffic signs in cities are in Gaelic. There are many other examples. Is this progressive or middle class wankery?

It's nothing at all similar to identifying with a Scandinavian merchant-subculture that died out nearly a full millenium ago. It's not the same as Irish nationalism and attempts to undo the damage done by cultural hegemony to a still existing culture.



Having said this any project for human liberation has to have an element of creativity and play.I don't see how that's any kind of requirement. Socialist revolution doesn't require me to put on a tricorn hat and an eyepatch and say I'm a fucking pirate.



We are given a manufactured and manipulated culture though the corporate media, branding, viral marketing, etc.Sterile, antiseptic and with an overwhelming message to consume. Of course many subcultures also fit into this, just another pre-packaged consumerist " lifestyle". What is wrong with attempting to design one's own culture though? There are views of the steampunk sobculture-perhaps similiar to the late 19th/early 20th c. Arts and Crafts movement-as an attempt to reappropriate culture for human needs.Alright, well, Fanonipants said it, but I'll say it too - this is just damn silly. And aside from that, it's actually fairly offensive. Cultural appropriation is oftentimes a colonialist act - your Italian-American friend, by wanting to become a "ronin" (extremely ironic since that is defined by a lack of a feudal relationship which no longer even exists) is acting like a fairly clueless, though typical westerner (read: white person) who feels they can appropriate whatever culture they wish because they're unsatisfied with their own. And that goes double for the Englishman who "became" a Lakota - an oppressed national minority and horrendously exploited group who are desperately trying to hold on to the shards of their ethnic identity. Some years ago in fact, the Lakota Nation declared war on just that kind of bullshit, as well as on the hucksters and con-men who sell New Age medicine and Indian folk cures and pass themselves off as shaman so all those alienated white folks can try and "get back to nature."

Don't compare earnest anti-colonialist efforts with the racist appropriation of the Other.

[Across The Street]

This thread has really inspired me to pick up The Wretched of the Earth again.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I'm not expressing this well and this will probably get shot down...

First I'm utterly opposed to racist cultural appropriation-calling a team the Cleveland Indians, numerous other examples.I feel that is disgusting.Could there be a progressive appropriation of "other" cultures though? Virtually all American pop music for the past 50 years, or the past 100 years, is cultural appropriation. There's nothing wrong with this. The tragedy is that musicians -Scott Joplin and many many others did not get recognition, in their lifetime or after. Where do you draw the line in cultural appropriation? I don't know, myself.

My friend who "wanted to be a ronin", actually that was a stage he went though in high school. This led to a later intense interest in Japanese culture and history. There are large numbers of Japanese people who have an interest in American kitsch, for better or worse.

The Englishman who "became" a Lakota,I'm trying to find info but my understanding is that his interest was far from new age cultural slumming. He had an intense interest in the culture, learned the language and was an indigenous rights activist .This might have been racist cultural appropriation, I don't know. Many, maybe most Native American tribes based membership not on "race" or "genetics" but on culture. White people became Natives. In fact this was more common than the other way around. I know there's a big difference between this and new age slumming.



It's nothing at all similar to identifying with a Scandinavian merchant-subculture that died out nearly a full millenium ago. It's not the same as Irish nationalism and attempts to undo the damage done by cultural hegemony to a still existing culture.

I don't see how that's any kind of requirement. Socialist revolution doesn't require me to put on a tricorn hat and an eyepatch and say I'm a fucking pirate.

The aspect of "fun" has to be part of any revolutionary project. We want to liberate humanity from the tyranny of wage slavery and recover what it means to be human.Marx & Engels played parlour games. Marx went on drinking binges w/Liebnecht, Lenin played practical jokes on the Bolshevik CC. "If I can't dance I don't want to be in your revolution"-Aunt Emma. I'm not an anarchist but some of their take on this is spot on.


Alright, well, Fanonipants said it, but I'll say it too - this is just damn silly. And aside from that, it's actually fairly offensive. Cultural appropriation is oftentimes a colonialist act - your Italian-American friend, by wanting to become a "ronin" (extremely ironic since that is defined by a lack of a feudal relationship which no longer even exists) is acting like a fairly clueless, though typical westerner (read: white person) who feels they can appropriate whatever culture they wish because they're unsatisfied with their own. And that goes double for the Englishman who "became" a Lakota - an oppressed national minority and horrendously exploited group who are desperately trying to hold on to the shards of their ethnic identity. Some years ago in fact, the Lakota Nation declared war on just that kind of bullshit, as well as on the hucksters and con-men who sell New Age medicine and Indian folk cures and pass themselves off as shaman so all those alienated white folks can try and "get back to nature."

Don't compare earnest anti-colonialist efforts with the racist appropriation of the Other.

What I meant to ask is, in the case of Celtic revivalism, to what extent is this progressive and to what extent could it be seen as a compromise w/bourgoise nationalism? I don't know myself, I thought it would be worth discussing.

A poster calling himself "The Viking" is silly, it distracts from serious discussion, but its more of a harmless eccentricity.

There is a band from the DC area, "Debu". They became Indonesian. They moved to Indonesia, learned the language, tour the country, and have a career based strictly in that country. They are popular in Indonesia and, as far as I know, are not regarded as cultural imperialists. They take from the culture but give back also. There path wouldn't be for me, but it could be legititimate.

The problem is many First World people, especially Americans, don't have a culture. I am American but do not identify w/the US and I abhor much of its "culture". I often feel like a character in the later Tarkovsky films. I hate the US.I don't have a "people" or a "tribe". Is it wrong to find one or make one up? What would you suggest as an alternative?

As for Fran Fanon, there is a story that he "converted" to a form of Sufiism in Algeria. He certainly joined a culture which wasn't his and participated in their struggle.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

When I was at university, I had a psychology professor who was Italian-American. He didn't speak Italian and had never been to Italy. He finally went to the "old country" in his early 30s. He said he had an epiphany of sorts, "They're my people". He had an intense identification with people whom he could barely converse with. This may be the result of subtle family memes-personal space, interaction, etc. I had a therapist who was English. She had the same feeling when she visited the UK. Recently I've come across other people of different "ethnicities" who've had similiar experiences.

Could there be a human need to recreate an ancestral culture?

[Agnapostate]

A manufactured one. Not many people are devoted to finding their Pictish roots.

[Across The Street]

I think there is a need for people to recreate ancestral culture. It has been said that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it and I agree with this. We must look at our past cultures and figure out how they are relevant to us now. We definitely lose an inconceivable amount of knowledge at the very least in letting languages and cultures die.

Lenina, you said you hate the U.S. and wonder if it is wrong to make up or take on another culture, and I don't think it is. I wouldn't suggest inventing your own culture, but I suppose it can be done. I feel that bloodlines are pretty important, so I would say to research on what your own ancestral culture was like and firstly figure out if you even relate to it.

[lombas]

When I was at university, I had a psychology professor who was Italian-American. He didn't speak Italian and had never been to Italy. He finally went to the "old country" in his early 30s. He said he had an epiphany of sorts, "They're my people". He had an intense identification with people whom he could barely converse with. This may be the result of subtle family memes-personal space, interaction, etc. I had a therapist who was English. She had the same feeling when she visited the UK. Recently I've come across other people of different "ethnicities" who've had similiar experiences.

Could there be a human need to recreate an ancestral culture?

My ancestors were brickmakers from the Rupelstreek (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupelstreek). I can trace them back to the late 16th century (they were master brickmakers, an important profession, hence the ability to trace them before parish registers were enforced). Even my father was born there back in the thirties.

I once visited the region, and it didn't give me a thrill.

However, once, I landed in Johannesburg and felt an immediate connection to South Africa.

So, I've got absolutely nothing to do with South Africa, but I feel more at ease there than in the place 400 years of ancestors come from. Even Spain feels more of a motherland than that region. Where does this leave me?

I don't believe in all that reenactment-belief. It's unhistorical, unscientific - it's a hobby. It's for people who's ambition is to show their supposed Roman Martial Arts Warrior skills on Discovery HD. I don't believe there is a mystical connection to your roots.

It's your life. It's your choice. Cultures are dynamic, not static, and what you wish to take, you take. You're under no obligation whatsoever to follow the "strict rules" certain cultures "enforce". Before you know it, you're in Japan and you let your baby scream the loudest because, hell, haven't we always been doing that?

Also interesting: Invention of Tradition, Hobsbawm.

Ow yeah: real Scots wear trousers.

[Robocommie]

When I was at university, I had a psychology professor who was Italian-American. He didn't speak Italian and had never been to Italy. He finally went to the "old country" in his early 30s. He said he had an epiphany of sorts, "They're my people". He had an intense identification with people whom he could barely converse with. This may be the result of subtle family memes-personal space, interaction, etc. I had a therapist who was English. She had the same feeling when she visited the UK. Recently I've come across other people of different "ethnicities" who've had similiar experiences.

Could there be a human need to recreate an ancestral culture?

Listen, I feel the same kind of connection to my German ancestry. Similar to lombas, we've traced my family in Bavaria back to the 16th century, and that means something at least to me, because as an aspiring historian and a history buff, the past to me is sacred. I've always been interested in hearing stories about my dad's life, and my grandfather's life, to me the story of my entire ancestral line is just a continuation of that. I like knowing how the threads of history have come down through centuries and put me in the place I'm at.

It's not ethnic culture or identifying with ethnic culture that I'm opposed to, normally I actually get frustrated by folks who dismiss their roots as totally meaningless. I don't think there's anything wrong with ethnic pride as long as you don't let it become ethnic chauvinism.

But there really is a difference between that and recreating what Agnapostate called a manufactured culture. Wanting to be a ronin or a gallowglass or a Viking or something like that, in this modern day world, is just geek escapist fantasy.

[Franz Fanonipants]

What is wrong with attempting to design one's own culture though?

It legitimizes being an unbearable nerd.

I mean, technically, everyone creates their own culture. I certainly exist as a weird blend of Northern Mexican/US culture, but creating your own culture? It's like giving yourself your own nickname.

And basing it on a marginally oppressed or colonized group? It's like giving yourself your own racist nickname.

[Robocommie]

It legitimizes being an unbearable nerd.

I mean, technically, everyone creates their own culture. I certainly exist as a weird blend of Northern Mexican/US culture, but creating your own culture? It's like giving yourself your own nickname.

And basing it on a marginally oppressed or colonized group? It's like giving yourself your own racist nickname.

I hate you for putting this more concisely than me. But well done.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I hate you for putting this more concisely than me. But well done.

:thumbup1:

now gtfo

[Vanguard1917]

Do you deny that the Mensheviks like yourself support capitalist accumulation today (forget about your genocidal fetishes of the past, which we can do nothing about) so that we can have socialism?

You've lost me, among other things (the plot, the argument, etc.). I'm just reading insults now.



I did not say that.


Really? So you now agree with me (and Marx and Engels and Luxemburg and Lenin and the Bolsheviks) that the epoch of world capitalism was necessary for the possibility of workers' rule?

I ask because, previously, you explicitly rejected such a notion: 'there is no need for capitalism to "create the conditions'" for socialism', you said.


It had become the dominant system only to Europe. The rest of the world only served as colonies.

Oh right -- so capitalism did not operate in America post-colonisation? It had some other mysterious economic system of production and exploitation?


According to you, it seems all of the people of colonized countries are subhumans who deserved no human rights under the bourgeois rule.

Entirely true. That's exactly what i've been arguing all along, of course.

[chegitz guevara]

Man.

You're white. You should probably get the fuck out of the "SO WHAT ABOUT YOUR HERITAGE!" tip.

Yeah, cuz us Italian-Americans have absolutely no fucking clue what culture's about or what it's like to be stereotyped and discriminated against.

[Vanguard1917]

I'm not an idealist. I don't it matters what I think was necessary or not historically. It just happened and noone can change the past, not treehuggers or environmentalists or Third Worldists. Do you think your "heroic" defenses of past colonialism matter by quoting large passages of Lenin and Luxemburg is going to change history?

I honestly do not have the slightest inkling of what you're saying here.



Let me put it this way from a historical materialist viewpoint. It was genocidal settler colonialism from the perspective of the oppressed indigenous population. From the perspective of the white settlers, it was capitalism.


:confused:

So the colonialism that was taking place was not a feature of the rise of capitalism?



What else have you been arguing?


This: the European discovery of America was a pivotal event in the birth of the historical epoch of capitalism.

[S.Artesian]

Trotskyism and stagism are diametrically opposed you moron. I know you'll come back with the retort "but Trotsky was part of the Mensheviks", well he quit them in favour of the Bolsheviks. He then formulated the theory of permanent revolution in direct opposition to the stagist theories espoused by the Mensheviks; this being a theory, that by its very nature, entails an alliance with the "progressive national bourgeoisie". This is an alliance that all Marxists should reject, so please don't conflate the two in the name of sectarian one-up-man-ship.

Actually the theory of permanent revolution precedes Trotsky's entry into the Bolsheviks.

[Vanguard1917]

VG1917, you are one of those first world chauvinists who oppose the present day national liberation of the oppressed nationalities .


according to you, neocolonialism and imperialism is necessary today to create a global working class.


You have been consistently arguing for the need for capitalist neocolonialism today to create a global working class with your chauvinist tirades against the Third World anti-imperialist movements

Either present evidence for these claims, or at least show a bit of honestly (if nothing else) by not making them.

[Vanguard1917]

Please. Anyone can look at the posts made by you in nearly every thread about "environmentalism" or colonialism in America.

In others words, you can't provide any evidence.

Pretty low.

[synthesis]

That's fine. I'm not big into speculation. I engaged the discussion to counter the "modernization" distortion of Marxism that finds something "progressive," no matter how tragic, but progressive nevertheless, in the dispossession and destruction of indigenous people. There is simply no need for it. And there is every need to oppose it in order to develop class consciousness, and consciousness of organizing production for need, use, rather than accumulation of value.

I think, the non-lamented departed WD to the contrary notwithstanding, socialism has much to offer indigenous peoples-- first the cessation of exchange fed civil wars that capital has fanned in Africa; secondly an end to forced dispossession for purposes of locating factories close to cheap sources of raw materials and energy; thirdly reciprocating, non-exploitative medical, and educational support with an end to the intrusion of tourism.

And that's just for starters...

If the thread had been titled, "Would the Americas be better off without genocide?" then the answer would have been a little more obvious. But it wasn't. Once again, there is a massive gap, to say the least, between supporting something in the present and placing its past occurrences in the broader context of global capitalism.

[Barry Lyndon]

VG1917, you are one of those first world chauvinists who oppose the present day national liberation of the oppressed nationalities including the indigenous Americans because according to you, neocolonialism and imperialism is necessary today to create a global working class. Don't try to wiggle out of your own bullshit. You have been consistently arguing for the need for capitalist neocolonialism today to create a global working class with your chauvinist tirades against the Third World anti-imperialist movements. You lump them together with the imperialist NGO's and liberal treehuggers. I think even Trotsky would probably oppose your opposition to anti-imperialism.

Not probably.

"The coercive imperialism of advanced nations is able to exist only because backward nations, oppressed nationalities, colonial and semicolonial countries, remain on our planet. The struggle of the oppressed peoples for national unification and national independence is doubly progressive because, on the one side, this prepares more favorable conditions for their own development, while, on the other side, this deals blows to imperialism. That, in particular, is the reason why, in the struggle between a civilized, imperialist, democratic republic and a backward, barbaric monarchy in a colonial country, the socialists are completely on the side of the oppressed country notwithstanding its monarchy and against the oppressor country notwithstanding its 'democracy.' "-Leon Trotsky, Lenin on Imperialism, 1939.

[Pavlov's House Party]

VG1917, you are one of those first world chauvinists who oppose the present day national liberation of the oppressed nationalities including the indigenous Americans because according to you, neocolonialism and imperialism is necessary today to create a global working class. Don't try to wiggle out of your own bullshit. You have been consistently arguing for the need for capitalist neocolonialism today to create a global working class with your chauvinist tirades against the Third World anti-imperialist movements. You lump them together with the imperialist NGO's and liberal treehuggers. I think even Trotsky would probably oppose your opposition to anti-imperialism.

Really? Your arguments have boiled down to pathetic ad-hominems, and you consistently refuse to take materialist arguments in context but instead distort them. Your position is an opportunist distortion of Marxist analysis that borderlines ultra-leftism. Never once have I seen someone in this thread advocate neo-colonialism, and it has only been stated that capitalist development laid the conditions for socialism to develop, as has been evidenced by excerpts from historical materialists such as Marx, Lenin and Luxemburg.

[Dimentio]

If Europe never had discovered the American continents, all other factors similar, then we could easily assume that the Russians would have discovered it like 200-300 years after, as Russian expansion into Siberia was a factor independent of western European expeditions. The peoples of eastern Siberia knew about Alaska and frequently travelled over the islands there.

The Russians had most likely slowly but steadily rolled down both continents. The United States would most likely have been a Russian-Orthodox Principality under the rule of a tsar.

It would probably have been a lot better for the Native Americans if they had been colonised by Russia instead of the Spaniards and the English. The Russian treatment of the native peoples of Siberia has always been one of assimilating themselves into the local cultures and then merge them, rather than extermination.

[Agnapostate]

There was Russian exploration and expansion into the Arctic and then down the West Coast. They eventually left when they encountered excessive resistance. That was also the factor that prevented them from conquering the Chukchi and other Siberians.

[Dimentio]

There was Russian exploration and expansion into the Arctic and then down the West Coast. They eventually left when they encountered excessive resistance. That was also the factor that prevented them from conquering the Chukchi and other Siberians.

Yup, but they eventually assimilated the Siberians. The attitude of the Russians against native nations which resisted them was largely one of "well, just establish a settlement on the other side of the river then".