An article about India...

[Toppler]

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/india-is-a-shithole/

Unfortunately, except for the "British colonialism was good and india was a shithole before the British too" bit, every word of this article is true.

Some more good articles from this blog:

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/12/25/the-real-reason-for-the-shining-path/

Why it is absurd and hypocritical to say that communism "failed" and that it is "evil" and "killed more people than any other system".

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/free-market-starvation/

About the nutritional status of capitalist 3rd world countries.

[Mr.Awesome]

Interesting articles. Not that much new tbh but its completely true. Will send to all my non-leftist friends :)

[Sir Comradical]

Funny, before the British colonised India, Bengal's industries produced and exported the finest textiles all over the world and the industrial centres of Calcutta and Dhaka were some of the richest places in the world, but today Calcutta and Bangladesh are symbols of poverty.

[Toppler]

Funny, before the British colonised India, Bengal's industries produced and exported the finest textiles all over the world and the industrial centres of Calcutta and Dhaka were some of the richest places in the world, but today Calcutta and Bangladesh are symbols of poverty.

I've read something like that too on another site. And as I say, I strongly disagree with the author's conclusion that India was always a shithole, but his view of modern India is however unfortunately absolutely true.

[Sir Comradical]

I've read something like that too on another site. And as I say, I strongly disagree with the author's conclusion that India was always a shithole, but his view of modern India is however unfortunately absolutely true.

Well it's not controversial to say that India developed industrially during the British Raj, however historians like William Dalrymple agree that India would have undergone industrial development on its own anyway. What prevented this from happening was that no indigenous empire in India had reunified the subcontinent by the mid-1700s which allowed the British the opportunity to wedge their way in.

[Toppler]

Actually, no. GDP per capita of India was declining for 200 years under British. The life expectancy declined, achieving 23 years in 1920s. Literacy was 8 percent ... seriously, what the UK did to India was worse than what Japanese did to China in the 1930s and 1940s and Nazis to the Europe during WW 2.

[Sir Comradical]

Actually, no. GDP per capita of India was declining for 200 years under British. The life expectancy declined, achieving 23 years in 1920s. Literacy was 8 percent ... seriously, what the UK did to India was worse than what Japanese did to China in the 1930s and 1940s and Nazis to the Europe during WW 2.

Well yes, both are true. India developed industrially but all the wealth was siphoned off to London - hence your statistics.

[red cat]

This industrial development was created to serve a purpose different from what it did in Europe or America; it was structurally designed to aid in the imperialist plunder of India's resources.

[Toppler]

This industrial development was created to serve a purpose different from what it did in Europe or America; it was structurally designed to aid in the imperialist plunder of India's resources.

In effect, it industrially developed the UK, not India. India is not an industrial country unless you take a lot of potent, hallucinogenic drugs.

This is the "biggest democracy on Earth":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFn_oYgfDsc&feature=player_embedded

[Tommy4ever]

Both India and China had extensive manufacturing sectors by the start of the 18th century. The de-industrialisation of these countries did not happen due to them being plundered by the European, it occured because their industries were made obsolete by technological advances in European (specifically British) industry - when the Europeans backed up their economic dominance with arms these countries were forced to leave their markets open. The native industry was unable to compete and collapsed.

A shocking stat about Indian relative economic importance is this:

When the British first arrived in India the country controlled 23% of the world's wealth. When the British left India and Pakistan held 3% of the world's wealth.

[Toppler]

Anyways when I read about the shocking economical and hygiene conditions in India and more so when I see the horrific squalor I think this guy would've loved India:

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Nurgle

Pakistan and Bangladesh are even more worse off. I seriously have solidarity with the people there. The only reason why the South Asia is not classified as the poorest part of the world is the 300 million people strong middle class in India. The other people live in squalor bad even by Sub-Saharan African standards, Compare the 28 percent child malnutrition rate in Africa to 45 percent of children under 5 being malnourished in India, 48 percent in Bangladesh and cca 62 percent in Pakistan. It truly sucks.

[red cat]

In effect, it industrially developed the UK, not India. India is not an industrial country unless you take a lot of potent, hallucinogenic drugs.

This is the "biggest democracy on Earth":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFn_oYgfDsc&feature=player_embedded

I agree. The natural bourgeois development of India was stopped by imperialism. The socio-economic system in India now is semi feudal - semi colonial, making it unable to match the levels of industrialization in capitalist countries.

[Hit The North]

India is not an industrial country unless you take a lot of potent, hallucinogenic drugs.


It's not predominantly industrial but it contains pockets of immense industrialization. You don't need hallucinogenics, just an appreciation of the law of combined but uneven development.


Well it's not controversial to say that India developed industrially during the British Raj,

I agree with Toppler, when he argues that Britain's relationship with India aided British industrialisation, not India's.


however historians like William Dalrymple agree that India would have undergone industrial development on its own anyway.No nation, not even 18th century England, industrializes on its own. So whatever these bourgeois historians agree on, it must be some ahistorical abstraction someone's cooked up in the academy.


I agree. The natural bourgeois development of India was stopped by imperialism. The socio-economic system in India now is semi feudal - semi colonial, making it unable to match the levels of industrialization in capitalist countries.

There is no such thing as "natural bourgeois development". More abstraction.

[red cat]

There is no such thing as "natural bourgeois development". More abstraction.

I was referring to the gradual growth of small businesses into big ones, unaltered by foreign intervention. The kind of bourgeois development that took place in Britain or France, for example.

[Sir Comradical]

I agree with Toppler, when he argues that Britain's relationship with India aided British industrialisation, not India's.

Take the Indian Railways for example. Most of it was built during the British Raj but not to benefit Indians, rather to siphon India's wealth to Britain.


No nation, not even 18th century England, industrializes on its own. So whatever these bourgeois historians agree on, it must be some ahistorical abstraction someone's cooked up in the academy.

India would have industrialised even if the British didn't seize power. I'll take it further - India would have industrialised completely had the British never seized power.

[Tablo]

No nation, not even 18th century England, industrializes on its own. So whatever these bourgeois historians agree on, it must be some ahistorical abstraction someone's cooked up in the academy.
My history professor claimed the only two nations to industrialize on their own were England and the Soviet Union. I think it matters how you define "on their own". Even England needed outside raw materials and investment to support its industrialization. I think it is debatable.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

My history professor claimed the only two nations to industrialize on their own were England and the Soviet Union. I think it matters how you define "on their own". Even England needed outside raw materials and investment to support its industrialization. I think it is debatable.

What about the USA? Or is America's industrialization seen as too involved in Great Britain's?



India would have industrialised even if the British didn't seize power. I'll take it further - India would have industrialised completely had the British never seized power.

It also could have been anywhere from one to more than twenty different countries. Compared to French colonialism of Africa or Spanish colonialism of Latin America, the British were quite nice in India. Also, compared to other Imperialists in India, like the Mughals or the Portugese (in Goa), they weren't so bad either. But that's like saying chemical weapons are less deadly than nuclear weapons; British Colonialism was still damn rotten. They were only nice insofar as they did not want to offend local cultural sensibilities and relied on local elites such as Rajas and Zamindars to oppress the local Indians so they didn't have to (they found out it wasn't profitable after they incited the great Indian Insurrection of the 1850s). They did unite the country and provide it with a common civil culture. However, they also did a lot to retard the development of India, and left most Indians poor by independence. There were routine famines which were just as bad as any famine during Stalin's collectivization drive, thanks to British "Free Trade" policies which took rice out of India while Indians were starving to death.

It should also be noted that the richest man in the world in the 1940s was the Nizam of Hyderabad, who had $2 billion in wealth (in 1940s dollars, that is a lot, according to Wiki 2% of the US GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osman_Ali_Khan,_Asaf_Jah_VII). UK Imperialism would have not worked in India without the complicity, even the assistance, of powerful feudal local elites and lords, who were used to the feudal system and therefore were more than happy to serve Empress Queen Victoria as a vassal for a cut of the profit


India and Pakistan are far more feudal than many people give them credit for, in part because there is a bourgeoise culture and industrialization in certain areas. But I don't know if they're the dominant force in the economy yet. For instance, the Gangetic plains, the most populous part of India, have very little Capital compared to places like Gujarat.

Which brings me to a response to Bob-I remember artesian arguing that, but I'm not sure India's even reached that point yet. The periphery of India is the only Capitalized areas, the heartland is pretty much a rural feudalism. The closest thing to Capitalism are cellphone companies, grain traders and village usury. And industry is often controlled by clans and rent-seeking bureaucrats. Even the private Capital is still emerging from old forms of family and clan businesses (see the Reliance corporation, one of India's biggest, with its limitless squabbles between the brothers over ownership of the company, or the Tatas)

When I think of "uneven development", I think of Russia in the 1910s or Mexico or and Brazil today, where there are elements of feudalism but more in the periphery. India seems to be much farther behind, where Capital has still only penetrated a few limited sectors of society.

[Tablo]

What about the USA? Or is America's industrialization seen as too involved in Great Britain's?
Yeah, the American industrialization is seen as being done largely through and by the British. I'm not sure what means my professor was using to determine this. Would ask him if he were still my professor.

[Hit The North]

India would have industrialised even if the British didn't seize power. I'll take it further - India would have industrialised completely had the British never seized power.

Says who? Are you suggesting that industrailisation is some kind of inevitable stage in human social development which all societies, left to their own devices, will pass through?

As has already been pointed out in this thread, both India and China had larger, more advanced economies, with more integrated markets, than Europe possessed for a thousand years before capitalism took hold in England. So why didn't they develop their own capitalist societies, before England, the Netherlands, Germany and France?


Originally posted by Tsukae
Yeah, the American industrialization is seen as being done largely through and by the British. I'm not sure what means my professor was using to determine this. Would ask him if he were still my professor.

Well this is arrant nonsense, given that American Independence occurred in 1776, at a time when the British industrial revolution had barely took hold in England, Scotland and Wales. The truth is that industrialisation in the USA took place under the guidance of American capital.

[Tablo]

Well this is arrant nonsense, given that American Independence occurred in 1776, at a time when the British industrial revolution had barely took hold in England, Scotland and Wales. The truth is that industrialisation in the USA took place under the guidance of American capital.
With British technology and still some investment from the British bourgeoisie as well as additional raw material from all over the world. I don't know the logic my professor was using. As far as I can tell no nation really industrialized completely on their own.

[red cat]

Says who? Are you suggesting that industrailisation is some kind of inevitable stage in human social development which all societies, left to their own devices, will pass through?

There is enough evidence to indicate that. When British imperialism entered India, many industries, specially the garments industry, were highly developed. Big merchants use to have monopolies for buying products from whole villages of weavers. Some groups of merchants were rapidly increasing their political power to the extent of becoming a threat to the monarchy. British imperialism entered India, destroyed these industries by barbaric methods such as chopping off the thumbs of the artisans, won over a part of the merchants and monarchy and used them to plunder the country and halt its economic development.


As has already been pointed out in this thread, both India and China had larger, more advanced economies, with more integrated markets, than Europe possessed for a thousand years before capitalism took hold in England. So why didn't they develop their own capitalist societies, before England, the Netherlands, Germany and France?

The economies of the USA or UK are much more advanced than that of India. Why aren't the masses there rising up in arms against the ruling classes and establishing people's democracies there right now ?

[Hit The North]

There is enough evidence to indicate that.


The premise that all societies, free to develop "naturally", will eventually industrialise, is mere abstraction as no process of capitalist industrial development can happen in isolation of the world markets.

You need to check your teleological and mechanical 2nd International materialism at the door.


The economies of the USA or UK are much more advanced than that of India.


This is not in dispute.


Why aren't the masses there rising up in arms against the ruling classes and establishing people's democracies there right now ?

This is irrelevant and beside the point, but more evidence of your mechanical materialism.

[red cat]

The premise that all societies, free to develop "naturally", will eventually industrialise, is mere abstraction as no process of capitalist industrial development can happen in isolation of the world markets.

May be so, may be not, but the nature of interaction of a society with others definitely determines to varying extents whether it can undergo capitalist development or not. My previous example clearly shows that the tell-tale signs of emerging capitalism were present in the Indian society prior to imperialist invasion, and that the natural course of development was forcefully altered by imperialism. India was never isolated from the world market, but the loss of political freedom to imperialist powers destroyed its ability to complete its bourgeois development.



You need to check your teleological and mechanical 2nd International materialism at the door.

This is not in dispute.

This is irrelevant and beside the point, but more evidence of your mechanical materialism.

It is very much relevant, because if you use the fact India was not able to develop its capitalist society before western Europe to claim that it would never be capitalist even if it hadn't been colonized, then the same logic can be used to claim that the western European masses will never rise in armed struggle in order to overthrow capitalism, since they are not doing it right now.

[pranabjyoti]

There is enough evidence to indicate that. When British imperialism entered India, many industries, specially the garments industry, were highly developed. Big merchants use to have monopolies for buying products from whole villages of weavers. Some groups of merchants were rapidly increasing their political power to the extent of becoming a threat to the monarchy. British imperialism entered India, destroyed these industries by barbaric methods such as chopping off the thumbs of the artisans, won over a part of the merchants and monarchy and used them to plunder the country and halt its economic development.
Sorry, I disagree with comrade Red Cat in this point. India and China were examples that how much technology can develop within the limit of feudalism. Probably there were seeds of capitalism flourishing in stray areas, but THAT DOESN'T MEAN INDIA WILL BECOME A CAPITALIST STATE WITHOUT IMPERIALIST INTERVENTION.
British cloth entered market and overwhelmed Indian weavers because it was produced with machinery and therefore it can be sold at market at far cheaper cost. While Indian weavers were weaving with hand and that just can not compete with machineloom. I myself have heard the chopping of fingers of weavers and it's a fact that British colonists had done many unimaginable atrocities (some even worse than Nazi's) to Indian people. But, history was in favor of Britain as they were technologically advanced. I have doubt that how long a FREE India will take to build its own railway and whether we will see the modern Indian state or some small Balkan like countries in the subcontinent without the British rule.
It's a fact of history that it favors different geographical areas in different social period. During the feudal times, Asia was more technologically advanced than Europe in every aspect and at that time, literally Europe was just like an appendage to big Asia. But, this advancement become its cause of backwardness in later phase when capitalism began to flourish. As Europe was comparatively backward in feudal era, it had some open ground there and flourished.
Following the same trail, socialism wouldn't flourish in capitalist Europe but rather on undeveloped countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think Pranabjyoti and Bob are correct about the development of industry and capitalism. What you are identifying as "Industry" was the kind of guild manufacture that Marx mentions as proto-Capitalism. Europe invented one technological model and economic model, industrialization, to develop that.

Bob-on the development of US industry, I think you can make the case that a lot of it was very deeply dependent on trade with the UK and industry in Britain, IE the American cotton industry (which sold tons of cotton to the UK), or the American arms industry which benefitted by profiting off of Britain's needs. I don't know though, that's just my guess.


It is very much relevant, because if you use the fact India was not able to develop its capitalist society before western Europe to claim that it would never be capitalist even if it hadn't been colonized, then the same logic can be used to claim that the western European masses will never rise in armed struggle in order to overthrow capitalism, since they are not doing it right now.

The bigger issue is the general linearity in your thought. It presumes that there is a single generalized pattern of development, and that India was in a certain stage of that when the British created the Raj. The difference is between the two arguments:
Feudalism needs to lead to Capitalism to "progress"
Feudalism can develop into Capitalism in certain historical circumstances

[Hit The North]

May be so, may be not, but the nature of interaction of a society with others definitely determines to varying extents whether it can undergo capitalist development or not.

Of course. I wouldn't disagree with you, in fact I insist on it.


My previous example clearly shows that the tell-tale signs of emerging capitalism were present in the Indian society prior to imperialist invasion, and that the natural course of development was forcefully altered by imperialism. India was never isolated from the world market, but the loss of political freedom to imperialist powers destroyed its ability to complete its bourgeois development.All good, but I have a problem with your notion of "natural development". It is a meaningless abstraction. Capitalism does not spring from a gradual incremental growth in means of production and exchange, like some new life-form emerging from the accretion of bacteria. There is no natural development in human history. There is war, exploitation, class struggle, revolution and, not least of all, contingency.


It is very much relevant, because if you use the fact India was not able to develop its capitalist society before western Europe to claim that it would never be capitalist even if it hadn't been colonized, then the same logic can be used to claim that the western European masses will never rise in armed struggle in order to overthrow capitalism, since they are not doing it right now.I've never claimed the above. I've taken exception to your teleological reading of social development. What I would say is that Britain, as a capitalist and imperialist power did colonise India and it is through this that India was brought into the new world system that emerged in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. There's no point in speculating what would have happened if this hadn't taken place because it did take place.

[Queercommie Girl]

Bob the Builder,

Have you read Chris Harman's great book A People's History of the World?

Chris Harman is a comrade (who passed away in late 2009) who is actually a member of your party. (SWP) In this book he is more on red cat's side than yours, because he thinks the invasion and conquest of Asia by Western imperialism did hold back the natural capitalist development in countries like China, India and the Islamic countries of the Middle East.

[Hit The North]

Bob-on the development of US industry, I think you can make the case that a lot of it was very deeply dependent on trade with the UK and industry in Britain, IE the American cotton industry (which sold tons of cotton to the UK), or the American arms industry which benefitted by profiting off of Britain's needs. I don't know though, that's just my guess.


Whatever the historical details, you are right that industrialisation does not take place in a vacuum. Industrialisation in Britain was dependent on finance from the Dutch, the extraction of raw materials from the Empire, etc.

Also I'd argue that the US had access to vast swathes of cheap land and the resources below it; as well as waves of large scale immigration to provide the expansion of labour power required to launch and maintain an industrial revolution.

As for red_cat, I guess that if you are willing to argue that socialism can be built in one country, then it makes sense to argue that capitalism can too.

[Hit The North]

Bob the Builder,

Have you read Chris Harman's great book A People's History of the World?

Chris Harman is a comrade (who passed away in late 2009) who is actually a member of your party. (SWP) In this book he is more on red cat's side than yours, because he thinks the invasion and conquest of Asia by Western imperialism did hold back the natural capitalist development in countries like China, India and the Islamic countries of the Middle East.

I am, of course, aware of Chris' book and his wider work. I have the book but confess not to have read that far in. However, if this is his argument then I think he's guilty of teleological abstraction as well.

[Queercommie Girl]

I am, of course, aware of Chris' book and his wider work. I have the book but confess not to have read that far in. However, if this is his argument then I think he's guilty of teleological abstraction as well.

But Chris Harman clearly demonstrates empirical historical evidence to show the development of proto-capitalism in China from the late Ming Dynasty onwards in his book, so it's definitely not a "teleological abstraction" at all.

He also shows empirically how in China, the Manchu feudal army backed by Western money and guns destroyed the Chinese Taiping Rebellion and the early attempt to construct a modern capitalist system in the country in the 19th century. 100,000 people were massacred by the Manchu army and their Western allies when the Taiping capital at Nanjing was sacked. This is a graphical demonstration of how one of the early attempts at capitalist reforms was destroyed by reactionary forces. "Teleological" and "abstract"? I really don't think so. What can be more empirical than 100,000 people being massacred?

[Hit The North]

I'd be the last one to throw doubt on the empirical veracity of Chris' work, but if he chooses to use terms like "natural development " (as you claim he does) in the manner employed by Red Cat, then I'll maintain my criticism. What's teleological is an insistence that, all things being equal, capitalism will emerge inevitably in human history. And the problem with that is it cannot account for why capitalism first flourished in the relative backwaters of Northern Europe when it did instead of the more advanced Asian societies at some other time.

Meanwhile, I'm not disputing the notion of "proto-capitalism" existing in non-capitalist modes of production (it existed in the late Roman empire as well), but this is not the same as capitalism, which is a set of dominant social relations that can only be established through power, domination and expropriation - in other words as a result of class struggles and not through some teleological unfolding of economic development.

I doubt this is Chris Harman's position either, but I stand to be corrected.

[Queercommie Girl]

And the problem with that is it cannot account for why capitalism first flourished in the relative backwaters of Northern Europe when it did instead of the more advanced Asian societies at some other time.


The explanation for this is quite simple actually. Consider projecting Lenin's "weakest link" theory backwards in human history in an universal sense.

Slavery broke at its weakest link first - Shang Dynasty China;

Feudalism broke at its weakest link first - Western Europe.

[red cat]

Of course. I wouldn't disagree with you, in fact I insist on it.

All good, but I have a problem with your notion of "natural development". It is a meaningless abstraction. Capitalism does not spring from a gradual incremental growth in means of production and exchange, like some new life-form emerging from the accretion of bacteria. There is no natural development in human history. There is war, exploitation, class struggle, revolution and, not least of all, contingency.

By "natural" development of a country, I mean development caused by all such factors without major external influence such as colonization. Given that no external factor devastates a country like that, its natural development, inclusive of class struggle etc. is quite predictable over a long period of time.


I've never claimed the above. I've taken exception to your teleological reading of social development. What I would say is that Britain, as a capitalist and imperialist power did colonise India and it is through this that India was brought into the new world system that emerged in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. Given all the evidence that I have already provided, denying that India would emerge as a capitalist power had not Britain and other imperialist powers colonized it, is just ridiculous.


There's no point in speculating what would have happened if this hadn't taken place because it did take place.No, this evaluation is very necessary, because otherwise the extreme reactionary concept of European powers developing India, or advancing the Indian economy or in more crude terms, "civlizing" Indians, is promoted.

[red cat]

Sorry, I disagree with comrade Red Cat in this point. India and China were examples that how much technology can develop within the limit of feudalism. Probably there were seeds of capitalism flourishing in stray areas, but THAT DOESN'T MEAN INDIA WILL BECOME A CAPITALIST STATE WITHOUT IMPERIALIST INTERVENTION.
British cloth entered market and overwhelmed Indian weavers because it was produced with machinery and therefore it can be sold at market at far cheaper cost. While Indian weavers were weaving with hand and that just can not compete with machineloom. I myself have heard the chopping of fingers of weavers and it's a fact that British colonists had done many unimaginable atrocities (some even worse than Nazi's) to Indian people. But, history was in favor of Britain as they were technologically advanced. I have doubt that how long a FREE India will take to build its own railway and whether we will see the modern Indian state or some small Balkan like countries in the subcontinent without the British rule.


Good point on the competition factor, but it did not happen that way. Indian garments were far superior to British machine-made ones, and had a market that could not be normally targeted by the British industry. It is precisely due to this reason that Indian garments industries were crushed by military and political force.



It's a fact of history that it favors different geographical areas in different social period. During the feudal times, Asia was more technologically advanced than Europe in every aspect and at that time, literally Europe was just like an appendage to big Asia. But, this advancement become its cause of backwardness in later phase when capitalism began to flourish. As Europe was comparatively backward in feudal era, it had some open ground there and flourished.
Following the same trail, socialism wouldn't flourish in capitalist Europe but rather on undeveloped countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Very good argument, but notice that socialism will happen in every country at some point of time. Similarly, capitalism would also have established itself in every country, if not for the military intervention of the imperialist powers.

[red cat]

The bigger issue is the general linearity in your thought. It presumes that there is a single generalized pattern of development, and that India was in a certain stage of that when the British created the Raj. The difference is between the two arguments:
Feudalism needs to lead to Capitalism to "progress"
Feudalism can develop into Capitalism in certain historical circumstances

Don't you think that it is too much of a coincidence for every independent country to have developed into a capitalist power and every colony to have remained in an underdeveloped, semi-feudal state ?

[Sir Comradical]

Says who? Are you suggesting that industrailisation is some kind of inevitable stage in human social development which all societies, left to their own devices, will pass through?

Well it is the logical conclusion for a country like India, the industries of which rivalled Europe up until the colonial period.


As has already been pointed out in this thread, both India and China had larger, more advanced economies, with more integrated markets, than Europe possessed for a thousand years before capitalism took hold in England. So why didn't they develop their own capitalist societies, before England, the Netherlands, Germany and France?

The British took India and actually bolstered the rule of its Rajas, Sultans and Nizams by co-opting them into becoming the bastard children of the empire thus preventing the inevitable dominance of an indigenous bourgeoisie.

Maybe?

[pranabjyoti]

Good point on the competition factor, but it did not happen that way. Indian garments were far superior to British machine-made ones, and had a market that could not be normally targeted by the British industry. It is precisely due to this reason that Indian garments industries were crushed by military and political force.
Comrade, maybe the Indian garments were much better quality than British factory made cloths. But, you must admit one fact that the average productivity of a British mill worker is much higher than an Indian individual weaver. What we are terming as "European way of industrialization" is basically increase in productivity and respective change is society as per the "change in quantity leads to change in quality" rule. This model has been followed throughout the history of mankind, not only during the capitalist industrialization era.
Maybe (I myself have great doubt) there were other ways of forming a capitalist societies in Asian countries like India, but I have no doubt that the outcome would be much different than today.

[Hit The North]

By "natural" development of a country, I mean development caused by all such factors without major external influence such as colonization. Given that no external factor devastates a country like that, its natural development, inclusive of class struggle etc. is quite predictable over a long period of time.


Fine, but a close analysis of the facts will indicate that even England was not free of foreign influence in its economic development. Arguably, it would not have been the first nation to industrialise if the Normans had not conquered it 700 years previously or if the Spanish armada had managed to crush England and reverse its independence from Rome. So your concept of "natural development" as some irresistible force existing in isolation from history remains an abstraction.


Given all the evidence that I have already provided, denying that India would emerge as a capitalist power had not Britain and other imperialist powers colonized it, is just ridiculous.
You've provided evidence of the uncontroversial notion that there was manufacture in India before European colonization. But not evidence that there is any such thing as a "natural development" of the capitalist mode of production. Again, I repeat that capitalism does not emerge as an evolutionary factor through the quantitative accumulation of means of production. It emerges as a result of class struggle. And whilst you have pointed to class struggles taking place in India, you have not provided any evidence that this would have lead to the separate and parallel emergence of the capitalist mode of production. And neither can you, as such a development did not in fact take place before colonization. We have to deal with history as it is, not on the basis of abstract laws of development.

By the measure of your own evolutionary outlook, both China and India should have industrialised before the imperialists had the chance to colonise them, given that they had an economic and technological head start over the European nations.


No, this evaluation is very necessary, because otherwise the extreme reactionary concept of European powers developing India, or advancing the Indian economy or in more crude terms, "civlizing" Indians, is promoted.Not at all. Imperialism distorts development without a doubt. The language of "civilising missions" is the language of self-regarding and self-deluding imperialist plunderers. Nevertheless, we don't have to counterpose some metaphysical notion of universal economic development in order to avoid the analysis of the imperialists.

We can accept that the British bought industrial methods such as railroads to India which were, at that point, beyond the reach of indigenous Indian technology, without accepting the notion that colonialism was anything except to the benefit of the colonisers.

[Hit The North]

Very good argument, but notice that socialism will happen in every country at some point of time.

Excellent! It means we can give up the class struggle and await the inevitable day.


Similarly, capitalism would also have established itself in every country, if not for the military intervention of the imperialist powers.
So you believe that capitalism would have emerged in North America and South Africa if not for colonization and military intervention?

This really is second international, mechanical materialism par excellence!

[red cat]

Fine, but a close analysis of the facts will indicate that even England was not free of foreign influence in its economic development. Arguably, it would not have been the first nation to industrialise if the Normans had not conquered it 700 years previously or if the Spanish armada had managed to crush England and reverse its independence from Rome. So your concept of "natural development" as some irresistible force existing in isolation from history remains an abstraction.

These factors were not even close to the colonization of any country by a capitalist power. Feudal imperialists added territories to their empire, but did not destroy local industrial infrastructure and build a separate one to use the colonies solely as sources of raw materials for industries in the imperialist countries.


You've provided evidence of the uncontroversial notion that there was manufacture in India before European colonization. But not evidence that there is any such thing as a "natural development" of the capitalist mode of production. Again, I repeat that capitalism does not emerge as an evolutionary factor through the quantitative accumulation of means of production. It emerges as a result of class struggle. And whilst you have pointed to class struggles taking place in India, you have not provided any evidence that this would have lead to the separate and parallel emergence of the capitalist mode of production. And neither can you, as such a development did not in fact take place before colonization. We have to deal with history as it is, not on the basis of abstract laws of development.

How does the fact that capitalism did not emerge in India before imperialism colonized it, prove that it would not replace feudalism within the next few decades or a century, had India not been colonized ?


By the measure of your own evolutionary outlook, both China and India should have industrialised before the imperialists had the chance to colonise them, given that they had an economic and technological head start over the European nations.

No, I never made a claim like that. Despite the economic and technological head start, the bourgeoisie might need more time to develop enough to overthrow feudalism.


Not at all. Imperialism distorts development without a doubt. The language of "civilising missions" is the language of self-regarding and self-deluding imperialist plunderers. Nevertheless, we don't have to counterpose some metaphysical notion of universal economic development in order to avoid the analysis of the imperialists.

How is any logic behind my claim metaphysical ? The development of a bourgeoisie in any feudal country, given that the country is not a colony of imperialism and the working class is politically very weak, logically implies that the bourgeoisie will seize power in future.


We can accept that the British bought industrial methods such as railroads to India which were, at that point, beyond the reach of indigenous Indian technology, without accepting the notion that colonialism was anything except to the benefit of the colonisers.

Of course. You cannot afford to make much technological advancement if a third of your population is just starved to death by imperialism, you know.

[red cat]

Excellent! It means we can give up the class struggle and await the inevitable day.

Believe it or not, capitalism cannot afford to buy off the whole of the international working class ! So, it will be unnatural or motiveless for many of us to give up class struggle in the first place. Class struggle is inevitable under capitalism, and hence, its overthrowal by the working class is also inevitable.


So you believe that capitalism would have emerged in North America and South Africa if not for colonization and military intervention?

Yes, I believe that. North America and Africa would have had bourgeois revolutions of their own had they not been colonized.


This really is second international, mechanical materialism par excellence!

Call me whatever you want to for claiming that the masses of colonized countries have always had the capacity to develop their societies qualitatively without imperialist "help".

[S.Artesian]

I was referring to the gradual growth of small businesses into big ones, unaltered by foreign intervention. The kind of bourgeois development that took place in Britain or France, for example.

Well, the "gradual growth of small businesses into big ones" is NOT how bourgeois development took its course in Britain, or France, or the US for example. There were disruptions, dislocations, dispossession of internal populations, rural producers, not to mention the downright genocide of indigenous peoples.

There were periods of explosive growth and sudden collapse, hardly the "idyllic" "gradual growth of small businesses into big ones."

India manifests uneven and combined development; sectors of intense industrial developement with high organic compositions of capital; sectors of lower organic compositions of capital; persistent handicraft production; all surrounded by an undeveloped agricultural sector where productivity has pretty steadily declined over the past decade or so and where rural relations of production are brutal in the extreme.

[S.Artesian]

My history professor claimed the only two nations to industrialize on their own were England and the Soviet Union. I think it matters how you define "on their own". Even England needed outside raw materials and investment to support its industrialization. I think it is debatable.


Russia did not industrialize "on its own." First 5 year plan required extensive, and intensive technical imports from the US and other countries.

Capitalist agriculture in England did basically develop on its own-- as much on its own as anything can given England's overall connections to the world markets in the 15th, 16th, 17th centuries. The English Revolution of the 1640s however was not a "self-contained" isolated event, but had everything to do with the convergence of interests between the export/import merchants in London and the tenant farmers and yeomanry of the countryside.

[S.Artesian]

Take the Indian Railways for example. Most of it was built during the British Raj but not to benefit Indians, rather to siphon India's wealth to Britain.

And the US railways, the Canadian Railways, were they built to benefit the "Americans"-- Canadian and US-- or where they built to aggrandize value, to turn a profit through exchange, through reducing the costs of circulation and for speeding the transit time from countryside to city to export market to global destination?



India would have industrialised even if the British didn't seize power. I'll take it further - India would have industrialised completely had the British never seized power.
No doubt. And if people in hell had ice water, they wouldn't be so thirsty. But they don't and they are.

Same with India. To say it didn't industrialize completely is not to say it did not undergo and manifest capitalist development in that, by that, very incompleteness. There's a difference between industrialization, between development and capitalism. At some point, whether home grown and "natural" or imported and restrictive, capitalism cannot develop the basis for social reproduction. Marx called that the conflict between the means of production and the relations of production.

[Hit The North]

These factors were not even close to the colonization of any country by a capitalist power. Feudal imperialists added territories to their empire, but did not destroy local industrial infrastructure and build a separate one to use the colonies solely as sources of raw materials for industries in the imperialist countries.


You miss the point. Of course, things turned out well for England and put it in an advantageous footing vis a vis its competitors. But the factors that led to Britain becoming the world superpower of the 19th century - as a consequence of being the first nation to industrialise - had nothing to do with a "natural growth" of economic development, and everything to do with a complex of contingent factors. These factors were then different for France, Germany, the USA, Japan. There is no natural bourgeois society from which we can assess all others.



How does the fact that capitalism did not emerge in India before imperialism colonized it, prove that it would not replace feudalism within the next few decades or a century, had India not been colonized ?


I can't prove it. But then I'm not trying to prove a universal law, so I don't have to. It is you who has to deal in alternative histories in order to validate your theory. I just have to read off the page of actual history.

The point is that when Europe became the initial site of capitalism, once capitalism had taken root somewhere, (once the virus, so to speak, was let loose), your notion of natural development in isolation becomes abstract and speculative. There is no room in the world to test it, because, as Marx and Engels told us in the Manifesto:

Originally posted by Marx and EngelsThe need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.
The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
No, I never made a claim like that. Despite the economic and technological head start, the bourgeoisie might need more time to develop enough to overthrow feudalism.


That's a reasonable claim, but Marx disagrees. His analysis of why capitalism developed first in Europe and why the European bourgeoisie accumulated such power within late feudalism, doesn't depend on a universal law of development but deals with a combination of specific factors. Again from the Manifesto:


Originally posted by Marx and Engels
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.

How is any logic behind my claim metaphysical ? The development of a bourgeoisie in any feudal country, given that the country is not a colony of imperialism and the working class is politically very weak, logically implies that the bourgeoisie will seize power in future.
What about Russia?


Believe it or not, capitalism cannot afford to buy off the whole of the international working class !Oh, yes, I forgot. According to you workers in the first world aren't engaged in class struggle anyway because we've been bought off. How fucked off will we be when socialism "naturally" appears from around the corner one day and cuts us off from our privileges?


Yes, I believe that. North America and Africa would have had bourgeois revolutions of their own had they not been colonized.
When? South Africa wasn't even feudal when it was colonised, neither was North America. It seems to me that left in isolation, the North Americans could have continued without capitalism for another thousand years.


Call me whatever you want to for claiming that the masses of colonized countries have always had the capacity to develop their societies qualitatively without imperialist "help"That's not why I'm calling you what I'm calling you.

[Thirsty Crow]

Believe it or not, capitalism cannot afford to buy off the whole of the international working class !
I wonder, does one have to openly profess the ideology of the so called "thirdworldism" (Maoism-thirdworldism?) to get restricted or are gems like this enough?

[red cat]

Well, the "gradual growth of small businesses into big ones" is NOT how bourgeois development took its course in Britain, or France, or the US for example. There were disruptions, dislocations, dispossession of internal populations, rural producers, not to mention the downright genocide of indigenous peoples.

There were periods of explosive growth and sudden collapse, hardly the "idyllic" "gradual growth of small businesses into big ones."

Yes, but disturbing the structure of a feudal economy from the inside of a country itself requires a powerful class that opposes feudal structure. The pre-condition of the growth of the bourgeoisie is growth of small businesses into big ones, or a portion of the feudal class starting businesses.


India manifests uneven and combined development; sectors of intense industrial developement with high organic compositions of capital; sectors of lower organic compositions of capital; persistent handicraft production; all surrounded by an undeveloped agricultural sector where productivity has pretty steadily declined over the past decade or so and where rural relations of production are brutal in the extreme.

Except that the whole system is mainly committed to supplying raw materials to imperialist nations, and implements a semi-feudal political military structure for the same purpose.

[S.Artesian]

The pre-condition of the growth of the bourgeoisie is growth of small businesses into big ones, or a portion of the feudal class starting businesses.

Actually not. As Marx notes in his manuscripts, it depends on certain development of agriculture; a certain transformation of agriculture into production for exchange, to trigger the necessity for maximizing production/profits/productivity while reducing costs.

Only with the establishment of a requisite, and increasing agricultural productivity is England able to make the earliest, and most complete, transition to capitalism. This was not the result of small businesses growing into big ones; nor was it the result of the feudal class starting businesses-- the feudal class always had its businesses, but they were not organized around capitalism.



Except that the whole system is mainly committed to supplying raw materials to imperialist nations, and implements a semi-feudal political military structure for the same purpose.

The argument about supplying "raw materials" sounds suspiciously like Kautsky's differentiation based on "rural production" vs. urban, industrial production. No and no.

A commodity is a commodity is a commodity when it is absorbed and forms part of the complex of industrial production based on wage labor. This is the point that Marx makes explicit when he talks about slavery in North America, "that particular form of slavery" that could only exist, and be produced with industrial capitalism.

Of course I know you don't agree with that since you believe the triumph of the US North over the slave South in the US Civil War ushered in a feudal era in the South.

FWIW, I think Harman is flat out wrong in his analysis of "incipient capitalism" in China. Certainly elements of proto-capitalist relations existed in China, but agriculture never made the requisite transition and improvement in labor productivity. As a matter of fact, such productivity declined pretty consistently in China leading to increased output only through proportionately greater labor intensities of small and shrinking plots.

Phillip CC Huang explores this "agricultural involution" in his books on the history of Chinese agriculture, as does Brenner who demolishes, and I mean demolishes Pomeranz's explanation of the "Great Divergence," in his incisive essay: "England's Divergence from China's Yangzi Delta: Property Relations, Microeconomics, and Patterns of Development" (http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=22)

available at: http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=22

[red cat]

You miss the point. Of course, things turned out well for England and put it in an advantageous footing vis a vis its competitors. But the factors that led to Britain becoming the world superpower of the 19th century - as a consequence of being the first nation to industrialise - had nothing to do with a "natural growth" of economic development, and everything to do with a complex of contingent factors. These factors were then different for France, Germany, the USA, Japan. There is no natural bourgeois society from which we can assess all others.

But there is a natural pattern; increase in trade and a resultant powerful capitalist class which then does away with the feudal economy.


I can't prove it. But then I'm not trying to prove a universal law, so I don't have to. It is you who has to deal in alternative histories in order to validate your theory. I just have to read off the page of actual history.

But I already gave enough evidence that indicate that a bourgeoisie was developing in India. If you want to counter it, then you should provide some evidence to back up your own claims. How about naming some countries that were not colonized but have still remained feudal ?


The point is that when Europe became the initial site of capitalism, once capitalism had taken root somewhere, (once the virus, so to speak, was let loose), your notion of natural development in isolation becomes abstract and speculative. There is no room in the world to test it, because, as Marx and Engels told us in the Manifesto:

I don't understand the point that you want to make by this. If anything has to happen, then it must happen somewhere first.



That's a reasonable claim, but Marx disagrees. His analysis of why capitalism developed first in Europe and why the European bourgeoisie accumulated such power within late feudalism, doesn't depend on a universal law of development but deals with a combination of specific factors. Again from the Manifesto:

The conquest of colonies only accelerated the further development of the bourgeoisie that was already forming.


What about Russia?

How is Russia a counter-example to what I claimed ?


Oh, yes, I forgot. According to you workers in the first world aren't engaged in class struggle anyway because we've been bought off. How fucked off will we be when socialism "naturally" appears from around the corner one day and cuts us off from our privileges?

Straw-man.



When? South Africa wasn't even feudal when it was colonised, neither was North America. It seems to me that left in isolation, the North Americans could have continued without capitalism for another thousand years.

Might seem that way to you, but to me it seems that they would start trading with neighbouring countries and develop into capitalist societies.


That's not why I'm calling you what I'm calling you.

Seems otherwise.

[S.Artesian]

Yes, I believe that. North America and Africa would have had bourgeois revolutions of their own had they not been colonized.

Oh come on, you can believe whatever you want, but where is there even the slightest shred of evidence of "developing feudalism" among the indigenous people of North America?

[RED DAVE]

Remember that the whole point of red cat's distortions of Indian economics is to justify the Naxalites subordinating urban struggle among the working class to rural struggle.

Lenin, in Capital Development in Russia (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1899/devel/preface1.htm), concluded that Russia was grossly underdeveloped and that the nascent bourgeoisie would be unable to accomplish the bourgeois revolution. The Indian Maoists assert that (1) India is still feudal; (2) the bourgeoisie can't accomplish the bourgeois revolution; but (3) neither can the working class; so, (4) the working class has to be subordinated to a "bloc of four classes," which includes the Indian bourgeoisie, the peasantry, the petit-bourgeoisie and the working class.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

Oh come on, you can believe whatever you want, but where is there even the slightest shred of evidence of "developing feudalism" among the indigenous people of North America?

They did develop up to being feudal empires from the preceding social systems, didn't they ? I find no reason to think that the development would stop magically just before reaching capitalism.

[red cat]

Remember that the whole point of red cat's distortions of Indian economics is to justify the Naxalites subordinating urban struggle among the working class to rural struggle.

Lenin, in Capital Development in Russia (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1899/devel/preface1.htm), concluded that Russia was grossly underdeveloped and that the nascent bourgeoisie would be unable to accomplish the bourgeois revolution. The Indian Maoists assert that (1) India is still feudal; (2) the bourgeoisie can't accomplish the bourgeois revolution; but (3) neither can the working class; so, (4) the working class has to be subordinated to a "bloc of four classes," which includes the Indian bourgeoisie, the peasantry, the petit-bourgeoisie and the working class.

RED DAVE

Apart from the straw-man arguments that your post is full of, are you proposing that the working class should not ally with any other class ? Or do you want them to limit their movements to useless marches conducted by the parliamentary parties that you seemed to support in a recent post of yours ?

[RED DAVE]

Apart from the straw-man arguments that your post is full of, are you proposing that the working class should not ally with any other class ? Or do you want them to limit their movements to useless marches conducted by the parliamentary parties that you seemed to support in a recent post of yours ?What Marxism proposes, unlike the Maoist policy of subordinating the working class to the bloc of four classes, that the working class is and should be the leading class of the revolution as it is the only class that can both modernize society and avoid the misery of capitalism.

It is obvious from Maoist policies in China, Nepal and India, that Maoism involves subordination of the urban, working class struggle, to the rural struggle.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

What Marxism proposes, unlike the Maoist policy of subordinating the working class to the bloc of four classes, that the working class is and should be the leading class of the revolution as it is the only class that can both modernize society and avoid the misery of capitalism.

Maoists also propose that the working class should lead the bloc of four classes.


It is obvious from Maoist policies in China, Nepal and India, that Maoism involves subordination of the urban, working class struggle, to the rural struggle.

RED DAVE

How is this obvious from the Maoist policies in India ?

[S.Artesian]

They did develop up to being feudal empires from the preceding social systems, didn't they ? I find no reason to think that the development would stop magically just before reaching capitalism.


Where in the history of the North American indigenous peoples are the class relations that would lead to feudalism?
You do agree that feudalism develops from specific preceding class relations? And that not every place on the planet had developed such specific relations?

Or do you not agree that feudalism has a specific relation to what preceded it? Or perhaps you just think that Roman slavery, feudalism, capitalism, are just parts of human nature-- universal traits somehow coded into DNA?

[S.Artesian]

But there is a natural pattern; increase in trade and a resultant powerful capitalist class which then does away with the feudal economy

I truly don't mean to be insulting comrade-- but that statement above is just flat out ignorant of the real history of the capitalist class. There is no "natural pattern" that results in a "powerful capitalist class" doing away with the feudal economy.

That did not occur in England. That did not occur in France. That did not occur in Spain, Portugal, Germany, Austria.

You really need to read something by people other than Mao or Maoists to get a grasp of the real different, and interconnected histories of the emergence of capitalism.

As it is, discussing these things with you is simply a waste of time since you repeat simple-minded and inaccurate assertions about capitalism that betray only your lack of understanding.

[red cat]

Where in the history of the North American indigenous peoples are the class relations that would lead to feudalism?
You do agree that feudalism develops from specific preceding class relations? And that not every place on the planet had developed such specific relations?

The Aztec civilization had several such class relations.


Or do you not agree that feudalism has a specific relation to what preceded it? Or perhaps you just think that Roman slavery, feudalism, capitalism, are just parts of human nature-- universal traits somehow coded into DNA?I think that any sufficiently populated civilization will go through these stages if no powerful working class emerges before the completion of the bourgeois revolution, because the class relations of each stage uniquely determine those of the next one with very small deviations.

[red cat]

I truly don't mean to be insulting comrade-- but that statement above is just flat out ignorant of the real history of the capitalist class. There is no "natural pattern" that results in a "powerful capitalist class" doing away with the feudal economy.

That did not occur in England. That did not occur in France. That did not occur in Spain, Portugal, Germany, Austria.

You may claim so, but I see the emergence of the capitalist class mainly as a result of increased trade, and the emergence of centralized industries.


You really need to read something by people other than Mao or Maoists to get a grasp of the real different, and interconnected histories of the emergence of capitalism.

No offence, but generally Maoists and the third world masses identify the theory of special causes of emergence of capitalism as pro-imperialism propaganda. This is why in the regions of heightened class struggle in the third world, you will see that those who support this theory of yours are very few in number and alienated from the working class.


As it is, discussing these things with you is simply a waste of time since you repeat simple-minded and inaccurate assertions about capitalism that betray only your lack of understanding.

Then why are you discussing with me ? Do you like wasting time ?

[S.Artesian]

You may claim so, but I see the emergence of the capitalist class mainly as a result of increased trade, and the emergence of centralized industries.

Saying it's so doesn't make it so. You have to show it. And that you do not do. So why don't you show us the emergence of centralized industries in Europe, which is the continent you were referring to in the earlier post and show us where and how that is a product of increased trade. Don't hypothesize, demonstrate and document.




No offence, but generally Maoists and the third world masses identify the theory of special causes of emergence of capitalism as pro-imperialism propaganda. This is why in the regions of heightened class struggle in the third world, you will see that those who support this theory of yours are very few in number and alienated from the working class.


Crock of shit. That's what you and third worldists would like others to believe. In actuality, the third-worldists are the ones who re-create the conditions of "alienation" and suppression of the working class. Would you like me to demonstrate that? Two countries, China and Vietnam.



Then why are you discussing with me ? Do you like wasting time ?

Nope, but pseudo-Marxist obfuscation shouldn't go unchallenged.

[red cat]

Saying it's so doesn't make it so. You have to show it. And that you do not do. So why don't you show us the emergence of centralized industries in Europe, which is the continent you were referring to in the earlier post and show us where and how that is a product of increased trade. Don't hypothesize, demonstrate and document.

Centralization becomes feasible due to technological advancements. Increased trade creates a class of merchants who optimize profits by centralizing their industries, thus making it a social feature.



Crock of shit. That's what you and third worldists would like others to believe. No, really. Just look at India.


In actuality, the third-worldists are the ones who re-create the conditions of "alienation" and suppression of the working class. Would you like me to demonstrate that? Two countries, China and Vietnam. Can you explain this in details ? After that we can move on to examples to demonstrate how first worldists in practice do not challenge the suppression of workers in the first place.


Nope, but pseudo-Marxist obfuscation shouldn't go unchallenged.:rolleyes:

[S.Artesian]

Centralization becomes feasible due to technological advancements. Increased trade creates a class of merchants who optimize profits by centralizing their industries, thus making it a social feature.

Speculation, again on your part. Please document the "normal pattern" of capitalist development that you said characterized Europe. Show the similarities in development of France, England, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Sweden etc. What you describe is not the origin of capitalism in Englan, nor a "common pattern" of capitalist development in other countries.



Can you explain this in details ? After that we can move on to examples to demonstrate how first worldists in practice do not challenge the suppression of workers in the first place.
Vietnam, 1945, suppression by Viet Minh of strikes, peasant committees, miners commune organized in opposition to the re-institution of French colonialism-- leading to the reimposition of that colonialism 30 more years of war with the death of several million more Vietnamese, and... then the conversion of the country into a maquiladora to attract the foreign capital that supposedly the war had been fought to expel. Need I continue?

[red cat]

Speculation, again on your part. Please document the "normal pattern" of capitalist development that you said characterized Europe. Show the similarities in development of France, England, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Sweden etc. What you describe is not the origin of capitalism in Englan, nor a "common pattern" of capitalist development in other countries.

Why don't you demonstrate how the factors I mentioned were not the ones that moulded class relations and struggles leading to capitalist development of any one of the countries you listed ?


Vietnam, 1945, suppression by Viet Minh of strikes, peasant committees, miners commune organized in opposition to the re-institution of French colonialism-- leading to the reimposition of that colonialism 30 more years of war with the death of several million more Vietnamese, and... then the conversion of the country into a maquiladora to attract the foreign capital that supposedly the war had been fought to expel. Need I continue?Of course, but please give links to some online resources supporting what you say.

[S.Artesian]

Why don't you demonstrate how the factors I mentioned were not the ones that moulded class relations and struggles leading to capitalist development of any one of the countries you listed ?

How lazy can you be, comrade? You made the assertion. Defend it. I'm not going to waste my time proving a negative, and doing your homework for you.


Of course, but please give links to some online resources supporting what you say.

I like books. Real books. Here's one of many: In The Crossfire: Adventures of a Vietnamese Revolutionary

by Ngo Van
AK Press, 2010

[red cat]

How lazy can you be, comrade? You made the assertion. Defend it. I'm not going to waste my time proving a negative, and doing your homework for you.

It's just one counter-example that I asked you to provide. If you can't do that then fine; I will assume that you are not able to negate my claim.


I like books. Real books. Here's one of many: In The Crossfire: Adventures of a Vietnamese Revolutionary

by Ngo Van
AK Press, 2010I know how deceiving books can be sometimes. That is why I was asking for some well-known online resource. Anyways, judging from his biography, the author does not seem very credible to me, so never mind. After every revolution we hear how Trotskyites were crushed by Stalinists, yet we never find them anywhere during the revolutionary war. I am sure that if the Indian revolution is lost, we will hear that the CPI(Maoist) destroyed workers' communes organized by the NSA.

[S.Artesian]

It's just one counter-example that I asked you to provide. If you can't do that then fine; I will assume that you are not able to negate my claim.

I know how deceiving books can be sometimes. That is why I was asking for some well-known online resource. Anyways, judging from his biography, the author does not seem very credible to me, so never mind. After every revolution we hear how Trotskyites were crushed by Stalinists, yet we never find them anywhere during the revolutionary war. I am sure that if the Indian revolution is lost, we will hear that the CPI(Maoist) destroyed workers' communes organized by the NSA.

Of course I have already provide a "counter-example"- the development of capitalism in England for one.

And Spain for two.

You can assume anything you want, but what you are doing is refusing to provide any evidence supporting your assertion. You made the assertion about a "normal pattern" of capitalist development in Europe. Where is the evidence.

As for your other comment--- right, anyone who doesn't agree with you, is not credible, judging from his or her biography, which biography is the proof that they don't agree with you.

Perfect. Tell you what Red Cat. You really aren't worth the time.

[red cat]

Of course I have already provide a "counter-example"- the development of capitalism in England for one.

And Spain for two.

You can assume anything you want, but what you are doing is refusing to provide any evidence supporting your assertion. You made the assertion about a "normal pattern" of capitalist development in Europe. Where is the evidence.

Is that providing a counter-example in a proper way ? You have just named two countries. What I see in case of England is the class struggle of peasants leading to migrations to urban areas, and a section of the feudal lords hiring labour and thus favouring technological advancements. How does all this not fit into what I claimed ?


As for your other comment--- right, anyone who doesn't agree with you, is not credible, judging from his or her biography, which biography is the proof that they don't agree with you.Actually given the present state of Trotskyism in areas of intensified class-struggle, there does seem to be some kind of logic behind not trusting their versions of history.


Perfect. Tell you what Red Cat. You really aren't worth the time. Whose time ? Certainly not yours, because you keep replying to my posts. :lol:

[resurgence]

Perfect. Tell you what Red Cat. You really aren't worth the time.

Correct ideas dont just fall from the sky, they forged through experience, the fact that Communist Party of India (Maoist) has been engaged in long and strenuous class struggle in which it has had to correct itself multiple times in order to get to that stage where it is now is evidence of its grip on the social realities of India, where as those who criticize their more controversial stances (such as India being semi-feudal) have little or no experience of class struggle, especially none at the intensity of the Indian Maoists. This must always be borne in mind.

[S.Artesian]

Correct ideas dont just fall from the sky, they forged through experience, the fact that Communist Party of India (Maoist) has been engaged in long and strenuous class struggle in which it has had to correct itself multiple times in order to get to that stage where it is now is evidence of its grip on the social realities of India, where as those who criticize their more controversial stances (such as India being semi-feudal) have little or no experience of class struggle, especially none at the intensity of the Indian Maoists. This must always be borne in mind.

That's a wonderful ideology-- at issue however is the actual history of the capitalist development. Red Cat, as he is inclined to do about most things, makes assertions and provides no support for those assertions.

When the assertions are challenged, his response is "prove the negative."

So perhaps you would like to answer the challenge and provide some evidence, either on-line historical data or a hard copy written analysis that will support the arguments that Red Cat makes about the development of capitalism in Europe?

So here are Red Cat's "claims" which could use a little bit of support and documentation:


The pre-condition of the growth of the bourgeoisie is growth of small businesses into big ones, or a portion of the feudal class starting businesses.


I was referring to the gradual growth of small businesses into big ones, unaltered by foreign intervention. The kind of bourgeois development that took place in Britain or France, for example.

Centralization becomes feasible due to technological advancements. Increased trade creates a class of merchants who optimize profits by centralizing their industries, thus making it a social feature.

[S.Artesian]

Whose time ? Certainly not yours, because you keep replying to my posts

Not anymore.

[red cat]

Not anymore.

Yet again ! :lol:

[RED DAVE]

Correct ideas dont just fall from the skyIndeed they don't.


they forged through experienceExperience is mediated by class interest.


the fact that Communist Party of India (Maoist) has been engaged in long and strenuous class struggle in which it has had to correct itself multiple times in order to get to that stage where it is now is evidence of its grip on the social realities of IndiaBut whoch social reality? Different classes have different social realities.


where as those who criticize their more controversial stances (such as India being semi-feudal) have little or no experience of class struggle, especially none at the intensity of the Indian Maoists. This must always be borne in mind.The Chinese Maoists certainly had a grip, too. A grip on state capitalism.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

Indeed they don't.

Experience is mediated by class interest.

But whoch social reality? Different classes have different social realities.

Correct ! The social realities of India prompt the working class to lead the people's war against the state, and the same social realities prompt the groups and individuals acting as the left wing of imperialism to remain alienated from the working class and engage in reactionary attacks on the revolution.


The Chinese Maoists certainly had a grip, too. A grip on state capitalism.

RED DAVESo did Lenin.

[RED DAVE]

Correct ! The social realities of India prompt the working class to lead the people's war against the stateThis may well be true, but if son, the Chinese, Nepalese and Indian Maopists have never done this. They have consistently elevated the petit-bougeoisie and national bourgeoisie over the working class and peasantry, resultuing in state and private capitalism.

No Maoist party, except in rhetoric, has ever placed the working class as the leading class of the revolution. This would mean basing the revolution on independent organizations of the working class, which Maoists will never do. They will trust the petit-bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie before they trust the working class.

RED DAVE

[red cat]

This may well be true, but if son, the Chinese, Nepalese and Indian Maopists have never done this.

Give some evidence from India to support your statement.


They have consistently elevated the petit-bougeoisie and national bourgeoisie over the working class and peasantry, resultuing in state and private capitalism. Some evidence from India to prove this as well ?


No Maoist party, except in rhetoric, has ever placed the working class as the leading class of the revolution. Which class is leading the Indian revolution ?


This would mean basing the revolution on independent organizations of the working class, which Maoists will never do. They will trust the petit-bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie before they trust the working class.

RED DAVE Are you an astrologer ?