The Chinese Empires (split from thread on the Ottoman Empire)

[Queercommie Girl]

The Ottoman Empire was not Arabic. It was initially a Turkic state, but became essentially a multi-cultural empire under control of a bureaucratic elite largely consisting of imperial slaves which to a large degree had been kidnapped from abroad at an early age. It was also not a unified empire in the real sense, but consisted of various areas with local autonomy, some on a tribal development level, some based on slavery economies and some feudal.

Yes, there is a parallel between what the Ottoman Turks did in the Arab lands and what the Manchus did in China, at around the same time period. Turks conquered the Arabs while Manchus conquered the Han Chinese, in both cases the subjugated peoples had a higher level of civilisation than the conquerors, and both the Ottoman and the Qing empires ruled over numerous peoples at different stages of development with different kinds of governmental structures.

For instance, in Qing China the 18 provinces of the Han Chinese were largely ruled by a native Han bureaucracy in the classical Confucian style, but supervised by detachments of Eight Banners elite armies; while the Mongol regions were still semi-autonomous and ruled by their own tribal leaders; Tibet was an autocratic theocracy ruled by Lamaism, but watched over by ethnic Han Chinese scholar-officials, and Xinjiang (East Turkestan) was under direct military control by the General of the Illi.

Before the Industrial Age, Ottoman Turkey and Qing China were the most powerful and largest empires in the entire world. They not only dwarfed the Europeans at this time, but also the Persians and Indians, who had much smaller and weaker empires. It's difficult to say whether Ottoman or Qing was more powerful, since they never came into direct conflict with each other. On serious history forums (like China History Forum) there is often debate regarding this issue.

Ottoman and Qing represented Asiatic feudalism at their height. But both were humiliated by European capitalist powers as the latter emerged. Capitalism is a superior form of productive relation relative to feudalism. Even the greatest feudal empires fell in the face of relatively small capitalist European nations.

[ComradeOm]

Yes, there is a parallel between what the Ottoman Turks did in the Arab lands and what the Manchus did in China, at around the same time period. Turks conquered the Arabs while Manchus conquered the Han Chinese, in both cases the subjugated peoples had a higher level of civilisation than the conquerorsBy the time the Ottomans did move south (Anatolia obviously never being Arab), in the early 16th C, Ottoman culture was certainly as advanced and sophisticated as that of the Arabs. Probably more so. Most obviously their state apparatus was incomparably superior to that of the decrepit Mamluks. Your case might be better made with regard the earlier Seljuks, but then they entered the Arab lands after adopting equally advanced Persian cultural traits

Which is one reason why such comparisons across decades and continents are not particularly useful

(Incidentally, it would be wrong to portray the Manchu or other Conquest Dynasties as uncivilised or lacking civilisation, as Chinese historians have always been wont to do. These may not have been entirely sedimentary civilisations but their conscious adoption of nomadic lifestyles - or particular aspects of these - was not a sign of backwardness but a perfectly reasonable response to the conditions of the Inner Asia. Most obviously, the nature of these societies allowed them to continually muster military forces far superior to those of the supposedly more advanced China proper. So its not a simple linear progression from 'nomad-ism' to 'civilisation'. Which is something that often crops up in Sino-centric histories)

[Queercommie Girl]

Incidentally, it would be wrong to portray the Manchu or other Conquest Dynasties as uncivilised or lacking civilisation, as Chinese historians have always been wont to do. These may not have been entirely sedimentary civilisations but their conscious adoption of nomadic lifestyles - or particular aspects of these - was not a sign of backwardness but a perfectly reasonable response to the conditions of the Inner Asia. Most obviously, the nature of these societies allowed them to continually muster military forces far superior to those of the supposedly more advanced China proper. So its not a simple linear progression from 'nomad-ism' to 'civilisation'. Which is something that often crops up in Sino-centric histories


It depends, this is a complex matter.

Firstly, I would say that in theory, to measure "civilisational advancement" primarily in terms of military power is frankly ridiculous and quasi-fascistic. Would you say that a hypothetically hyper-advanced civilisation (in terms of culture and technology) that is nevertheless militarily extremely weak is somehow inferior to a more culturally and technologically backward culture that is nevertheless hyper-aggressive and militarily powerful?

I don't accept such an idea because it sounds like might makes right. I'm essentially an anti-militarist. I'm a socialist partly because I believe socialism can put an end to human warfare. Communism is ultimately about the dismantlement of the state, as well as the standing army.

(A hypothetical future communist society may indeed be objectively militarily weaker than present-day capitalism, does this mean communism is less "advanced" than capitalism? It's ridiculous)

Secondly, agriculture is as advanced compared with nomadism as industry is advanced relative to agriculture. Objectively, sedentary agriculture can support a much larger population than nomadism, just like modern industry and industrialised agriculture can support a much larger population than traditional pre-industrial agriculture. This is why despite the nomad's apparent "military strength", ethnically and culturally they were always absorbed into China, rather than the other way around, because the Han Chinese always had a much bigger population base. It's simply a matter of the advancement of productive forces, not "innate superiority/inferiority" in any value sense.

Thirdly, Anti-nomadic views certainly aren't exclusive to the Han Chinese, but are also prevalent among other advanced sedentary peoples, like the Arabs and Europeans. It's one reason why Attila the Hun was portrayed in traditional European history and literature as an evil figure.

Lastly, in the case of the Manchus, they were not really very primitive, by the 16th and early 17th centuries. Also, the Manchus were not nomadic, but only semi-nomadic, and they originated in what is now the north-east of China (Manchuria), and not Central Asia.

I drew the parallel between Qing and Ottoman due to their political and socio-economic similarities, since they represented Asiatic feudal power at its height. I was not making a cultural comparison.

[Queercommie Girl]

ComradeOm,

If you think the Han Chinese were militarily much weaker than the Altaic nomads from North Asia and Central Asia, then you are ignorant of Chinese history. In terms of military style, there is no essential difference between the Chinese and the Mongols. The only differences are quantitative (Han people have more infantry and less horsemen proportionally), not qualitative. Han Chinese people adopted Altaic military modes as early as the reign of King Wuling of the State of Zhao during the Eastern Zhou period, almost 2500 years ago. During the Han Dynasty, the Han state army was certainly no weaker than the Xiongnu, even though it was numerically larger. Indeed, ultimately the Han defeated the Xiongnu, forcing them to migrate west.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Xiongnu_War

The Sino-Xiongnu War is a name given to a series of battles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle) between the Han Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Dynasty) and the tribes of Xiongnu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiongnu) between 133 BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/133_BC) and 89 AD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/89). The nature of these battles varied through time between Han conquest and the possession of city-states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-state) in central Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia). The war culminated in Geng Kui (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geng_Kui) driving the northern Xiongnu all the way to the Dzungaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzungaria).

Also, you should know there is no absolute distinction between the Han Chinese and the nomads. Only Han nationalists believe in that. The ruling class of the powerful Tang Dynasty in China, for instance, was partly Xianbei. (Originally a nomadic group from the north)

The Altaic nomads were a very brutal people in warfare, but this is not because they were less advanced at all, or because they were nomadic in terms of their lifestyle. Precisely the opposite, they were brutal because they were indeed quite advanced in many ways, and had fully established state societies with explicit military hierarchies and economic classes. They were brutal because they were empires, and all empires are brutal by definition, whether they are Chinese, Mongol or modern-day American, not because they were nomads.

[ComradeOm]

Firstly, I would say that in theory, to measure "civilisational advancement" primarily in terms of military power is frankly ridiculous and quasi-fascistic. Would you say that a hypothetically hyper-advanced civilisation (in terms of culture and technology) that is nevertheless militarily extremely weak is somehow inferior to a more culturally and technologically backward culture that is nevertheless hyper-aggressive and militarily powerful?Your hypothetical could never occur because it would imply a complete divorcing of the military and economic spheres. In reality the two are intrinsically linked. This is very much my point: it is not that the Mongolic peoples of Inner Asian were more backwards or advanced than the more settled Chinese, but that their basic social model was simply very different. This was a result of the different economic bases of each society - the difference between nomadic herding and sedimentary agriculture. Declaring one 'civilisation' - in its entirety, as opposed to specific fields - to be superior or inferior to the other is not particularly productive

Military tradition can only take a nation/people so far, and significant technological disadvantage is almost never overcome. Yet we have a scenario in which a large and settled population was repeatedly subdued by successive numerically negligible (in comparison) foreign forces over the course of a millennium. This produces two possibilities: 1) that the Chinese dynasties were consistently unable to leverage their immense economic and demographic advantages into a coherent defence, or that 2) the nomadic invaders were not as backwards as often assumed and were able to engage with the Chinese as equals, in the relevant arenas, and not simply savages from abroad

Obviously option no. 2 is rarely seen in Chinese historiography


Secondly, agriculture is as advanced compared with nomadism as industry is advanced relative to agricultureNope. It works as a general rule of course but such rules should not be applied to specifics. The nomadic way of life was perfectly suited to the climate of what can be roughly terms Mongolia. Try practising any large scale crop farming (without modern technology) in that region. A nomadic society maximised the economic potential of this arid landscape while allowing for additional exploitation of the settled societies


Thirdly, Anti-nomadic views certainly aren't exclusive to the Han Chinese, but are also prevalent among other advanced sedentary peoples, like the Arabs and Europeans. It's one reason why Attila the Hun was portrayed in traditional European history and literature as an evil figure.Well the Huns got a bad rep. Most of the other peoples involved in the Migration Period (most obviously the Franks) come of out the histories fairly well ;)

But you are correct is that there is an automatic disdain for nomadic peoples, a tendency to view them as backwards. Which is often perfectly correct today. With the exception of the Mongols, its been a long, long time since nomadic peoples bothered the sedimentary societies of Europe. Which is one reason why Eurocentric histories tend to view nomadism as a simple linear step prior to forming permanent agricultural societies. Obviously this is not an issue with China, where Mongol cavalry units remained unsurpassed until the 19th C

But (again) this is not the problem that I find with Chinese historiography. Partly its the condescending view of the Inner Asian peoples that has plagued Chinese histories for centuries. Also, its no longer fashionable in Europe to consider the Barbarians to be simply uncouth savages; the same cannot be entirely said for China. There is still a reluctance to treat the Conquest Dynasties as equals and everything still revolves around a relatively nationalist narrative with Han China at the centre of the story


Lastly, in the case of the Manchus, they were not really very primitive, by the 16th and early 17th centuries. Also, the Manchus were not nomadic, but only semi-nomadic, and they originated in what is now the north-east of China (Manchuria), and not Central AsiaOne of the fascinating aspects that I find in this period history is the degree to which even semi-settled states sought to 'bolt-on' Mongolic military customs to their existing social structures. This was not always successful, and often led to internal conflict (as in Western Xia), but it shows the degree to which China was not the only model to be copied; Inner Asian customs also exerted a pull in the opposite direction

As for the Manchus, they always had a close relationship with the Mongols (as the Jurchans learnt much from the Khitans) and Mongol formations played a key role in the destruction of the Ming

[Queercommie Girl]

Your hypothetical could never occur because it would imply a complete divorcing of the military and economic spheres. In reality the two are intrinsically linked. This is very much my point: it is not that the Mongolic peoples of Inner Asian were more backwards or advanced than the more settled Chinese, but that their basic social model was simply very different. This was a result of the different economic bases of each society - the difference between nomadic herding and sedimentary agriculture. Declaring one 'civilisation' - in its entirety, as opposed to specific fields - to be superior or inferior to the other is not particularly productive.


Productive force is still something that can be measured objectively to a significant extent. The fact of the matter is that despite their military successes, Mongolia today is a backward non-industrialised nation of several million people, while the Han Chinese are generally more economically advanced and number 1200 million. Short-term military success certainly doesn't mean as much as long-term productive superiority. Marxism puts labour at the centre of human existence, not war or military power.

One simply cannot judge how great a civilisation is based on its military power. As I said before, I am an anti-militarist, I think a communist society would have neither state nor army. So I do literally believe a communist society objectively speaking would be inferior to a capitalist society in terms of direct violent power or military force. Does this imply communism is inferior to capitalism in general?

I find the excessive focus on military prowess in historiographical discourse to be related to the ridiculous glorification of the ultra-masculine in cultural attitudes. Rather than judging a civilisation by how much it has built, this historiographical approach judges a civilisation by how much it has conquered. From a Marxist perspective, with its labour-centric world-view, this is totally ridiculous and insane. It's like saying soldiers instead of workers are the central productive class in human history and society.

To say that the economic and the military cannot be divorced in an ultimate sense is obviously wrong, because communism is indeed a kind of society that is economically extremely advanced, but not militaristic, is it not? Or are you not a communist at all?



Military tradition can only take a nation/people so far, and significant technological disadvantage is almost never overcome. Yet we have a scenario in which a large and settled population was repeatedly subdued by successive numerically negligible (in comparison) foreign forces over the course of a millennium. This produces two possibilities: 1) that the Chinese dynasties were consistently unable to leverage their immense economic and demographic advantages into a coherent defence, or that 2) the nomadic invaders were not as backwards as often assumed and were able to engage with the Chinese as equals, in the relevant arenas, and not simply savages from abroad
I do not believe the nomadic empires were primitive savages. They had highly explicit and exploitative state structures and advanced military technology, which explains why they were so brutal in the first place. (Indeed, I mentioned this in my last post)

Nomadism by itself does not make a people brutal, imperialism does. The Asiatic nomads were well-established empires, not just simple primitive tribes.

As for why they conquered the Han many times, you need to note 2 things:

1) In pre-capitalist societies, there is no "national consciousness" in the modern sense. You will find that the boundary between "Han" and "nomad" was much more fluidic than you think. So there were many ethnic Han "collaborators" during the nomadic conquests of China. Some of the Mongol empire's greatest generals were ethnic Han Chinese. One of them, Guo Kan, was responsible for the destruction of Baghdad:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guo_kan

Were they traitors to the "Han nation"? In pre-capitalist times, there was only a proto-nationalist consciousness, not the fully modern national consciousness we know today. To talk about "Han" and "nomad" as if they were like two different "capitalist nation-states" is wrong.

Without these Han collaborators, the Mongols would never have conquered China. Indeed, you should note that numerically most of the "Mongol soldiers" who were involved in the conquest of the Southern Song were actually ethnic Han Chinese troops from North China, often led by ethnic Han generals who decided to go over to the Mongol Yuan Dynasty side.

Even in the Mongol campaigns of conquest in West Asia, they utilised a huge number of ethnic Han Chinese infantry, since the Han had a huge population base to conscript soldiers from.

2) The Han Chinese also conquered Central Asia and North Asia many times, e.g. during the Han and Tang Dynasties (though it's true that the Tang ruling class was partly Xianbei itself). The Anbei Protectorate of the early Tang Dynasty extended as far north as modern-day Siberia. So really, the conquest goes both ways between the Han and the nomads. You are ignorant of East Asian history if you think otherwise.



Obviously option no. 2 is rarely seen in Chinese historiography
Wrong. Modern socialist historians in China generally do not take a Han-centric perspective. Of course, socialists oppose the nomadic empires, but not because they were nomadic, or non-Han, but simply because they were empires. Genuine socialists must oppose all empires regardless of their nature, otherwise one is not a genuine socialist. I oppose the Mongol empire's conquest of China not because I am a Han nationalist, but because I am an anti-imperialist. I oppose the slavery empire of Rome and its conquest of Gaul, the feudal empire of the Mongols and their conquest of China and the Middle East, and the capitalist empires of Britain and its conquest of Ireland and India, and the United States today and its imperialist actions in Iraq and Afghanistan equally. I oppose all imperialism, period.

There is nothing intrinsically good about violent power. There is nothing to glorify in military conquest. As Mao Zedong once said, the ultimate goal of revolutionary socialist war is to put an end to all wars.



Nope. It works as a general rule of course but such rules should not be applied to specifics. The nomadic way of life was perfectly suited to the climate of what can be roughly terms Mongolia. Try practising any large scale crop farming (without modern technology) in that region. A nomadic society maximised the economic potential of this arid landscape while allowing for additional exploitation of the settled societies
One could also argue that industry isn't necessarily always superior to agriculture either. Of course, I partly support the green movement and environmentalism so I do take this view to some extent. General rules need to be applied to specific situations flexibly.

But still, generally speaking, in ancient times, the settled agricultural regions of the Han Chinese were significantly richer and more prosperous than the nomadic regions of North Asia and Central Asia, which is partly why the nomads wanted to raid Han China in the first place.



Well the Huns got a bad rep. Most of the other peoples involved in the Migration Period (most obviously the Franks) come of out the histories fairly well ;)
The Huns were indeed the most destructive. Sorry, but "political correctness" isn't as important as objective historical truth.

The Huns were more destructive not because of any intrinsic cultural reason, but because they had a fully established empire, while the Celts and Germanics were still largely semi-tribal. Of course, from a Marxist perspective, class societies are more brutal and exploitative than semi-class societies.

The Germanic tribes were not a nomadic people, but settled peasant populations not so different from the Romans or the Han Chinese, just technologically less advanced at the time.



But you are correct is that there is an automatic disdain for nomadic peoples, a tendency to view them as backwards. Which is often perfectly correct today. With the exception of the Mongols, its been a long, long time since nomadic peoples bothered the sedimentary societies of Europe. Which is one reason why Eurocentric histories tend to view nomadism as a simple linear step prior to forming permanent agricultural societies. Obviously this is not an issue with China, where Mongol cavalry units remained unsurpassed until the 19th C
But there was no industry during the permanent agricultural age either. Europeans had disdain for the nomads even before the Industrial Revolution and the Enlightenment. In this they were no different from the Han Chinese. Han agriculture was actually more productive than pre-capitalist European agriculture.

Also, the Muslim Arabs also had similar anti-nomadic (e.g. anti-Mongol) views. Some contemporary Iraqis actually compared the recent actions of American imperialism in Iraq to the Mongol invasions in the 13th century.

In the case of China, the Qing Dynasty began to regularly employ powerful cannons in warfare, which put an end to the domination of traditional cavalries. The Western Mongol tribes were genocidally exterminated by Emperor Kangxi.



But (again) this is not the problem that I find with Chinese historiography. Partly its the condescending view of the Inner Asian peoples that has plagued Chinese histories for centuries. Also, its no longer fashionable in Europe to consider the Barbarians to be simply uncouth savages; the same cannot be entirely said for China.
Wrong. Modern socialist historiography in China do not view nomads as simple "barbarians", that's ridiculous.

Mao Zedong himself explicitly spoke against Han nationalism and argued that the nomadic and semi-nomadic ethnicities of the north were as much a part of China as the Han Chinese are. (Not that I completely agree with Maoism of course)

Inner Asian peoples have not plagued Chinese peasants more than ethnic Han Chinese warlords. Often the death toll during "civil wars" between different Han Chinese warlords and petty kingdoms would be greater than during a nomadic conquest.



There is still a reluctance to treat the Conquest Dynasties as equals and everything still revolves around a relatively nationalist narrative with Han China at the centre of the story
Not really. It's generally accepted in mainstream Chinese academia today that the Qing Dynasty was one of the high points (the last high point, in fact) of Chinese feudal civilisation. Sorry, but you are not really qualified to make such judgements about Chinese historians. Also, Chinese historians generally praise the Xianbei Northern Wei Dynasty that unified North China during the Age of Fragmentation, which laid some of the political basis for the later Sui and Tang Dynasties.

Of course, when there are certain backward features in some "conquest dynasties", like the caste system during the Mongol Yuan Dynasty, Chinese historians always point this out. Just because one doesn't especially demonise nomads doesn't mean one refrains from pointing out negative aspects of nomadic civilisation when these do objectively exist.

Marxists should neither demonise nomads, nor glorify their "military successes". Marxists should always take an anti-imperialist position when examining history.

When pointing out the destructive nature of the Mongol conquests, one should note that certainly it wasn't just the Han Chinese that was affected. The Middle East was heavily affected too, and some nomadic and semi-nomadic groups, like the Tanguts (Western Xia), were actually exterminated by the Mongols.

There is nothing wrong with speaking against Mongol imperialism. Speaking against Mongol imperialism is no more "anti-Mongol" than speaking against British imperialism is "anti-British". Marxists should oppose feudal imperialism and capitalist imperialism alike.

Any kind of positive "glorification" of Mongol military power and conquest is clearly reactionary from a Marxist point of view, since even today there are still Mongolian neo-Nazis who glorify the conquests of Genghis Khan, and explicitly link Genghis Khan with Hitler:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mongolian-neo-nazis-t152436/index.html

Another thing: you do realise that "conquest dynasties" can never be treated "as equals" from a Marxist perspective, right? Oppressors and oppressed, conquerors and conquered, are never equal. To treat "conquest dynasties" as equals, one might as well treat British India as a legitimate Indian Dynasty (Queen Victoria was actually officially declared as the Empress of India mind you).



One of the fascinating aspects that I find in this period history is the degree to which even semi-settled states sought to 'bolt-on' Mongolic military customs to their existing social structures. This was not always successful, and often led to internal conflict (as in Western Xia), but it shows the degree to which China was not the only model to be copied; Inner Asian customs also exerted a pull in the opposite direction
Objectively, the most successful dynasties in China seem to be those that could successfully integrate Han culture with the more militaristic nomadic cultures of the North. E.g. Northern Wei (Sinised Xianbei), Sui and Tang (semi-Han semi-Xianbei), Qing (semi-Sinised Manchus). The Mongol Yuan, on the other hand, didn't achieve this effectively, which is one reason why the Yuan Dynasty was short-lived (only 97 years) and was plagued with severe problems from start to finish.

But as a Marxist-Leninist, obviously I never really glorify any feudal dynasty. For the poor peasants, every feudal dynasty that had ever existed in all of human history was ultra-oppressive and ultra-exploitative.

Fuck feudalism. Marxism is as much anti-feudal as it is anti-capitalist.



As for the Manchus, they always had a close relationship with the Mongols (as the Jurchans learnt much from the Khitans) and Mongol formations played a key role in the destruction of the Ming
The Manchus were a semi-Sinised people even from the very start. The ancestors of the Manchus (the Jurchens) already had a Sinised dynasty in North China centuries earlier (the Jin Dynasty). The Manchus certainly learned as much from the Han as they did from the Mongols. The Qing Dynasty Eight Banners Army consisted of three ethnic groups: Manchu, Mongol and Han.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm not writing off nomadic pastoralism as a productive mode intrinsically at all. (Despite it being objectively less productive than settled agriculture) But what an idiot like you fail to see is that there is no automatic link between nomadic pastoralism and militarism at all. What I oppose is militarism, not nomadism, since I also oppose Han Chinese militarist warlordism. I just hate every form of militarism and imperialism, ok? Whether it's Mongol, Han Chinese or modern American, it's all essentially the same in my eyes.

The Tibetans were also semi-nomadic, but generally they were even more peaceful than the Han Chinese.

Only a fool like you, ComradeOm, can equate my anti-militarism to "Han-centrism". If I was a Han-centrist I would be glorifying the Han Chinese conquests of Central Asia and North Asia, and I wouldn't be criticising Han warlordism, would I? You must either be an idiot, or you are just planning to annoy me personally.

Also, your understanding of history is poor if you actually treat pre-capitalist peoples like "Han" and "Mongols" like two completely distinct nations in the modern capitalist sense. Have you never learned that nationalism in the modern sense only emerged with capitalism? The boundary between "Han" and "nomad" in ancient times was often fluidic. You are illiterate about Chinese history if you don't recognise this very simple fact.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'm not "anti-nomadic" intrinsically, but equally I oppose those who claim to be Marxist but love to romanticise those brutal nomadic conquerors on horseback, because I'm a firm anti-imperialist and anti-militarist.

There is nothing "progressive" about military conquests from a Marxist point of view.

I oppose the military-cavalry complex of knights and horsemen of the feudal era just like I oppose the military-industrial complex of warplanes and tanks today.

Mongol imperialism was never just about "nomads" vs. "Han". What a ridiculous position that is. Nomadic imperialists killed nomads and settled peoples of every culture alike. The Mongols exterminated the semi-nomadic Tanguts, and the Manchus exterminated the Western Mongol tribes.

To praise Mongol imperialism is not pro-nomadism at all therefore, on the contrary, it is anti-nomadic. The ordinary poor of nomadic and settled peoples alike suffered immensely under both Nomadic and Han imperialism and warlordism throughout East Asian history. Where the fuck is your class consciousness, "comrade"?

[Queercommie Girl]

So its not a simple linear progression from 'nomad-ism' to 'civilisation'. Which is something that often crops up in Sino-centric histories)


No, it has nothing to do with so-called "Sino-centrism".

Marxism believes that the progression from slavery to feudalism to capitalism is indeed largely a linear progression, the future progression from capitalism to socialism and communism would be linear as well. You would not dispute this unless you are a post-modernist.

Fact is, many nomadic peoples Sinised themselves to varying extents out of their own will. The Xianbei of the Northern Wei completely Sinised themselves, changing even their family and clan names into Han ones. The Manchus of the Qing Dynasty spoke Mandarin more and more as the dynasty progressed until even the emperor could no longer speak Manchu. The nomads' adoption of certain Han cultural features is no more "Sinocentric" than the adoption of Western science and technology by non-Western peoples is "Eurocentric".

By the way the belief of the linear progress of civilisation from nomadism to settled agriculture to industrial civilisation is actually an European/Western one. Hardly "Sinocentric".

[Dimentio]

Conquest Dynasties in India... hm... since the 11th century, there had not been one single Native Indian Empire controlling Northern Indian (even though there were local dynasties in the south). Instead, India was controlled by successive Afghan dynasties.

[red cat]

Conquest Dynasties in India... hm... since the 11th century, there had not been one single Native Indian Empire controlling Northern Indian (even though there were local dynasties in the south). Instead, India was controlled by successive Afghan dynasties.

These dynasties were Afghan, Turkish and partially Mongol in origin. After the foundation of the Mughal dynasty in the early 16th century, one of the political policies of the emperors was marrying native Hindu princesses. This resulted in winning over some of the local kingdoms. So the rulers of India from that time onward were part native. After the fall of the Mughals, the native Marathas had briefly established supremacy over Northern India and had planned to extend their empire up to Afghanistan.

[Queercommie Girl]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=706

My newly created group: Anti-Militaristic Imperialism

[Dimentio]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=706

My newly created group: Anti-Militaristic Imperialism

How does Non-militaristic Imperialism work?

[ComradeOm]

Productive force is still something that can be measured objectively to a significant extent. The fact of the matter is that despite their military successes, Mongolia today is a backward non-industrialised nation of several million people, while the Han Chinese are generally more economically advanced and number 1200 million. Short-term military success certainly doesn't mean as much as long-term productive superiority"Short-term"? From 1005 (Treaty of Shanyuan which established Khitan dominance over China) to 1911 (end of the Qing) there was less than three centuries of Han rule over all China. This is despite, as you note, their immense material inferiority. In doing so the various Conquest Dynasties displayed considerable sophistication in conquering, subduing and administering this vast populations

All of this was a direct product of the very economic difficulties that faced societies emerging north of that ecological border in north China.


So I do literally believe a communist society objectively speaking would be inferior to a capitalist society in terms of direct violent power or military force. Does this imply communism is inferior to capitalism in general?In which case you're simply mistaken. A communist society - massing its immensely superior productive forces and its energised and committed population - would unquestionably prove superior to any capitalist rival. Similar to how armies of French free citizens marched over Europe during the last years of the 18th C

Which is of course my point - no such division existed between China and Inner Asia. It is inconceivable that the various nomadic peoples could have repeatedly conquered China if they were as inferior as you suggest


To say that the economic and the military cannot be divorced in an ultimate sense is obviously wrong, because communism is indeed a kind of society that is economically extremely advanced, but not militaristic, is it not? Or are you not a communist at all?Well that's not a reason at all. You are, for some strange reason, confusing "military potential" with "militarism". Which is entirely unfounded


1) In pre-capitalist societies, there is no "national consciousness" in the modern sense. You will find that the boundary between "Han" and "nomad" was much more fluidic than you think. So there were many ethnic Han "collaborators" during the nomadic conquests of China. Some of the Mongol empire's greatest generals were ethnic Han ChineseWell this is perverse. One reason for the triumphs of the Mongolic peoples was the guidance and leadership of Han generals? That's beyond nonsense

With the exception of the Manchu invasion (read: Wu Sangui) and the final campaigns against the Song, the Han made little contribution to foreign conquests. The shock forces, and later backbone, of the various Conquest Dynasties remained very much the steppe cavalry formations. Han dominated armies raised in China proper were not insignificant but typically served as auxiliary or garrison forces and were (obviously) not a factor in the initial invasion. Now ethnic Han could of course join the new ruling military castes, and there are several examples of this occurring, but they did so at the price of abandoning typical Han military/social traditions and joining the new steppe milieu


But still, generally speaking, in ancient times, the settled agricultural regions of the Han Chinese were significantly richer and more prosperous than the nomadic regions of North Asia and Central Asia, which is partly why the nomads wanted to raid Han China in the first place.And the capabilities of the nomad peoples allowed them to repeatedly do so over several centuries


Not really. It's generally accepted in mainstream Chinese academia today that the Qing Dynasty was one of the high points (the last high point, in fact) of Chinese feudal civilisationYes, as the barbarians came to appreciate Chinese civilisation :glare:


Marxists should neither demonise nomads, nor glorify their "military successes". Marxists should always take an anti-imperialist position when examining history.That's all I can take of this twaddle. Waste of my time. I'm watching football and you can stop spamming my profile page

[Queercommie Girl]

"Short-term"? From 1005 (Treaty of Shanyuan which established Khitan dominance over China) to 1911 (end of the Qing) there was less than three centuries of Han rule over all China. This is despite, as you note, their immense material inferiority. In doing so the various Conquest Dynasties displayed considerable sophistication in conquering, subduing and administering this vast populations

All of this was a direct product of the very economic difficulties that faced societies emerging north of that ecological border in north China.


The Northern Song continued to rule most of North China for more than a century after 1005 CE.

The nomads were economically less productive. I didn't say they were not militarily advanced. Indeed, I've repeatedly said that they were.

But being an anti-militarist I simply don't see military prowess as something to commend at all.

Besides, you seem to be exclusively focussing on the last 1000 years of Chinese history. China has a history of 4000 years, not 1000. It's true that the Song Dynasty was militarily weak, every historian would agree with that. And even the Ming Dynasty (which was militarily more powerful than the Song for certain) was still militarily weaker than the Manchus.

But it wasn't always like this. Earlier Han Chinese dynasties, like the Han and Tang Dynasties, were militarily much more powerful, and certainly gave the nomads a run for their money. They were able to project Chinese power into Central Asia, Korea and North Asia. The Anbei Protectorate of the early Tang Dynasty extended as far north as Siberia, and the Anxi Protectorate extended into modern-day Afghanistan. For some reason you seem to be completely ignoring these earlier events, and solely choose to focus on the last 1000 years, which is obviously why your general view of comparative Han and nomadic military power is rather biased and skewed.



In which case you're simply mistaken. A communist society - massing its immensely superior productive forces and its energised and committed population - would unquestionably prove superior to any capitalist rival. Similar to how armies of French free citizens marched over Europe during the last years of the 18th C
You are missing my point. I'm not talking about a socialist state in direct military competition with capitalist states, but the future communist society in which both states and armies have dissolved away.

The French free citizens in the 18th century were certainly not a socialist or communist force, despite being relatively and partially progressive. And even they were largely an infantry force, rather than an elitist military aristocracy in possession of heavy cavalry or modern armour of any kind. So in military form and class basis they were actually much closer to the Han Chinese peasant infantries than to the elite horsemen shock troops of the Asiatic nomads.

Also, your comparison with the French free citizens is simply perverse and disgraceful. You are on the wrong side of the class divide, *comrade*. The French free citizens were a bourgeois force that was partly progressive at the time because it opposed feudalism and feudal imperialism across Europe, yet you are actually apologising for the feudal imperialism of the Asiatic nomads. Shame on you.

(And if you somehow think the Asiatic nomads were in any way similar to the French free citizens, you are totally mistaken. The Asiatic nomadic empires were certainly very explicit class societies with power hierarchies and economic inequality. If they weren't they wouldn't have been able to conquer China. They were empires, not "free" at all. Indeed, they were still using slaves when the Han Chinese had already abolished the practice of direct slavery a long time ago)

So according to you, military strength is the primary criteria of judging how advanced a civilisation is, since it's so closely linked to economics. Therefore since the Asiatic nomadic empires were militarily more powerful than the Han Chinese, does this mean you think they were not merely not inferior to the Han Chinese, but actually more advanced and superior? I thought originally your point was that neither the Han nor the nomads were "superior" to the other, they were just "different".



Which is of course my point - no such division existed between China and Inner Asia. It is inconceivable that the various nomadic peoples could have repeatedly conquered China if they were as inferior as you suggest
When did I say they were "inferior"? I don't make such value judgements. I said their societies were economically less productive, which is one reason why they had such small populations in the first place, despite advances in their military technology.



Well that's not a reason at all. You are, for some strange reason, confusing "military potential" with "militarism". Which is entirely unfounded
Actually I don't necessarily think a communist society would have greater "military potential" than a capitalist society either. Certainly when the risk of counter-revolution is no longer present, there is no need for the existence of a worker's state, or any standing armed forces to exist.



Well this is perverse. One reason for the triumphs of the Mongolic peoples was the guidance and leadership of Han generals? That's beyond nonsense
The only perversity is your lack of knowledge of Chinese history in general, you Eurocentric scum. Without the active "collaborations" of Han armies, neither the Mongols nor the Manchus would have conquered China.



With the exception of the Manchu invasion (read: Wu Sangui) and the final campaigns against the Song, the Han made little contribution to foreign conquests.
Not really. Han infantry and artillery were used in the Mongol campaigns in West Asia. Read up about the ethnic Han general Guo Kan and the siege of Baghdad by Mongol forces.

For instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_%281258%29

Other participating Christian forces were the Armenian army, led by their king, and some Frankish troops from the Principality of Antioch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Antioch).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_%281258%29#cite_note-6) The contemporary Persian observer Ata al-Mulk Juvayni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ata_al-Mulk_Juvayni) reports as participants in the siege about 1,000 Chinese artillery experts, and Armenians, Georgians, Persians, and Turks.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_%281258%29#cite_note-Geographic-1)

Also, during the Qing Dynasty, it wasn't just Wu Sangui. Ethnic Hans from the north actually joined the Eight Banners Army, just that after the Qing Dynasty fell, these ethnic Han bannermen were officially classed as "ethnic Manchu" by the Chinese government.

Besides, the Manchu Qing was very significant in history because that's what created modern "China" in the geo-political sense, as we know it today.



The shock forces, and later backbone, of the various Conquest Dynasties remained very much the steppe cavalry formations.
How could they have consisted of largely ethnic nomads when the nomads had such small populations compared with the Han? Logistically it doesn't make any sense.



Han dominated armies raised in China proper were not insignificant but typically served as auxiliary or garrison forces and were (obviously) not a factor in the initial invasion.
No, it's not "obvious" at all. You have no conception of Marxist historiography. There was no "nationalism" in the modern sense before the capitalist era. The boundary between "Han" and "nomad" was often fluidic.



Now ethnic Han could of course join the new ruling military castes, and there are several examples of this occurring, but they did so at the price of abandoning typical Han military/social traditions and joining the new steppe milieu
So if an ethnic Han adopts certain nomadic customs, he is no longer Han? :rolleyes:

This view is absurd. The Tang Dynasty was an ethnic Han-ruled regime, yet it had many cultural traditions that originated in the Asiatic steppes, such as military traditions and horse-riding.



Yes, as the barbarians came to appreciate Chinese civilisation :glare:
Effective Sinisation was an important factor in why certain dynasties were relatively effective, that's a fact. You can deny it all you like, but it only shows that you are Sinophobic.

Fact is, many nomads actively chose to Sinise themselves, often to a very deep extent. Surely there are objective material reasons for this, instead of it just being a product of "Sinocentric propaganda" like you seem to ridiculously suggest?

However, from a Marxist point of view I don't glorify Chinese or Sinised dynasties either. They were generally very oppressive for the peasants and the urban poor.



And the capabilities of the nomad peoples allowed them to repeatedly do so over several centuries
And are you suggesting there is something for contemporary socialists to learn from this so-called "capabilities of the nomads"?

There is no "special military caste" in a communist society.



That's all I can take of this twaddle. Waste of my time. I'm watching football and you can stop spamming my profile page
Go and fuck off then. Your own existence is a waste of time.

You are just out of effective arguments which is why you no longer dare to respond to me, either in this thread or on the profile pages. Stupid coward.

If you are not an anti-imperialist then you are not a genuine socialist, that's as simple as that. You can go on glorifying the great military conquests of the Mongol hordes across Eurasia, instead of viewing it as the atrocities that they were, but don't ever claim or even pretend to that you are doing so due to any kind of supposedly Marxist justification.

And don't forget, football was originally invented by the Han Chinese, not the nomads. LOL

[Queercommie Girl]

How does Non-militaristic Imperialism work?

It's a political stance (i.e. viewpoint when looking at history etc), not a concrete political program.

[Vargha Poralli]

These dynasties were Afghan, Turkish and partially Mongol in origin. After the foundation of the Mughal dynasty in the early 16th century, one of the political policies of the emperors was marrying native Hindu princesses. This resulted in winning over some of the local kingdoms. So the rulers of India from that time onward were part native. After the fall of the Mughals, the native Marathas had briefly established supremacy over Northern India and had planned to extend their empire up to Afghanistan.

Delhi Sultanate is the one which is based in Turkic tribes. Mughals are desecdants of Timur/Mongols.

You are correct starting from Akbar every Baadshah had married a Rajput princesses but their influence stopped during the time of Shah Jahan. The Rajput and Jats remained loyal to Mughals because of the latters recognitions of them as holders of power in Rajputana and Audh regions.

Marathas came to power at the expense of Mughals as they tried to expand further in to the deccan plateau under Shah jahan. The succession war of his sons and relentless wars waged by Aurangazeb weakened the Mughals and drained their resources which enabled Marathas who expanded their influence heavily until they were deafated by Ahamed shah Abdali(or Durrani).

The thrid Battle of Panipat weakend but Marathas, at the same time Duranni was also unable to establish their power base in India. This led to fragmentaions which was exploited by the English East India company to establish India as a colony of Britain.

Todays Indian state owes its existance to English East India company apart from anthing else. British colonialism is what united this multinational landmass in to a single state which stands today.

[Dimentio]

Countries don't rise only because their productive systems.

Mongolia would be a barren desert no matter what pre-industrial society they had. They would never, ever have been able to match China's productivity, because China is much more suitable for agriculture.

[red cat]

@VP:

Since you're going into details, it should be mentioned that the Delhi sultanate was actually five dynasties one of which was Afghan. Also, Timur himself was Turkic.

[Queercommie Girl]

Countries don't rise only because their productive systems.

Mongolia would be a barren desert no matter what pre-industrial society they had. They would never, ever have been able to match China's productivity, because China is much more suitable for agriculture.

This point in itself, I don't really disagree.

My primary point in this thread, to put it in short, isn't about "Han" vs. "Mongol" or whatever, it's about anti-militarism.

Marxism is labour-centric, not military force-centric. The central classes of society are workers and peasants, not soldiers and armies. We should praise a civilisation for how much it has built and invented, not for how much it has conquered and destroyed.

It's a double standard and hypocritical for people to criticise Western imperialism today but not Mongol imperialism in the past. You either criticise both, or don't criticise either.

ComradeOm makes it sound as if the Mongol conquests in Eurasia were actually intrinsically positive things, which is frankly a disgusting and reactionary perspective for a self-claimed Marxist. If one wants to glorify people like Genghis Khan, one should join the neo-Nazis. The Nazis always glorify military conquests and military prowess, the neo-Nazis in Mongolia today still glorifies Genghis Khan and actually explicitly links him with Hitler. Leftists, on the other hand, shouldn't have a positive view of him at all, not least because contemporary Iraqis have actually made an analogical comparison between American imperialism in Iraq today and the Mongol invasions of the Middle East in the 13th century.

Personally, I just hate this ridiculous and stupid ultra-macho glorification of anything that is militarily powerful, no matter if it's actually an imperialist rather than anti-imperialist force.

I'm not an absolute pacifist. If a Marxist wants to pay tribute to a great military hero, he/she should go for Spartacus, who Marx himself greatly praised. Or perhaps one of the great peasant rebel leaders from ancient China such as Chen Sheng and Wu Guang. For a Marxist, one Spartacus is worth 10,000 Genghis Khans.

[Dimentio]

Warfare is overrated, I do agree.

Especially today, with the Damocles' sword of Nuclear Winter hanging over you.

[Queercommie Girl]

What's ComradeOm doing with Marxists? This is the group he should have joined, IMO:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2010/8/2/1280761040788/Mongolian-neo-Nazi-group--006.jpg

Seig Heil!

[Jose Gracchus]

That's fucking absurd and offensive.

[Queercommie Girl]

That's fucking absurd and offensive.

I oppose anyone who glorify Genghis Khan. You got a problem with that, "comrade"?

If you glorify Genghis Khan, you might as well glorify US imperialism today. (American imperialism today is actually less destructive generally speaking) What's the fucking difference?

One is capitalist imperialism, the other is feudal imperialism. I thought genuine Marxists must oppose all instances of feudalism, just like they should oppose all instances of capitalism, no?

I find it hilarious that the same people who would jump up at any positive evaluation of a capitalist state like the United States or the British Empire, or indeed the "Stalinist" states like the PRC and the USSR, would have no problems with glorifying a vile reactionary feudal regime from centuries ago. Julius Caesar and Genghis Khan were more "progressive" than the likes of Lincoln or Stalin in these people's insane minds.

Besides, I'm entitled to my views. I thought you believed in "freedom of speech", no? I suggest you leave yourself out of it, this has nothing to do with you.

[Jose Gracchus]

In no sense could ComradeOm's posts be taken as a "glorification" of Genghis Khan. You're just trying to grind your ax. In any case, you're obviously too psychologically invested for it to be worth it to debate this with you. I thought it was truly preposterous for you to aliken his posts to endorsement of Nazism. :rolleyes:

Pretty amusing you whack at me over "freedom of speech" and immediately thereafter screech that this "is none of my business" [implicitly, I should shut the fuck up]. Cute.

[Queercommie Girl]

I thought it was truly preposterous for you to aliken his posts to endorsement of Nazism. :rolleyes:


Then you are not aware of the context of this debate.

It's like saying the genocide of native Americans and the mass enslavement of Blacks in the United States is indeed one factor which shows how advanced American capitalism really was.

Besides, there are real neo-Nazis in Mongolia today who still glorify Genghis Khan. Granted, contemporary Mongolian neo-Nazis aren't really a threat as such, but it still shows the close link between the two.



Pretty amusing you whack at me over "freedom of speech" and immediately thereafter screech that this "is none of my business" [implicitly, I should shut the fuck up]. Cute.Yes. "Freedom of speech" implies you are free of say what you like, and I'm free to say what I like, including trying to advise you to stay out of someone else's argument/debate. Did I try to stop you from posting? No. It's only an advice for you, I personally have no real problems with you (yet), take it or leave it.

[Jose Gracchus]

You need to be able to distinguish between a positive observation and normative value judgment. It is true to say American capitalism as a social formation permitted the development of a more robust and aggressive and imperially-capable society than the indigenous American societies throughout the continental interior. That does not mean that it was morally superior or that it was right and proper for the American society and polity to conquer and subjugate the indigenous nations. But lets be serious: all centers of political power are essentially predatory institutions. They all expand and conquer and acquire within their intrinsic capacities, and are only checked by outside forces, internal contradiction, or their own populations.

I do not judge the Nazi state on moralistic grounds or might-is-right grounds. It is simply a historically unusually virulent mutation of the imperialist capitalist state, and behaved accordingly. It is not out of some kind of attachment or affinity for the capitalist states it attacked and even successfully subjugated I oppose or condemn it, but for its direct human tolls. Indeed, one can see by the immediate post-war that each last one these previously 'victimized' capitalist states immediately resumed Nazi-Lite behavior in accordance with their own predatory laws of motion.

That's just truism, not value judgement.

[Queercommie Girl]

But lets be serious: all centers of political power are essentially predatory institutions. They all expand and conquer and acquire within their intrinsic capacities, and are only checked by outside forces, internal contradiction, or their own populations.


In principle, I don't disagree.

But as I said, you don't know the context of this thread. ComradeOm suddenly jumped in "guns-blazing" accusing me for being "Han-centric", whereas I certainly have no such views and have never made such points at all, and I have repeatedly said so, yet it constantly falls upon deaf ears.

I never said the Mongols were just "primitive savages", that would be absurd given how powerful and large their empire was. In fact, I explicitly said precisely the opposite, that they were a militarily advanced class society with explicit hierarchies and economic classes, which explains their military power and brutality.

I only made the point that the Asiatic nomads in the last 1000 years were militarily more powerful than the Han but economically less productive. (Earlier on in history the Han certainly gave the nomads a run for their money) This is just an objective fact. It explains why the Asiatic nomads like the Mongols have a much smaller population, yet their armies were able to conquer "China Proper". I never said the nomads were "inferior". Indeed, I object to the use of words such as "superior" and "inferior" in such discourse. "Superior" and "inferior" are value judgements, "advanced" and "less advanced" are just neutral observations of reality. My point was that the Asiatic nomads were militarily more advanced than the Han but economically less advanced, which is why in Chinese/East Asian history, the greatest empires/dynasties were "Sino-nomadic" regimes, those that could successfully and effectively combine and integrate the more advanced economic productivity and cultural sophistication of the Han with the more advanced military power of the nomads. (E.g. the Tang Dynasty)

Yet ComradeOm does not see this, his view of China is very one-sided and biased. He seems to think that not only were the Asiatic nomads not "inferior" to the Han (a point which I would agree, but he continues to insist that I'm "Han-centric"), but actually "far superior" to the Han simply on the basis of their "superior military power". Making a value judgement like that solely on the basis of military force is indeed somewhat offensive to the Han Chinese, not the mention bizarre for a self-claimed socialist since Marxism is labour-centric, not military-centric, and workers and peasants are the central classes, not soldiers (unless you follow the doctrine of Juche). Not to mention socialism is generally anti-militarist and anti-imperialist. Instead of just being "anti-Han-centrism", ComradeOm is expressing "anti-Han" views.

If Marxists are to praise any ancient civilisation, we should praise it for what it has built, what it has invented and written, not what it has conquered or destroyed. We can praise the engineering quality of Roman roads, the sophistication of Greek logic, the literary value of Tang poetry, the flowing prose of Shakespeare, the physics of Newton, the biology of Darwin. We shouldn't glorify the Mongol's wanton destruction of Baghdad and their slaughtering of millions in China, or the Atlantic slave trade in early Western capitalism. It seems like common sense to me. Marxism is labour-centric, not force-centric. Socialists admire great creations of minds and hands, fascists admire "military prowess".

I have no "Han-centric" views at all. My "anti-Mongol" views are solely based on Marxism and anti-imperialism, not Han nationalism. Han nationalists would believe that only the nomads were capable of brutality, but not the Han. The Han were a "morally pure" people. Such a view is of course absurd, because it completely ignores class. It's true that the Chinese Red Army for instance was extremely disciplined and virtuous, but certainly the same cannot be said about the ethnic Han warlords that existed throughout Chinese history. Ethnic Han warlords were no less brutal than any Mongol militarist. Even in the 20th century they were still very brutal, as their reactionary "white terror" against the Chinese Reds demonstrated vividly.

I oppose Mongol imperialism, Chinese warlordism and American capitalism alike. There is no bias at all. Yet ComradeOm continues to accuse me for being "Han-centric" groundlessly, simply because I criticise the brutal militaristic imperialism of the Mongol empire.

If he equates anti-imperialism and anti-militarism with "Han-centrism", he must either be a crypto-fascist or just insane.

[Queercommie Girl]

It is true to say American capitalism as a social formation permitted the development of a more robust and aggressive and imperially-capable society than the indigenous American societies throughout the continental interior. That does not mean that it was morally superior or that it was right and proper for the American society and polity to conquer and subjugate the indigenous nations.


Objectively speaking, feudal imperialism is generally even more directly brutal than capitalist imperialism, which is one reason why Marxism believes capitalism is more progressive than feudalism.

The native populations in North America were never very high to begin with, and a lot of them were killed by disease due to contact rather than direct massacre. Mass slavery was of course ultra-reactionary but by the time of Lincoln it was officially abolished. Even vile hypocrites like Thomas Jefferson at least pretended to be humane and enlightened, whereas Genghis Khan didn't even bother to pretend, he literally and explicitly took pride in the fact that he was raping the wives and daughters (and possibly sons too, many ancient leaders were actually bisexual) of his vanquished enemies. Even the American founding fathers never sunk down to such low levels of crude barbarism.

The Mongol empire directly massacred tens of millions of innocent civilians across Eurasia, mainly in China and in the Middle East. The Islamic civilisation never recovered from the Mongol conquest. Even today, Iraqis compare contemporary American imperialism to the hated Mongol invaders of the past.

American imperialism at least did objectively raise productivity by a large margin. Mongol imperialism did no such thing, and economic productivity in many regions actually declined as a result of the Mongol conquest.

To be frank, Mongol imperialism in Eurasia was even worse than European imperialism in the Americas, quantitatively speaking.

The subsequent Han Chinese Ming Dynasty began as a mass peasant rebellion and a national liberation war against the Mongol yoke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Turbans

Since the 1340s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1340), the Mongol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol)-ruled Yuan Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_Dynasty) was experiencing problems. The Yellow River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_River) flooded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood) constantly, and other natural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural) disasters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster) and military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military) expenditure to maintain its vast empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire). This was solved mostly through additional taxation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation) that fell mainly on the Han Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese) population which constituted the lowest two castes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste) in the four castes of the people under the Yuan Dynasty.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Turbans#cite_note-guide-0)

The Red Turban Army (紅巾軍) was originally started by the followers of White Lotus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Lotus) (白蓮教) and Manichaeism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism) (摩尼教) to resist the Mongols.

Therefore to stand on the side of the Mongol empire instead of the Han Chinese rebels against Mongol rule in China is not only vile in the sense of standing on the wrong side of anti-imperialism, but it's literally standing on the wrong side of the class divide. It's standing on the side of feudal imperialism against a mass popular peasant uprising.

Just change every "Mongols" and "Han" in ComradeOm's posts to "Europeans" and "native Americans" and you would see why his views are indeed somewhat offensive to the Han Chinese.

[El Chuncho]

To be frank, Mongol imperialism in Eurasia was even worse than European imperialism in the Americas, quantitatively speaking.


Quality not quantity. ;) Many groups (not just the Han) in China and nearby areas were subjugated but they didn't experience the mass genocide that the Native Americans received. The rule of the Mongol dynasty (Mongol is an ethnic word, I am almost weary of using it) was more akin to the Norman rule of England, which contained subjugations and massacres but the people were made into slaves (''serfs'') for the over-caste of Normans, and some were made into minor ranks (mostly yeomen) to help oversee the English populace. That didn't quite happen in the North America, or all of South America, with the northern natives usually being massacred and driven off their land, rather than being forced to work for the state. They did ultimately end up on reservations where they were forced to work, but it was not the main focus of European-American brutality against them.

[Queercommie Girl]

Quality not quantity. ;) Many groups (not just the Han) in China and nearby areas were subjugated but they didn't experience the mass genocide that the Native Americans received. The rule of the Mongol dynasty (Mongol is an ethnic word, I am almost weary of using it) was more akin to the Norman rule of England, which contained subjugations and massacres but the people were made into slaves (''serfs'') for the over-caste of Normans, and some were made into minor ranks (mostly yeomen) to help oversee the English populace. That didn't quite happen in the North America, or all of South America, with the northern natives usually being massacred and driven off their land, rather than being forced to work for the state. They did ultimately end up on reservations where they were forced to work, but it was not the main focus of European-American brutality against them.

The majority of native Americans perished due to disease, not direct massacre. And as vile and brutal as European imperialism in the Americas was, it did have some redeeming "progressive" features. It really did improve economic productivity in the region by a huge margin, and in South America certain reactionary practices such as ritual human sacrifice was abolished by the conquistadors. The Mongol empire did no such thing. Economic productivity actually declined in East Asia and in the Middle East as a result of the Mongol conquest.

And it's wrong to think that the European colonists simply blindly massacred any natives they came across. That's an irrational viewpoint. Obviously the Europeans initially tried to employ natives as slave labour as well, and only sought to import slaves from Africa since too many natives simply perished due to European diseases to which they had no natural immunity for.

I never said it's "just the Han". Did you even read my posts in this thread? I repeatedly brought up the example of the Islamic world. I also mentioned the Mongol's genocidal extermination of the semi-nomadic Tanguts, who were actually ethnically much closer to the Mongols than to the Han Chinese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_%281258%29

The Siege of Baghdad, which occurred in 1258, was an invasion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion), siege (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege) and sacking of the city of Baghdad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad), the capital of the Abbasid caliphate at the time and the modern-day capital of Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq), by the Ilkhanate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilkhanate) Mongol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol) forces along with other allied troops under Hulagu Khan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulagu_Khan).

The invasion left Baghdad in a state of total destruction. A number of inhabitants ranging from 100,000 to 1,000,000 were massacred during the invasion of the city, and the city was sacked and burned. Even the libraries of Baghdad, including the House of Wisdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wisdom), were not safe from the attacks of the Ilkhanate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilkhanate) forces who totally destroyed the libraries, and used the invaluable books to make a passage across Tigris River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tigris)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. As a result Baghdad remained depopulated and in ruins for several centuries, and the event is conventionally regarded as the end of the Islamic Golden Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_%281258%29#cite_note-2)

Many historical accounts detailed the cruelties of the Mongol conquerors.


The Grand Library of Baghdad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wisdom), containing countless precious historical documents and books on subjects ranging from medicine to astronomy, was destroyed. Survivors said that the waters of the Tigris ran black with ink from the enormous quantities of books flung into the river and red from the blood of the scientists and philosophers killed.
Citizens attempted to flee, but were intercepted by Mongol soldiers who killed with abandon. Martin Sicker writes that close to 90,000 people may have died (Sicker 2000, p. 111). Other estimates go much higher. Wassaf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassaf) claims the loss of life was several hundred thousand. Ian Frazier of The New Yorker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Yorker) says estimates of the death toll have ranged from 200,000 to a million.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_%281258%29#cite_note-8)
The Mongols looted and then destroyed mosques, palaces, libraries, and hospitals. Grand buildings that had been the work of generations were burned to the ground.
The caliph was captured and forced to watch as his citizens were murdered and his treasury plundered. According to most accounts, the caliph was killed by trampling. The Mongols rolled the caliph up in a rug, and rode their horses over him, as they believed that the earth was offended if touched by royal blood. All but one of his sons were killed, and the sole surviving son was sent to Mongolia, where Mongolian historians report he married and fathered children, but played no role in Islam thereafter (see Abbasid: The end of the dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid#The_end_of_the_dynasty)).
Hulagu had to move his camp upwind of the city, due to the stench of decay from the ruined city.

Baghdad was a depopulated, ruined city for several centuries and only gradually recovered some of its former glory.

"Iraq in 1258 was very different from present day Iraq. Its agriculture was supported by canal networks thousands of years old. Baghdad was one of the most brilliant intellectual centers in the world. The Mongol destruction of Baghdad was a psychological blow from which Islam never recovered. Already Islam was turning inward, becoming more suspicious of conflicts between faith and reason and more conservative. With the sack of Baghdad, the intellectual flowering of Islam was snuffed out. Imagining the Athens of Pericles and Aristotle obliterated by a nuclear weapon begins to suggest the enormity of the blow. The Mongols filled in the irrigation canals and left Iraq too depopulated to restore them." (Steven Dutch) "They swept through the city like hungry falcons attacking a flight of doves, or like raging wolves attacking sheep, with loose reins and shameless faces, murdering and spreading terror...beds and cushions made of gold and encrusted with jewels were cut to pieces with knives and torn to shreds. Those hiding behind the veils of the great Harem were dragged...through the streets and alleys, each of them becoming a plaything...as the population died at the hands of the invaders." (Abdullah Wassaf as cited by David Morgan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Morgan_%28historian%29))

Some historians believe that the Mongol invasion destroyed much of the irrigation infrastructure that had sustained Mesopotamia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamia) for many millennia. Canals were cut as a military tactic and never repaired. So many people died or fled that neither the labor nor the organization were sufficient to maintain the canal system. It broke down or silted up. This theory was advanced by historian Svatopluk Souček (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svat_Soucek) in his 2000 book, A History of Inner Asia and has been adopted by authors such as Steven Dutch.

If Americans and Israelis did this in the Middle East today what would you say? Why are the Mongols let off more lightly?

I find it hilarious that some people would apply such a double standard to capitalist imperialism and feudal imperialism.

Mongol imperialism was not like the Norman invasions. It was far more destructive.

(Incidentally, even the Mongols of the Yuan Dynasty did Sinise to some extent - hence the name "Yuan", so it wasn't quite like the Normans in Anglo-Saxon England. The Normans were both militarily more powerful and culturally more sophisticated than the Anglo-Saxons, but the Mongols were only militarily more powerful than the Han - and indeed part of the reason for the fall of the Song Dynasty was immense internal corruption, rather than just military inferiority per se, but not culturally more advanced)

[Queercommie Girl]

ComradeOm's attempt to draw a parallel between the forces of the French bourgeois revolution (the French free citizens) with the Asiatic nomadic imperialists (apparently on the ridiculous ethnicist cultural essentialist basis of the "Franks" in antiquity being a "nomadic people" just like the Mongols, which by the way actually isn't true anyway, the Franks were a peasant population much closer to the Han, and cultural essentialism is totally insane, since there is nothing special about "nomadism" one way or the another - nomadism doesn't necessarily make a people more or less militarily powerful or politically progressive at all) is especially reactionary, vile and disgusting, given that the French bourgeois revolution fought against feudal absolutism and imperialism, whereas ComradeOm is apologising for feudal imperialism in ancient Asia.

If anything, the French Revolution was more like the Chinese bourgeois revolution led by Dr. Sun Yat-sen which overthrew the feudal Manchu Qing Dynasty and established the first capitalist republic in Asia. Indeed, Lenin himself drew an explicit parallel between the Chinese bourgeois revolution and the French Revolution, and praised Sun Yat-sen for his revolutionary work which undermined Asiatic feudalism.

[Queercommie Girl]

lulz, i think isuel is a troll


If you have something relevant to say (relevant relative to this thread), then say it, otherwise I'd recommend the moderators remove the irrelevant one-liners of this troll.

And if you are trying to be funny then it clearly isn't.

[El Chuncho]

And it's wrong to think that the European colonists simply blindly massacred any natives they came across. That's an irrational viewpoint. Obviously the Europeans initially tried to employ natives as slave labour as well, and only sought to import slaves from Africa since too many natives simply perished due to European diseases to which they had no natural immunity for.

Yes, I know that, but the fact does remain that the American-Indian War was mostly a war to massacre or remove natives from their land.


I never said it's "just the Han". Did you even read my posts in this thread?

Yes, I did, I merely wrote ''not just the Han'', because this thread is in danger of becoming a Han vs. Mongol thing.


I repeatedly brought up the example of the Islamic world. I also mentioned the Mongol's genocidal extermination of the semi-nomadic Tanguts, who were actually ethnically much closer to the Mongols than to the Han Chinese.

You might be correct there, but I am not convinced by the evidence that has been put forward, as the Tanguts speak a Tibeto-Burman language, which would mean they might be ethnically closer to the Han, unless they adopted the language, which there is not as much evidence for outside of their name (which some have connected to the Mongolian word for people, written in Chinese as Donghu). But I am not as knowledgeable at Chinese history so I wouldn't want to argue this point at all.



If Americans and Israelis did this in the Middle East today what would you say? Why are the Mongols let off more lightly?

Well, I am not trying to let the Mongol empire off so lightly, but double-standards exist due to people's education on such matters. I have argued that their is a double-standard against English national liberation from the British government/political nation (which is centered in the capital of England, but doesn't allow anywhere other than the south to prosper) and towards the (very justified) national liberation struggle in Ireland. I have always supported all socialist national liberation movements.

I do think that we should not blame any ancient empire as harshly as modern ones though. Imperialism has always been wrong, but human understanding has changed over the years. The Mongols are as bad as the Normans and the Romans, or maybe worse, but I do feel modern empires are worse.


I find it hilarious that some people would apply such a double standard to capitalist imperialism and feudal imperialism.

I agree. I just find imperialism bad.


Mongol imperialism was not like the Norman invasions. It was far more destructive.

That is debatable. Chinese culture was not almost destroyed due to Mongol imperialism, as the culture of the peasants was in England following the invasion, likewise, most aristocrats hold power because of the Norman invasion. Northumberland is mostly owned by the Percy and Armstrong family because they were given land following the Norman invasion. I think Norman and Mongol imperialism were equally destructive, it is just that the case against Normanisn was not championed as strongly by socialists because the bourgeoisie naturally didn't allow the Norman conquest to be taught in UK schools in anything other than a mostly positive light for centuries.


(Incidentally, even the Mongols of the Yuan Dynasty did Sinise to some extent - hence the name "Yuan", so it wasn't quite like the Normans in Anglo-Saxon England.

Actually, the Franko-Norman rulers did adopt English after a while, it is why English has many courtly loan words from Norman-French.


The Normans were both militarily more powerful and culturally more sophisticated than the Anglo-Saxons but the Mongols were only militarily more powerful than the Han - and indeed part of the reason for the fall of the Song Dynasty was immense internal corruption, rather than just military inferiority per se, but not culturally more advanced)

Again that is a fallacy that was taught for centuries by the bourgeoisie until the more modern era. The Normans were military advanced in some ways, though that is not a good thing, but they were not as culturally advanced being more of a warrior culture which kept power by the military, and trial by combat (e.g. peasant against knight). The Normans had an absolute monarch, the Anglo-Saxons had an elected king that could be voted out of power, their lands were more prosperous, the peasants were not as detached from the lords, and the legal system was more advanced (I studied law. Most of the Norman laws have been ditched but many of the OK pre-Norman laws remain, so be it with French names). The fact that they were taught to be culturally inferior has more to do with the fact that the upper-class descend from Normans and because cultural advancement was neglected for military might in the studies.

The comparison with the less culturally advanced Mongols and the Normans, is a descent one. The different between the cultural advancement of the English and the Normans was not as great as the one between the Mongol and the Han, but it did exist.

And I am not going to debate which imperialist group was worth out of the Mongols, Normans, Romans etc. because all imperialism by its nature is bad so declaring one as worse than the other is a bit pointless. I do agree, however, that you shouldn't support the Mongol empire whilst attacking other empires.

[Dimentio]

The Mongol Empire did have some progressive traits, like for example freedom of religion, public healthcare and public orphanages. Nothing of that was purely a Mongol invention though. They simply took the best from all their subject peoples and created a potpurri.

The idea of secularism came to Europe by inspiration from the Mongols.

[El Chuncho]

The Mongol Empire did have some progressive traits, like for example freedom of religion, public healthcare and public orphanages. Nothing of that was purely a Mongol invention though. They simply took the best from all their subject peoples and created a potpurri.

Well, maybe some of it was due to cultural parallels more than borrowing as I am sure they borrowed some progressive traits from Turko-Mongol culture.

[Dimentio]

Genghis Khan could - if nothing else - be respected. He rose from being a slave without family connections to the ruler of half of Eurasia.

[mosfeld]

One is capitalist imperialism, the other is feudal imperialism. I thought genuine Marxists must oppose all instances of feudalism, just like they should oppose all instances of capitalism, no?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe it as "feudal expansionism", rather than feudal imperialism (since these are two contradictory terms)?

(yes, I know, this is off-topic but that part caught my eye)

[Dimentio]

Under feudalism, the only way to increase the wealth of the ruling class is to expand the territory.

Rome was actually more proto-capitalist. It had lots of vassal states it exploited economically.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yes, I did, I merely wrote ''not just the Han'', because this thread is in danger of becoming a Han vs. Mongol thing.


I've repeatedly insisted that this is not just about "Han" vs. "Mongol" in this thread. I have nothing against Mongols or Asiatic nomads intrinsically, I'm just against Mongol imperialism and militarism. I also oppose Han warlordism of course.



You might be correct there, but I am not convinced by the evidence that has been put forward, as the Tanguts speak a Tibeto-Burman language, which would mean they might be ethnically closer to the Han, unless they adopted the language, which there is not as much evidence for outside of their name (which some have connected to the Mongolian word for people, written in Chinese as Donghu). But I am not as knowledgeable at Chinese history so I wouldn't want to argue this point at all.


Actually that's what people used to think, but now most mainstream historians agree that the Tanguts spoke an Altaic language, related to Tungusic languages such as Manchu.

But frankly it doesn't matter. The idea that there is some kind of "intrinsic" affinity between people belonging to the same "language group" is totally ridiculous. The Mongols killed many Altaic-speaking peoples too, they didn't care which language you spoke. And in the Qing Dynasty the Manchus genocidally exterminated the Western Mongol tribes.



Well, I am not trying to let the Mongol empire off so lightly, but double-standards exist due to people's education on such matters. I have argued that their is a double-standard against English national liberation from the British government/political nation (which is centered in the capital of England, but doesn't allow anywhere other than the south to prosper) and towards the (very justified) national liberation struggle in Ireland. I have always supported all socialist national liberation movements.


Good point.



I do think that we should not blame any ancient empire as harshly as modern ones though. Imperialism has always been wrong, but human understanding has changed over the years. The Mongols are as bad as the Normans and the Romans, or maybe worse, but I do feel modern empires are worse.


Certainly I agree we should put most of our attention on modern empires, simply because we live in the present-day and history is only history after all.

But I don't think there is some kind of qualitative transformation in people's general moral level throughout the ages. Islamic and Confucian cultures were just as against wanton killing in war during the 13th century CE as they do now. Some moral theories have changed, but the basics haven't.



That is debatable. Chinese culture was not almost destroyed due to Mongol imperialism, as the culture of the peasants was in England following the invasion, likewise, most aristocrats hold power because of the Norman invasion. Northumberland is mostly owned by the Percy and Armstrong family because they were given land following the Norman invasion. I think Norman and Mongol imperialism were equally destructive, it is just that the case against Normanisn was not championed as strongly by socialists because the bourgeoisie naturally didn't allow the Norman conquest to be taught in UK schools in anything other than a mostly positive light for centuries.

Actually, the Franko-Norman rulers did adopt English after a while, it is why English has many courtly loan words from Norman-French.

Again that is a fallacy that was taught for centuries by the bourgeoisie until the more modern era. The Normans were military advanced in some ways, though that is not a good thing, but they were not as culturally advanced being more of a warrior culture which kept power by the military, and trial by combat (e.g. peasant against knight). The Normans had an absolute monarch, the Anglo-Saxons had an elected king that could be voted out of power, their lands were more prosperous, the peasants were not as detached from the lords, and the legal system was more advanced (I studied law. Most of the Norman laws have been ditched but many of the OK pre-Norman laws remain, so be it with French names). The fact that they were taught to be culturally inferior has more to do with the fact that the upper-class descend from Normans and because cultural advancement was neglected for military might in the studies.

The comparison with the less culturally advanced Mongols and the Normans, is a descent one. The different between the cultural advancement of the English and the Normans was not as great as the one between the Mongol and the Han, but it did exist.


Interesting points. In fact, even today the British monarchy is descended from Norman invaders.



And I am not going to debate which imperialist group was worth out of the Mongols, Normans, Romans etc. because all imperialism by its nature is bad so declaring one as worse than the other is a bit pointless. I do agree, however, that you shouldn't support the Mongol empire whilst attacking other empires.


Obviously I don't necessarily just single out the Mongol either. I'm not intrinsically "anti-Mongol", I'm just anti-imperialist in general.

[Queercommie Girl]

Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe it as "feudal expansionism", rather than feudal imperialism (since these are two contradictory terms)?

(yes, I know, this is off-topic but that part caught my eye)

How?

I meant "imperialism" not in the Leninist sense (e.g. capitalist economic imperialism), but "geopolitical imperialism", ruled by a feudal autocracy or aristocracy.

[Queercommie Girl]

The Mongol Empire did have some progressive traits, like for example freedom of religion,


The Han Chinese dynasties always had freedom of religion.



public healthcare and public orphanages. Nothing of that was purely a Mongol invention though. They simply took the best from all their subject peoples and created a potpurri.
Eh...sorry but I need you to provide me with some solid evidence for that. As with your previous claims about "public healthcare" under the illiterate Incas, I'm highly skeptical that any pre-modern society (the Han Chinese included) could have "universal welfare". It seems ridiculous to me.



The idea of secularism came to Europe by inspiration from the Mongols.Perhaps, though secularism might be new in Europe, it certainly wasn't new in Asia. The Tang Dynasty centuries before the Mongol period was already secular.

Objectively, the only "positive" aspect of the Mongols was their military power. Since I'm generally an anti-militarist (though by no means an absolute pacifist), I really don't think there is any element in Mongol culture contemporary socialists could "inherit". (And Mongol military culture is completely obsolete in the modern age anyway, it was already becoming obsolete when Emperor Kangxi of the Qing massacred the Western Mongol tribes with heavy cannons in the late 17th century)

[Queercommie Girl]

Genghis Khan could - if nothing else - be respected. He rose from being a slave without family connections to the ruler of half of Eurasia.

Hitler rose from the lower classes too.

Genghis Khan "rose up" through killing a large number of people. And although in the initial formative stages of the Mongol empire, they were somewhat "meritocratic" (never systematically though), by the time they established their empire in China, there was already a racist ethnic caste system. The Han Chinese never possessed a caste system, it was a cultural element that is intrinsically alien to our meritocratic values.

Confucianism believes in "Heaven has no favourites, the only criteria is virtue."

[Queercommie Girl]

Inform Candidate,

I admit that my comparison with the native Americans in this case isn't a very good one. I will grant you that if we don't focus on moral considerations, then American capitalism did indeed have some progressive features. For one thing, the American bourgeois revolution rebelled against the British feudal monarchy, and Marx was always on the side of bourgeois revolutions against feudalism without any exception. Also, the American revolution had certain "enlightenment" values (even though the hypocritical founding fathers never really put them into action) and was based on the principle of anti-aristocratism and democracy. American capitalism also really increased economic productivity significantly. One could argue that modern socialists can still "inherit" some of these values to some extent.

But we are not talking about American capitalism here. We are talking about Mongol feudal imperialism. Firstly, there is really very little modern socialists can learn from any kind of feudalism in general, because it's a socio-economic system that's simply too far removed from our modern-day experience. It's simply not relevant anymore. Capitalism on the other hand is much closer to the present-day. Secondly, there aren't really any positive values in Mongol feudalism more specifically. It was a destructive system without any revolutionary features. The Mongols still had a system of feudal dictatorship, and there was actually a decline in economic productivity instead of an improvement. So Mongol feudalism is nothing like American capitalism at all. In both cases lots of people were killed, but at least in America there was objectively something to show for it.

The only "positive element" in Mongol feudalism was its greater military power. But that's not something modern Marxists can "inherit". (The traditional cavalries are completely obsolete with today's military technology anyway, it's something belonging to a war museum) Therefore even casting all moral considerations aside, objectively there simply isn't any real positive values in Mongol feudalism at all.

P.S. And I simply cannot accept ComradeOm's assertion that the Chinese should accept the "conquest dynasties" as "equals". It's like saying the Indians should accept British India as a legitimate "conquest dynasty" (Queen Victoria officially became the Empress of India), it's not acceptable for an anti-imperialist socialist. I oppose all forms of imperialisms throughout history, whether they are slavery, feudal or capitalist, not just capitalist imperialism.

[mosfeld]

How?

I meant "imperialism" not in the Leninist sense (e.g. capitalist economic imperialism), but "geopolitical imperialism", ruled by a feudal autocracy or aristocracy.

I was talking about the Leninist theory. It's not possible to be both feudal and imperialistic in accordance with it, but since you clarified I can see what you're saying :)

[Queercommie Girl]

Countries don't rise only because their productive systems.

Mongolia would be a barren desert no matter what pre-industrial society they had. They would never, ever have been able to match China's productivity, because China is much more suitable for agriculture.

Dimentio,

Note that the reverse is also true: Han people in ancient times were not as militarily powerful as the Asiatic nomads generally not because we were "intrinsically weak" (which would be somewhat of a cultural essentialist and racist statement), but because the Han lands could never raise as many horses as the Asiatic steppes, and before the widespread use of guns and cannons, horses gave people the greatest military advantage.

[El Chuncho]

I've repeatedly insisted that this is not just about "Han" vs. "Mongol" in this thread. I have nothing against Mongols or Asiatic nomads intrinsically, I'm just against Mongol imperialism and militarism. I also oppose Han warlordism of course.

I know, don't worry. :cool: But people keep bringing up the Han Chinese as if they are the only ones who suffered, and some keep mentioning anti-Mongol feelings, so I agree with you.




Actually that's what people used to think, but now most mainstream historians agree that the Tanguts spoke an Altaic language, related to Tungusic languages such as Manchu.

You could be right, but the ''Tangut'' language does appear to be Tibeto-Burman though that could just be because it was spoken in the Tangut empire by non-ethnic Tanguts. I do not know as much about Tangut history as I would like, my knowledge is more towards India and many other Macro-Altaic people instead.


But frankly it doesn't matter. The idea that there is some kind of "intrinsic" affinity between people belonging to the same "language group" is totally ridiculous. The Mongols killed many Altaic-speaking peoples too, they didn't care which language you spoke. And in the Qing Dynasty the Manchus genocidally exterminated the Western Mongol tribes.

Agreed.




Certainly I agree we should put most of our attention on modern empires, simply because we live in the present-day and history is only history after all.

Indeed, but it does not mean that history, and the examining of history is not important. To know history is to know the future, because we can learn from mistakes and from the class struggle of history.


But I don't think there is some kind of qualitative transformation in people's general moral level throughout the ages. Islamic and Confucian cultures were just as against wanton killing in war during the 13th century CE as they do now. Some moral theories have changed, but the basics haven't.

Agreed, but many attitudes do change. I mean, vegetarian is a good example. In India and some countries vegetarianism was accepted and commonly practiced, but other countries had hardly even thought about it because it would seem silly to them due to their economy, diet and other factors. In most cultures human sacrifices were common and practiced, but it is rare to find any culture that does that. :) Moral theories are very fluid, and only a few fundamentals has remained unchanged.




Interesting points. In fact, even today the British monarchy is descended from Norman invaders.

Indeed. The British monarchy is descended from many other monarchies now, and people often call them ''Germans'' (because German is a somewhat recent addition to their lineage) but they are only in power due to their Norman ancestors. It is both sad and funny, that these people only rule England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and many ''commonwealth'' nations because of a brutal invasion. They were almost toppled a few times, in the English Peasant's Revolt and also in the Civil War, yet they have managed to keep ''their'' throne as if they have very deep roots in the ground. It is worse in Japan, I guess, because roughly the same family has kept power for longer (since at least Keitai-Tenno, 507–531 C.E., who may have founded a new dynasty after Buretsu-Tenno).




Obviously I don't necessarily just single out the Mongol either. I'm not intrinsically "anti-Mongol", I'm just anti-imperialist in general.

Indeed, it is silly singling out empires when imperialism is just bad in general.

[Dimentio]

Dimentio,

Note that the reverse is also true: Han people in ancient times were not as militarily powerful as the Asiatic nomads generally not because we were "intrinsically weak" (which would be somewhat of a cultural essentialist and racist statement), but because the Han lands could never raise as many horses as the Asiatic steppes, and before the widespread use of guns and cannons, horses gave people the greatest military advantage.

Yes, I am in agreement there.

The history of warfare has been characterised by these periods:

2000-1000: Chariot warfare (Four horses dragging a wagon with some archers on)

1000-500: Cavalry warfare (At last, horses are large enough for people to sit on)

500-500: Infantry warfare (Armoured soldiers with long spears)

500-1500: Cavalry warfare (Improved cavalry with horseshouses, armoured heavy cavalry)

1500-1939: Infantry warfare (Guns)

1939- : Cavalry warfare (Tanks and aerial assaults)

[El Chuncho]

The Han Chinese never possessed a caste system, it was a cultural element that is intrinsically alien to our meritocratic values.

Confucianism believes in "Heaven has no favourites, the only criteria is virtue."

Ah, I think you might be forgetting the Confucian caste system, of ''four occupations'' (also borrowed by Japan shinokosho from shi, no, ko and sho) of shi (the scholars), the nong (the farmers), the gong (artisans and craftsmen), and the shang (traders, often the richest despite being the lowest). I cannot think of any culture that did not have a caste system at some point in its history, which is quite sad. BUT many cultures did get rid of them. ;)

[Queercommie Girl]

Ah, I think you might be forgetting the Confucian caste system, of ''four occupations'' (also borrowed by Japan) of shi (the scholars), the nong (the farmers), the gong (artisans and craftsmen), and the shang (traders, often the richest despite being the lowest).

That is a system of social class (obviously ancient China was also a class society), not ethnic caste.

In principle people of any race and ethnic group could become "Shi, Nong, Gong, Shang".

Of course, there was a lot of sexism in ancient China, but there was no real systematic racism like the Hindu caste system or the aparteid system in South Africa. Racial and ethnic prejudices of course existed always.

[El Chuncho]

That is a system of social class (obviously ancient China was also a class society), not ethnic caste.

I generally consider caste and class to be pretty much the same, but, yeah, you are right.


Of course, there was a lot of sexism in ancient China

That is true, but in some eras at least lesbianism was very tolerated, even amongst Buddhist nuns. I cannot remember which era, though, as I get a bit hazy with countries with LONG histories at times.

[Dimentio]

As for healthcare in Yuan China, Marco Polo mentions state-run hospitals and orphanages.

There are numerous sources about the extensive public healthcare system of the Incan Empire, especially from the Spanish (who wrote positively about Incan roads, the Incan public welfare system and the "morality" of the Incans, despite that they saw them as devil-worshippers). The guys who built pyramids and ripped out the hearts of their enemies in their tens of thousands were the Mesoamericans, who lived like half a world away from the Incans.

[El Chuncho]

The guys who built pyramids and ripped out the hearts of their enemies in their tens of thousands were the Mesoamericans, who lived like half a world away from the Incans.

Famously and especially like the Aztecs, who had a mix of progressive and really brutal cultural traits.

[Queercommie Girl]

As for healthcare in Yuan China, Marco Polo mentions state-run hospitals and orphanages.


If that is really the case, I think it's something the Mongols inherited from the Chinese Song Dynasty.

I've read some Chinese accounts that claim the Song Dynasty had a public welfare system to some extent.

[Dimentio]

If that is really the case, I think it's something the Mongols inherited from the Chinese Song Dynasty.

I've read some Chinese accounts that claim the Song Dynasty had a public welfare system to some extent.

Yes, the Mongols left like 90% of the Chinese buraucracy intact, but replaced the officer corps with their own and put Arabs and Persians in control of the finances.

Kublai Khan wanted to integrate into Chinese culture, whereas his successors wanted to continue to keep their "Mongolness" and repress the Han population, which eventually led to the revolt of 1368.

[El Chuncho]

Kublai Khan was the most reasonable of the Mongol emperors. Taking away his imperialism, he was at least cultured and had an interest in Chinese history and culture, unlike other Mongol emperors.

[Dimentio]

This might be an anecdote, but Genghis apparently wanted to kill the entire population of northern China to make pastures for horses, but he was persuaded not to by a few Chinese traitors who said that it was better to use people as cattle than horses, since people could be taxed.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yes, the Mongols left like 90% of the Chinese buraucracy intact, but replaced the officer corps with their own and put Arabs and Persians in control of the finances.


By "officer corp" do you mean the military? There were Han Chinese armies during the Yuan, but most of the elite troops consisted of Mongol troops.

There were very few Arabs in Yuan China. Most of the "Semuren" during the Yuan were Muslim Central Asians (e.g. Muslim Uyghurs) and a few Persians.

The Mongols also employed Han Chinese engineers in Mongol-controlled Mesopotamia.



Kublai Khan wanted to integrate into Chinese culture, whereas his successors wanted to continue to keep their "Mongolness" and repress the Han population, which eventually led to the revolt of 1368.

Apparently the last Yuan emperor was also quite Sinised.

[Queercommie Girl]

This might be an anecdote, but Genghis apparently wanted to kill the entire population of northern China to make pastures for horses, but he was persuaded not to by a few Chinese traitors who said that it was better to use people as cattle than horses, since people could be taxed.


The story is indeed anecdotal, but it was actually a Sinised ethnic Khitan called Yelu Chucai who advised Genghis, not an ethnic Han.

[El Chuncho]

By "officer corp" do you mean the military? There were Han Chinese armies during the Yuan, but most of the elite troops consisted of Mongol troops.

Yeah, much like in Norman England were many English were in the Norman armies, but the officers (the highest rank you could usually be if English was Yeoman, who could carry swords, which is why Robin Hood being a fully English lord is unlikely. Either his mother was English, or he was a Yeoman) and elite troops were Norman, Frankish and Breton. In the earliest years, the whole army was made up of non-English people.



There were very few Arabs in Yuan China. Most of the "Semuren" during the Yuan were Muslim Central Asians (e.g. Muslim Uyghurs) and a few Persians.

Indeed. The great explorer Zheng He, was the grandson of an administrator of the Yuan dynasty.







Apparently the last Yuan emperor was also quite Sinised.

Emperor Huizong of Yuan? I know a little of the period in which he lived, like the Red Turban rebellion, but not much about the emperor himself.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yeah, much like in Norman England were many English were in the Norman armies, but the officers (the highest rank you could usually be if English was Yeoman, who could carry swords, which is why Robin Hood being a fully English lord is unlikely. Either his mother was English, or he was a Yeoman) and elite troops were Norman, Frankish and Breton. In the earliest years, the whole army was made up of non-English people.


Now that you mention it, I think there is a lot of similarities between Norman-Anglo-Saxon and Mongol-Han-Chinese relations. The difference is that in Britain people still haven't overthrown the Norman dynasty yet.



Indeed. The great explorer Zheng He, was the grandson of an administrator of the Yuan dynasty.


Zheng He actually held the rank of Admiral during the early Ming.

But yes, most of the Semuren during the Yuan were Asiatic Muslims from Central Asia, like Zheng He's ancestors, not people from West Asia.

[El Chuncho]

But yes, most of the Semuren during the Yuan were Asiatic Muslims from Central Asia, like Zheng He's ancestors, not people from West Asia.

Indeed. I believe that Zheng He's grandfather was Persian. Actually Persia and China had interesting relations throughout their histories, with most Persian kings in certain eras only marrying Chinese princesses and noble women.

[El Chuncho]

Now that you mention it, I think there is a lot of similarities between Norman-Anglo-Saxon and Mongol-Han-Chinese relations. The difference is that in Britain people still haven't overthrown the Norman dynasty yet.

I think so too. And I think there are more parallels in history. From an imperialist standpoint, it does make cruel sense to only have elites and officers who are from your ethnic class rather than from the main oppressed population. It stops military and government officials from revolting. Normans were quite paranoid of revolts, it is why there are so many castles in England, and especially in Northumbria.

[Queercommie Girl]

Actually Persia and China had interesting relations throughout their histories, with most Persian kings in certain eras only marrying Chinese princesses and noble women.


I think that's overstating it. Long-distance contact was not easy in ancient times. There was contact between Han Dynasty China and the Parthians, and between the Tang Dynasty and the Sassanids. There were also ethnic Persian communities in coastal Chinese cities like Guangzhou during the Tang Dynasty. But contact was still quite limited in ancient times and the number of Persians in China was quite small. Most of the people from the "Western Regions" who went to China came from what is now Turkestan (China's Xinjiang Autonomous Region and parts of Kazakhstan) and what used to be called Bactria (the region between India and Iran today).

There is an interesting theory of Sassanid princes escaping to China after the Arabs took over their country:

http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/Post-Sasanian/pirooz.htm

PIROOZ IN CHINA Defeated Persian army takes refuge

(However, do take this account with a pinch of salt. Frank Wong doesn't really have a good reputation among more serious historians of ancient China)

Apparently, after the Han kingdom in southwestern China fell in 263 CE (during the Three Kingdoms Period), a prince escaped to Sassanid Persia as well.

[Raubleaux]

Well, this is certainly not a topic I would have guessed would arouse such passions. I will throw in my two cents.

For some people, it is fashionable to glorify Genghis Khan and the Mongols. For example, that book Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World became a major bestseller. The thesis seems to basically amount to "well yeah he killed millions but the Silk Road was revived under the Pax Mongolica and such." To me this seems like the post-classical era's version of "Mussolini made the trains run on time." While the Mongols did help to revive trade and interaction and their society did have some "egalitarian" attributes that were typical of nomadic civilizations (such as more freedoms for women relative to sedentary peoples), my overall assessment of Genghis Khan would be that he was a genocidal asshole.

I disagree with ComradeOm's assertion that the nomadic lifestyle and military organization of the Mongols was somehow superior to the sedentary Chinese empire. For the majority of China's imperial history, the nomadic peoples were more of a nuisance than a genuine military threat. Sedentary Chinese civilization was the dominant force in East Asia during the Zhou, Qin, Han, Sui, Tang, Song and Ming dynasties. As was already pointed out, even the Qing and to a certain degree the Mongol dynasties underwent significant sinification.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, this is certainly not a topic I would have guessed would arouse such passions. I will throw in my two cents.


Well, I always try to be objective, but unfortunately some people, like ComradeOm, gets personal in debates and becomes annoyed with me at a personal level simply because I do not have a pro-Mongol view of history. It's quite ridiculous.



For some people, it is fashionable to glorify Genghis Khan and the Mongols. For example, that book Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World became a major bestseller. The thesis seems to basically amount to "well yeah he killed millions but the Silk Road was revived under the Pax Mongolica and such." To me this seems like the post-classical era's version of "Mussolini made the trains run on time."
What's "fashionable" in liberal bourgeois academic circles can indeed be quite reactionary from a Marxist-Leninist perspective.

I think Genghis Khan was no better than Julius Caesar. If one think it is wrong to glorify Julius Caesar, than it would be wrong to glorify Genghis Khan too.



While the Mongols did help to revive trade and interaction
The Mongol Empire did stimulate trade and diplomacy, but not concrete economic production. Actual production levels in both the Middle East and East Asia fell during the Mongol period. For Marxists, production is more important than trade.



and their society did have some "egalitarian" attributes
Not really. The Mongols were certainly not a primitive tribe, and they did possess a very explicit class society. Genghis Khan and the elite clans related to him monopolised the majority of the lands and livestock the Mongols possessed as a whole. The Mongols also used slave labour, though not as systematically as the Romans did. Hardly "egalitarian".



that were typical of nomadic civilizations (such as more freedoms for women relative to sedentary peoples),
Sorry, but the idea that "nomadism = more rights for women" is basically cultural essentialist non-sense. It's true that Mongol women had more freedoms than the women of Song Dynasty China (the Chinese began the practice of foot-binding during the Song). But women in Tang Dynasty China had quite a lot of freedoms too.

Furthermore, the Germanic and Celtic peoples of Europe had much more women's rights than the Asiatic nomads ever did, even though the former were largely settled peasant populations while the latter are pastoral nomads. The Celts and Germans had many female tribal leaders in ancient times, something that is almost completely missing from the Asiatic nomadic tribes.

So the idea that nomads always have more women's rights than sedentary peoples in an intrinsic sense is utter non-sense. The Asiatic nomads may have had more women's rights than the sedentary Han Chinese, but they certainly had much less women's rights than the sedentary peoples of Europe.



my overall assessment of Genghis Khan would be that he was a genocidal asshole.
Basically agree. Though I don't think Julius Caesar was really better than him. I don't think socialists should have a general positive view of ancient imperialists like Caesar or Genghis.



I disagree with ComradeOm's assertion that the nomadic lifestyle and military organization of the Mongols was somehow superior to the sedentary Chinese empire.
What he said had some truth over the last 1000 years of history, from the fall of the Tang Dynasty to the 18th and 19th centuries. The Song and Ming Dynasties were militarily less powerful than the Mongols and Manchus. However, it would be wrong to think that the difference in military power was the sole reason for the fall of the Song and Ming Dynasties. Other factors, such as internal corruption and the willingness of many Han generals to actively collaborate with the invaders, were quite important too.



For the majority of China's imperial history, the nomadic peoples were more of a nuisance than a genuine military threat. Sedentary Chinese civilization was the dominant force in East Asia during the Zhou, Qin, Han, Sui, Tang, Song and Ming dynasties.
Well, the key thing to note here is that there is no such thing as a singular "Chinese civilisation". The Qin-Han and Sui-Tang Dynasties were indeed militarily very powerful. The Han Dynasty defeated the Xiongnu and forced them to migrate west. The Tang Dynasty emperors defeated the Tujue Turks and were honoured as Tianke Khans by the Asiatic nomads, and Tang political power extended as far north as modern-day Siberia. I think the fact that ComradeOm completely omits these details from earlier history shows his somewhat Sinophobic attitudes.

However, just because the Han and Tang Dynasties were militarily quite powerful doesn't mean the Song and Ming Dynasties were militarily powerful as well. The later Chinese dynasties became militarily weak relatively speaking.

Of course, another factor is that the Altaic nomads became more advanced and militarily developed as history progressed.



As was already pointed out, even the Qing and to a certain degree the Mongol dynasties underwent significant sinification.
The Qing Dynasty was heavily Sinised, and the Yuan Dynasty was Sinised to a lesser extent.

But objectively speaking cultural influence went in both directions. As early as the time of King Wuling of Zhao during the Eastern Zhou period, Han Chinese people began to adopt certain elements of nomadic military customs. The ruling classes of the Sui and Tang Dynasties were actually partly Xianbei.

I am not anti-nomad at all. If ComradeOm merely stressed the importance of nomadic cultural influences in Chinese history, I wouldn't really have disagreed with him. The problem I have with his views is that he seems to think that there is some kind of intrinsic ethnic difference between the Han and the nomads, and the nomads were somehow militarily superior to the Han in an intrinsic sense, rather than cultural diffusion in both directions.

He is not celebrating nomadic cultural influence, but nomadic conquest of China, which I find unacceptable and indeed somewhat offensive.

P.S. Om's identification of the Asiatic nomads as an analogy to the French Free Citizens during the bourgeois French Revolution is particularly laughable. (Basically he is standing on the wrong side of the class divide) The closest equivalent to the French bourgeois forces in Asian history would be the New Army of China that played a vital role in the bourgeois Xinhai Revolution of 1911 - 1912 which overthrew feudal rule in China: (Indeed, the New Army was trained and equipped according to Western bourgeois standards)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_army

The New Armies (Traditional Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese): 新軍, Simplified Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Chinese): 新军; Pinyin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinyin): Xīnjūn, Manchu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchu_language): Ice cooha) were the modernized Qing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_dynasty) armies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army), trained (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_training) and equipped according to western (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world) standards. The first of the new armies was founded in 1895 with German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) arms.

During the Xinhai Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinhai_Revolution), most of the non-Beiyang forces as well as some Beiyang units in the Chinese Army revolted against the Qing. Yuan led the Beiyang Army into opposing the revolution while also negotiating for the Qing's surrender and his ascendency to the presidency of the new republic.

One of the most important legacies of the New Army was the introduction of militarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism) to China. Previously under Confucianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism), military service was scorned as a necessary evil fit only for the dregs of society. Almost any male could join and soldiers were mostly poor, landless and illiterate peasants. The New Army began screening volunteers and created modern military academies to train officers. The modernization and professionalization of the New Army impressed many in the gentry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentry_%28China%29) class to join. This was especially true after the termination of the imperial examination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination) system that defined their class for the last thousand years. After Yuan seized power in the early republic, he and his close associates equated military dominance of the political sphere with national survival. The political army would become a dominant force in China for much of the twentieth century.