Socialists who advocate imperialism?

[CynicalIdealist]

Question... let's assume that in a feudal world order, a capitalist mode of production arises in some country or another. That country then spreads its capitalist mode of production by invading a country with a feudal or primitive egalitarian (if not communist) mode of production.

Marx said that the development of capitalism was "progressive." Now I know that the modern era of U.S. imperialism has resulted in deindustrialization among other not so great things (I'd like to know why this is as well), but in general, if the early development of capitalism was "progressive," do some Marxists retrospectively advocate imperialism in that context?

One example I thought of was China going into Tibet and fighting national liberation movements in Tibet. A socialist who's anti-Mao (or even pro-Mao, perhaps) might say that Mao was trying to develop capitalism as opposed to socialism in Tibet, even if capitalism raised their collective standard of living. I would imagine that a left-com or an anarchist might call that imperialist and say that the world socialist revolution must be led by industrialized nations, whereupon they simply give backward nations the access to greater productive forces.

Actually, another question I have is what Lenin did aside from waiting for Western European revolutions to happen since most of Russia was feudal? How did he deal with the other nations in the USSR differently from the way China dealt with Tibet? Honestly this is pretty much a stream of consciousness and I have loads of questions about this seeming contradiction of socialists opposing capitalism yet calling it "progressive," so if someone could give me a general picture of what I'm dealing with here, that would be nice.

[Dogs On Acid]

Question... let's assume that in a feudal world order, a capitalist mode of production arises in some country or another. That country then spreads its capitalist mode of production by invading a country with a feudal or primitive egalitarian (if not communist) mode of production.

Marx said that the development of capitalism was "progressive." Now I know that the modern era of U.S. imperialism has resulted in deindustrialization among other not so great things (I'd like to know why this is as well), but in general, if the early development of capitalism was "progressive," do some Marxists retrospectively advocate imperialism in that context?

One example I thought of was China going into Tibet and fighting national liberation movements in Tibet. A socialist who's anti-Mao (or even pro-Mao, perhaps) might say that Mao was trying to develop capitalism as opposed to socialism in Tibet, even if capitalism raised their collective standard of living. I would imagine that a left-com or an anarchist might call that imperialist and say that the world socialist revolution must be led by industrialized nations, whereupon they simply give backward nations the access to greater productive forces.

Actually, another question I have is what Lenin did aside from waiting for Western European revolutions to happen since most of Russia was feudal? How did he deal with the other nations in the USSR differently from the way China dealt with Tibet? Honestly this is pretty much a stream of consciousness and I have loads of questions about this seeming contradiction of socialists opposing capitalism yet calling it "progressive," so if someone could give me a general picture of what I'm dealing with here, that would be nice.

Well Marx said Socialism would be the system that replaces Capitalism, he never said it would replace Feudalism.

This is probably because technology develops side-by-side with social systems.
It would be difficult for a Feudal society to have the advanced machinery and technology that would enable Socialism to prosper. It would only give roots to Capitalism, not Socialism. You can't skip stages just like that.
On the other hand, Capitalism needs to advance to a certain level wherein there is enough wealth and means to produce this wealth so as to sustain a prosperous, egalitarian Socialist society without scarcity.

[Ocean Seal]

Question... let's assume that in a feudal world order, a capitalist mode of production arises in some country or another. That country then spreads its capitalist mode of production by invading a country with a feudal or primitive egalitarian (if not communist) mode of production.

Marx said that the development of capitalism was "progressive." Now I know that the modern era of U.S. imperialism has resulted in deindustrialization among other not so great things (I'd like to know why this is as well), but in general, if the early development of capitalism was "progressive," do some Marxists retrospectively advocate imperialism in that context?

One example I thought of was China going into Tibet and fighting national liberation movements in Tibet. A socialist who's anti-Mao (or even pro-Mao, perhaps) might say that Mao was trying to develop capitalism as opposed to socialism in Tibet, even if capitalism raised their collective standard of living. I would imagine that a left-com or an anarchist might call that imperialist and say that the world socialist revolution must be led by industrialized nations, whereupon they simply give backward nations the access to greater productive forces.

Actually, another question I have is what Lenin did aside from waiting for Western European revolutions to happen since most of Russia was feudal? How did he deal with the other nations in the USSR differently from the way China dealt with Tibet? Honestly this is pretty much a stream of consciousness and I have loads of questions about this seeming contradiction of socialists opposing capitalism yet calling it "progressive," so if someone could give me a general picture of what I'm dealing with here, that would be nice.

Marxists in our time should realize that imperialism prevents the development of capitalism in feudal type economies. In order to most throughly exploit a developing nation, it needs the most reactionary mode of production possible. Capitalism works to preserve the old order, hence why when a capitalist like Qaddafi enters the mix, the imperial capitalists want to get rid of him.
Imperialism cannot be progressive, it works against the interests of the imperialist nations and of the imperial bourgeoisie.

[CynicalIdealist]

Marxists in our time should realize that imperialism prevents the development of capitalism in feudal type economies. In order to most throughly exploit a developing nation, it needs the most reactionary mode of production possible. Capitalism works to preserve the old order, hence why when a capitalist like Qaddafi enters the mix, the imperial capitalists want to get rid of him.
Imperialism cannot be progressive, it works against the interests of the imperialist nations and of the imperial bourgeoisie.

So what makes imperialism different from say the beginning of the capitalist epoch, if it's any different now at all?

[Dogs On Acid]

So what makes imperialism different from say the beginning of the capitalist epoch, if it's any different now at all?

The technological means to exploit other less advanced Capitalist nations.

[CynicalIdealist]

Need more clarification on this seeming contradiction. Bump.

Actually, maybe this question will clarify my topic further: what would a typical Marxist (not Maoist) advocate in a world characterized by feudalism? And if Marxists should oppose imperialism in all circumstances, why did Marx support the North bringing the South back into the union in the American Civil War?

[Tommy4ever]

Marx himself supported Imperialism in India as a means of bringing capitalism to that country.

As for why Imperialism tends to bring deindustrialisation, allow me to give a basic explanation:

Many pre-capitalist societies like India and China in the early 19th century actually contained large industrial sectors whose production dwarfed anything in the West until a good way into the 19th century. However these industrial sectors were basically dominated by artisan craftsmen (like pre-capitalist industry in Europe as well) and even if they produced goods of higher quality they simply could not compete with goods made in European factories at far lower costs. So as Imperial power from industrial economies entered these regions they forced the more primitive economies to open their markets to the Imperialist's industry. With their markets open their manufacturers died out - in the 19th century there are plenty of horror stories of mass starvation amongst independent craftsmen in both India and Europe.

An Orthodox Marxist would advocate the emergeance of capitalism in a feudal society (as an answer to post #6).

Marx supported the North mostly due to opposition to slavery. Firstly it was, obviously, an immoral practise. Secondly it prevented the advancement of the Southern economy into a capitalist mode of production.

[CynicalIdealist]

Marx himself supported Imperialism in India as a means of bringing capitalism to that country.

Alright, this helps a lot. I want to raise more questions about this.

1. Do historical matters like this split different communists? For example, do left-coms and anarchists feel less positively of what the capitalist countries did to the third world than other Marxists? How do Trotskyists feel about this?

2. How does this historical form of imperialism differ from, say, U.S. imperialism in Afghanistan right now? How is this different from advocating that the enlightened West invades Africa and builds industry there?

3. To extend upon my second question, what do different communist tendencies say about developing the feudal world? "Make industry accessible to peasants?" Support Marxist movements in the feudal world by proxy, as the Soviet Union did in Angola and Vietnam for example? I would like concrete examples of the different approaches taken with regard to the peasantry, and an idea of how each communist tendency feels about the peasant class.

Thanks.

[CynicalIdealist]

Bump.

[blake 3:17]

Within Marxist thought, both on its right and left, there has been a tendency to see capitalist development as a good thing bringing socialism closer.


2. How does this historical form of imperialism differ from, say, U.S. imperialism in Afghanistan right now? How is this different from advocating that the enlightened West invades Africa and builds industry there?

Not sure that I'm understanding the question entirely. Socialists should demand the immediate withdrawal of Western troops from Afghanistan. The idea that the West would make any serious efforts to improve Africa's productive capacities is hard to take seriously. What development does happen comes under strict guidelines around privatization and furthers the displacement of peoples. One aspect of the AIDS crisis in Africa which isn't discussed too widely is that the disease is spread very quickly by people being displaced from their land.

[CynicalIdealist]

Within Marxist thought, both on its right and left, there has been a tendency to see capitalist development as a good thing bringing socialism closer.



Not sure that I'm understanding the question entirely. Socialists should demand the immediate withdrawal of Western troops from Afghanistan. The idea that the West would make any serious efforts to improve Africa's productive capacities is hard to take seriously. What development does happen comes under strict guidelines around privatization and furthers the displacement of peoples. One aspect of the AIDS crisis in Africa which isn't discussed too widely is that the disease is spread very quickly by people being displaced from their land.

Yes, and I've always felt this way and been under this impression about Marxists, but how is that different from British colonialism/imperialism in India?