Marx and Colonialism (or is Marxism Eurocentric?)

[Hexen]

As much I'm intrigued with Marx but there is still some stuff about him that bothers me since he's also a supporter of colonialism of India (and in general) which he says that it's progressive since it's bringing Capitalism to it but even though I understand the point being Capitalism as a "societal progression" that leads to Socialism/Communism but however at the same time though it's also kinda Eurocentric/Racist as if it's asserting that Non-White/Europeans can't progress themselves without the help of White people which is where the main problem comes in.

[Ace High]

Hmm, very interesting topic!

My answer would be, simply, that Marx was wrong about that. Just because we follow his philosophy doesn't mean he is Jesus or something, right? We should be able to criticize his incorrect points while praising his overall philosophy.

But yeah, Marxism should be severely anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist. We all know that. But even a smart man like him, was a bit of a victim of his time. Meaning racism and eurocentricity was rampant back then, and he was German after all.

[TheEmancipator]

I'm with Marx on this one. An acceleration of the historical process is sometimes necessary. I don't think Marx was aware of the brutality of colonials, but he's right in saying that he'd rather have the British Empire ruling him than local warlords.

I'm not sure how Leninists would have responded to Marx's views on "progressive" colonialism, but since they are the first to break tradition with this view while still claiming to be 100% upholding orthodox Marxism, I'm genuinely interested to hear their view on this.

[Ace High]

I would rather local warlords, who can easily be deposed, than the gigantic force of the British Empire ruling with an iron fist over a vast expanse....

[Hexen]

But even a smart man like him, was a bit of a victim of his time.

I would be careful using the "Man of his Time" argument if I were you since this asserts a false progressive paradigm as if there was "one way of thinking back then" which in reality there isn't which the point is, hundred years from now people would look back at us and they would say the same thing. Which the real danger of this which we look down on our ancestors laughing how "inferior" they are and we "moved on and progressed from that" but then we turn around look at society today which we can see that racism/sexism/eurocentricity is still rampant today like nothing's changed which is rather laughable.


I'm with Marx on this one. An acceleration of the historical process is sometimes necessary. I don't think Marx was aware of the brutality of colonials, but he's right in saying that he'd rather have the British Empire ruling him than local warlords.

I'm not sure how Leninists would have responded to Marx's views on "progressive" colonialism, but since they are the first to break tradition with this view while still claiming to be 100% upholding orthodox Marxism, I'm genuinely interested to hear their view on this.

I think your missing the point there were other ways for historical process that doesn't involve European intervention.

[Ace High]

I would be careful using the "Man of his Time" argument if I were you since this asserts a false progressive paradigm as if there was "one way of thinking back then" which in reality there isn't which the point is, hundred years from now people would look back at us and they would say the same thing. Which the real danger of this which we look down on our ancestors laughing how "inferior" they are and we "moved on and progressed from that" but then we turn around look at society today which we can see that racism/sexism/eurocentricity is still rampant today like nothing's changed which is rather laughable.



I think your missing the point there is other ways for historical process that doesn't involve European intervention.

I wasn't using the "man of his time" argument, I knew someone would say that. I mean yes, I was using it to simply offer why he might have held those ignorant views. I wasn't making an excuse for his eurocentric ignorance. I was saying that is simply why he was ignorant. There is a such thing as NURTURE.

[Hexen]

I wasn't using the "man of his time" argument, I knew someone would say that. I mean yes, I was using it to simply offer why he might have held those ignorant views. I wasn't making an excuse for his eurocentric ignorance. I was saying that is simply why he was ignorant. There is a such thing as NURTURE.

Well the argument was interchangeable hence I seen it as the same way.

[Ace High]

Well the argument was interchangeable hence I seen it as the same way.

Fair enough, I could have been more clear.

[Per Levy]

well i've read somewhat of an essay that claimed that marx didnt support colonialism but was quite against the british rule in india but he hoped that the things the british introduced like railways and modern production would help the indians to emancipate themselfs.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In general they were focused on Europe in two ways: this was the history that was more available and that they were more familiar with and secondly to study developed capitalism at that time, you had to basically focus on northwest Europe. But in the big picture could they be seen as prioritizing Europe out of some chauvinistic preference, was their focus based on some concept of inherent European superiority or cleverness? I don't think so, they seemed to be very interested in other cultures and studied Native American societies for example. They also frequently mocked European cultural and intellectual hubris.

I think "person of their time" explainations are fine and accurate if they are used to contextualize rather than explain away.

But I think there are some passages where Marx over-romanticizes or "orientalizes" other cultures... From what i've read he's also just factually incorrect in some of his understanding of Indian states and history (which may just be due to limited accurate or unbiased sources available to him).

As far as seeing British colonialism as progressive... Well I'm not sure, but he may have gone back and forth on that. M&E seemed to initially think the same of Ireland, but over time and as colonial struggle developed, they also seem to have rejected these views and sought to try and link worker's struggles to colonial ones.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I know that this is a bit outside of the scope of the question of colonialism.

But I'd say that marxists must have a healthy amount of euro-centrism.
Let me explain. We seek to bring down capitalism. Fact is that the centre of capitalism is still Europe and the US (maybe western-centrism is a better term). So for me, euro-or western-centrism merely means acknowledging that to bring capitalism to an end we must destroy, what I believe Che Guevara said about Switzerland, the brain of the monster.
This is not to undermine the struggle in the rest of the world, which is also very important, but coming to grips with the reality that a big focus must be laid upon the western world from a revolutionary's point of view.

[Ace High]

I know that this is a bit outside of the scope of the question of colonialism.

But I'd say that marxists must have a healthy amount of euro-centrism.
Let me explain. We seek to bring down capitalism. Fact is that the centre of capitalism is still Europe and the US (maybe western-centrism is a better term). So for me, euro-or western-centrism merely means acknowledging that to bring capitalism to an end we must destroy, what I believe Che Guevara said about Switzerland, the brain of the monster.
This is not to undermine the struggle in the rest of the world, which is also very important, but coming to grips with the reality that a big focus must be laid upon the western world from a revolutionary's point of view.

I totally agree with you. I am sick of everyone acting like our struggles as workers aren't legitimate because we don't live in the third world. Yes, their struggles are greater. But we live in literally the center of the capitalist world, and we have the unique power to smash it from within and clog the machine at the source. And when we smash it, the people in the third world will also be liberated and free to do as they please because we have stabbed the monster's heart, not just a few of its tentacles.

Wow, that was very metaphorical of me, I'm impressed with myself xD lol

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I totally agree with you. I am sick of everyone acting like our struggles as workers aren't legitimate because we don't live in the third world. Yes, their struggles are greater. But we live in literally the center of the capitalist world, and we have the unique power to smash it from within and clog the machine at the source. And when we smash it, the people in the third world will also be liberated and free to do as they please because we have stabbed the monster's heart, not just a few of its tentacles.

Wow, that was very metaphorical of me, I'm impressed with myself xD lol

I have some issues with this. Yes we an smash capitalism "from within" however so do other countries, since they are part of the capitalist system. However, I'd say we (Europeans) have the ability to smash the centrum of capitalism, at this point in time. The other parts of the world are important too and I think it is a bit too easy to say that capitalism would just come tumbling down over there when European capitalism is smashed. We have the ability to smash the epicentre of capitalism but we also have the obligation to support and advance the struggle in the rest of the world too, for the simple reason that while we are still the centre of capitalism, we are not independent. Industry largely relies on the third world right now. It would come partly down because the western world is the prime outlet for their products, but we would still need things and should not rely on just a sudden collapse of third-world capitalism especially not with the strength of China.

[ind_com]

As much I'm intrigued with Marx but there is still some stuff about him that bothers me since he's also a supporter of colonialism of India (and in general) which he says that it's progressive since it's bringing Capitalism to it but even though I understand the point being Capitalism as a "societal progression" that leads to Socialism/Communism but however at the same time though it's also kinda Eurocentric/Racist as if it's asserting that Non-White/Europeans can't progress themselves without the help of White people which is where the main problem comes in.

Marx's Eurocentrism expressed itself more in his claim that revolution would take place in the imperialist countries first. He did not explicitly support colonialism. He began cheering India's anti-imperialist uprisings of 1857 almost as soon as they were launched.

[Ace High]

I have some issues with this. Yes we an smash capitalism "from within" however so do other countries, since they are part of the capitalist system. However, I'd say we (Europeans) have the ability to smash the centrum of capitalism, at this point in time. The other parts of the world are important too and I think it is a bit too easy to say that capitalism would just come tumbling down over there when European capitalism is smashed. We have the ability to smash the epicentre of capitalism but we also have the obligation to support and advance the struggle in the rest of the world too, for the simple reason that while we are still the centre of capitalism, we are not independent. Industry largely relies on the third world right now. It would come partly down because the western world is the prime outlet for their products, but we would still need things and should not rely on just a sudden collapse of third-world capitalism especially not with the strength of China.

This is true, China would still be a capitalist threat to third world countries. Although if Western capitalism was crushed, it really would send it tumbling down. I mean, Western capitalists own nearly the entire third world. China may have a pretty huge economy but the West still dominates. Plus, if Western capitalism fell, China would be forced into a communist revolution too. They cannot support themselves as some kind of last stronghold for capitalism.

[Hit The North]

In order to understand why Marx is calling it progressive we need to go back to the Communist Manifesto. For Marx, capitalism (which took off in Europe first, not out of any choice by Marx, so charges of 'Eurocentrism' are absurd) must spread everywhere and create connections everywhere and transforms those societies where it nestles. The advantages of this is that it creates a global society and, therefore, a global proletariat and it raises the productive capacity of human society and raises people above the limits of their local prejudices and superstitions. It is therefore progressive in this material and objective way. This does not mean that Marx supports colonialism in any moral or political sense and he was certainly aware of the brutality with which European powers pursued their imperialist ambitions.

Arguably, the main weakness of Marx's view is that he didn't have a developed theory of imperialism; but this is a weakness which results from his place in time and is necessarily not his fault.

[Teacher]

Marx talked really passionately about the violence and starvation that British rule imposed on India. He also said some things that taken out of context could be characterized as saying that British rule was "good" or preferable, but I think he was really just saying that by bringing capitalism to India the British laid the foundations for a future revolution there.

[khad]

As much I'm intrigued with Marx but there is still some stuff about him that bothers me since he's also a supporter of colonialism of India (and in general) which he says that it's progressive since it's bringing Capitalism to it but even though I understand the point being Capitalism as a "societal progression" that leads to Socialism/Communism but however at the same time though it's also kinda Eurocentric/Racist as if it's asserting that Non-White/Europeans can't progress themselves without the help of White people which is where the main problem comes in.
He also justified the killing of imperialist soldiers, something that a lot of whiny, pedantic leftists today don't.

[Alan OldStudent]

As much I'm intrigued with Marx but there is still some stuff about him that bothers me since he's also a supporter of colonialism of India (and in general) which he says that it's progressive since it's bringing Capitalism to it but even though I understand the point being Capitalism as a "societal progression" that leads to Socialism/Communism but however at the same time though it's also kinda Eurocentric/Racist as if it's asserting that Non-White/Europeans can't progress themselves without the help of White people which is where the main problem comes in.

Hello Hexen,

I’m not familiar with Marx’s writings on India. But here is how I would suggest you approach Marx or any other thinker that you happen to encounter. Ask yourself if what he or she is saying makes sense to you. Try to understand what the argument is in support of the position. If, after considering this, you don’t agree, well and good. Don’t just accept an argument because somebody impressive espouses it. Try to consider the argument on its own merits.

Marx was not divinely inspired. God was not whispering divine revelation into his ear. Marx himself developed his concepts and reached his conclusions after an exhaustive and very careful study of everything he could lay his hands on, after trying to consider rationally the evidence before him. He was not at all dogmatic in any sense of the word. His views on certain things developed and changed over his lifetime. He was human, like you and I.

So if you don’t agree with something Marx says, you’re not going to be punished with hellfire for heresy. But you may be asked to defend your own idea.

Marx tried to make an analysis of our world and how we as a human race organize ourselves. In my opinion, his analysis is basically correct, in fact brilliant. However, that does not mean it cannot be questioned, subjected to critical inquiry. Marx was a master of critical inquiry, after all. Marx encouraged critical thinking.

Marx himself would want you to look at what he says critically and rationally and see if it comports with how you see things after you have engaged in a rational and critical assessment.

Regards,
Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living— Socrates

[Rafiq]

Lets be quite honest, we are all opposed to colonialism. Marx was as well. But before British colonialism, progressive anti colonial movements would not exist. Many don't realize what a reactionary and backward place India was. Of course since the early 20th century colonialism ceased to be progressive in any way. But don't take some aspects of anti imperialism for granted, for example, their seemingly socialist character, progressive regarding women etc. . That is not something that would exist without the influence of Europe.

Lets take India for example. The goals of the INC was a democratic, independent India with sovereignty liberty blah blah blah. Before British influence, these things would not exist in the Indian political vocabulary, because these things are exclusively capitalist concepts, and capitalism came only with the British. See, it's not about race or even more advanced civilizations. India's social relations before British capitalism could never in any meaningful way create a progressive movement. Marx was no idiot. Notice how later in his life he started to support anti colonial revolts. Why? Because they were no longer reactionary in nature. After India's backward social relations were swept away, ONLY THEN could such an anti colonial movement take place. What I mean is simple: Anti colonialism necessitates prior colonialism. Colonialism itself becomes the barbaric, savage monster and the anti colonialists become the true heirs to the western legacy. This is what is great about 'western civilization', the only critique that can be made of it can ONLY exist through it's own foundations. Marx wasn't a racist or a European chauvinist. The real chauvinists, the British colonialists, tried their very best to keep the Indians from being influenced by the merits of western civilization. A real racist would say they are Incapable of progress by accord of their genealogy and therefore the best thing to do is let them keep their culture and backward customs.

[Ace High]

Lets be quite honest, we are all opposed to colonialism. Marx was as well. But before British colonialism, progressive anti colonial movements would not exist. Many don't realize what a reactionary and backward place India was. Of course since the early 20th century colonialism ceased to be progressive in any way. But don't take some aspects of anti imperialism for granted, for example, their seemingly socialist character, progressive regarding women etc. . That is not something that would exist without the influence of Europe.

Lets take India for example. The goals of the INC was a democratic, independent India with sovereignty liberty blah blah blah. Before British influence, these things would not exist in the Indian political vocabulary, because these things are exclusively capitalist concepts, and capitalism came only with the British. See, it's not about race or even more advanced civilizations. India's social relations before British capitalism could never in any meaningful way create a progressive movement. Marx was no idiot. Notice how later in his life he started to support anti colonial revolts. Why? Because they were no longer reactionary in nature. After India's backward social relations were swept away, ONLY THEN could such an anti colonial movement take place. What I mean is simple: Anti colonialism necessitates prior colonialism. Colonialism itself becomes the barbaric, savage monster and the anti colonialists become the true heirs to the western legacy. This is what is great about 'western civilization', the only critique that can be made of it can ONLY exist through it's own foundations. Marx wasn't a racist or a European chauvinist. The real chauvinists, the British colonialists, tried their very best to keep the Indians from being influenced by the merits of western civilization. A real racist would say they are Incapable of progress by accord of their genealogy and therefore the best thing to do is let them keep their culture and backward customs.

I see what your point is, but I disagree. You're right, Marx was certainly not an idiot, I mean the man inspires the hell out of me. Although he was wrong about India. Your flaw is that you are using the West as a model for civilization. You're obviously not some racist eurochauvanist, that is clear, but your main flaw is that you seem to be implying that India would remain reactionary and socially backwards if not for Western colonization. I mean, how do you know that that would be necessary for them to achieve revolution? Obviously they never achieved revolution, as India's government today is a slave to capitalism and is one of the most corrupt governments on the planet. So it doesn't seem that colonialism accomplished anything other than building infrastructure. But infrastructure for what purpose? To further capitalist interests?

Not trying to attack you or anything, just trying to figure out where you're coming from.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I know that this is a bit outside of the scope of the question of colonialism.

But I'd say that marxists must have a healthy amount of euro-centrism.
Let me explain. We seek to bring down capitalism. Fact is that the centre of capitalism is still Europe and the US (maybe western-centrism is a better term). So for me, euro-or western-centrism merely means acknowledging that to bring capitalism to an end we must destroy, what I believe Che Guevara said about Switzerland, the brain of the monster.
.



I would disagree that it must be done from the centers of capitalism. I don't think anyone can argue from a Marxist standpoint that Asia is too socially and economically backward when Engels declared in his work Conditions of the English Working Class in 1844 that the working class was ripe for revolution when the proletariat of England was at that time significantly smaller than almost all other third world countries and the productive forces were leaps and bounds behind those of your average periphery state without a little bit of chauvinism, since in this case there seems to be few materialist explanations for such a line.

Personally, I'm not too interested in what the poster child of Soviet Imperialism said about the matter. However Lenin declared that the colonized nations represented the most advanced strata of the revolutionary force, saying that they were the storm centers of world revolution. I would tend to agree, As David Harvey notes in his work, The Enigma of Capital in the era of global finance capitalism, capitalism finds itself in a crisis where it must find a avenue to invest its surplus capital or it faces the risk of wide spread destruction of the productive forces on a scale that has never been seen hitero. Additionally, since capitalism generally requires a constant growth rate of 3% on average to maintain health in the long term (The world average was 2.55 in 2011), the best solution to both problems is the mass export of capital to the formerly permanently backward regions as the lack of developed productive forces and the rare ability to restart the ultra profitable venture of primitive accumulation in those regions means that capital can make the most returns possible by rapidly industrializing those areas that were previously non capitalist social formations. So this will lead to a tendency where the Third World as you put it, or the periphery of capitalism as I prefer, will face a massive proletarianization with a massive population of newly working class, highly radicalized former peasants, while the productive forces of the centers will face nothing but decay as the center can only access sufficient returns on capital investment through exploitation of the periphery or finance capital.

[TheEmancipator]

process that doesn't involve European intervention.

Yes, but I think what Marx is arguing is that it doesn't matter if it happens from colonialism or from the local population, as long as it happens.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I would rather local warlords, who can easily be deposed, than the gigantic force of the British Empire ruling with an iron fist over a vast expanse....

Then you're living in fantasy-world. The problematic state of 'local warlords who can easily be deposed' is exactly what allowed the French to invade North and upper West Africa.

Also don't be doped into pseudonationalist shit like the warlords 'fought against imperialism'. Many African countries indeed did this (with good reason), but many of the warlords you'd 'prefer' were selling slaves en masse to the European powers, such as the ones in Tshad, and were only really deposed because said powers didn't want to have to go through a middle-man to get their commodity (commodity being millions upon millions of Africans).

[Rafiq]

I see what your point is, but I disagree. You're right, Marx was certainly not an idiot, I mean the man inspires the hell out of me. Although he was wrong about India. Your flaw is that you are using the West as a model for civilization. You're obviously not some racist eurochauvanist, that is clear, but your main flaw is that you seem to be implying that India would remain reactionary and socially backwards if not for Western colonization. I mean, how do you know that that would be necessary for them to achieve revolution? Obviously they never achieved revolution, as India's government today is a slave to capitalism and is one of the most corrupt governments on the planet. So it doesn't seem that colonialism accomplished anything other than building infrastructure. But infrastructure for what purpose? To further capitalist interests?

Not trying to attack you or anything, just trying to figure out where you're coming from.

Before the 20th century, capitalism still had a progressive potential. It was not globalized as it is today. A progressive movement, liberalist or socialist, could not arise through the spread of ideas, for two thousand years nothing remotely similar to these came about except until the dawn of capitalism. By the very late 1800s, colonialism in India became itself reactionary and served absolutely no purpose. India's conditions today can be partially attributed to colonialisms very long standing (1940s) and the inability for the INC to radicalize. Capitalism in India was important in the same way it was important in britian and France, even though both of those countries are not socialist states. The point is that capitalism opens the space for such a possibility, even if it doesn't fully develop.

[Rafiq]

Can someone in a position to do so delete two extra posts here from me? It was an accident

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Can someone in a position to do so delete two extra posts here from me? It was an accident

When you edit a message there should be a delete button.

[Rafiq]

As much I'm intrigued with Marx but there is still some stuff about him that bothers me since he's also a supporter of colonialism of India (and in general) which he says that it's progressive since it's bringing Capitalism to it but even though I understand the point being Capitalism as a "societal progression" that leads to Socialism/Communism but however at the same time though it's also kinda Eurocentric/Racist as if it's asserting that Non-White/Europeans can't progress themselves without the help of White people which is where the main problem comes in.

Something as revolutionary as capitalism developed in Europe by mere chance, through a series of very specific and definite events, the replication of these events in India or anywhere outside Europe's sphere of influence would be highly unlikely. Do away with this metaphysical notion of "progress" as well, for progress is not something that exists objectively with regards to human civilization. Progress is not defined by how "advanced" a people are, but the entering of more advanced social relations devoid of the conscious will of humans. A social relation that is more advanced doesn't equate to "one step higher on the ladder to communism". This is teleology. It has no place in Marxism. Every historical event to ever exist didn't occur in order to lead to communism. The prospect of Communism is something that arose exclusively at the end of Feudalism, at the beginning of the capitalist mode of production and the development of the proletarian class. All communist heros, including Spartacus, are communists not objectively but through the ideological lens of the proletariat.

Or if we are to take this another way a la the radical anthropologists, that is to say, humanity arose through a revolution that has slowly been undoing itself yet through times what we call "communism", radical attempts to destroy class society has constantly reinvented itself since, say, Spartacus, then we can come to yet another logical point: If progress then is defined by how close humanity comes to doing away with class society, or the rule of the alpha male, scientific achievements etc., then by chance at 1840 Europe was the closest region or civilization to this through the development of capitalism and the creation of the proletarian class. Don't take Bourgeois Liberalism for granted, the french revolution was a boisterously progressive event. Therefore, the spread of British capitalism, to benefit British capital, was therefore pragmatically beneficial to India's oppressed classes and India's culture as a whole, not by the generosity of the white man, British interests in India were obviously not benevolent. But then again, the development of Capitalism in Europe was not benevolent either, nor was the progress that came with it.

[Rafiq]

I repeat what Marx always believed very fiercly, as Marxists, Capitalism is not simply a means to the Communist ends. This would be naive to believe. With regards to Feudalism, capitalism is it's own ends from which something like Communism would be possible. I do not mean that capitalism is enough or that we should not move beyond it. All I am saying is that it is not as if Marx was a Communist living in Feudalism who wanted capitalism so he could actualize his ideological fantasies. Many people don't realize capitalism was revolutionary and incredibly progressive. Marx fervently recognized this. What makes Lenin and the Bolsheviks significant (partially) is that, they recognized something Marxists before could not: Capitalism no longer had any revolutionary potential in the world, and it would soon lead the globe to barbarism. Capitalism's contradictions are what birthed Communism, Communism which is not a "stage", Communism which is not a mode of production but an ideological supplement to whatever mode of production that could come after capitalism, like Liberalism. Capitalism is something which was analyzed and recognized after it came into existence, before it there was Liberalism and Humanism (actually Liberalism came alongside with it, but we'll talk about the exclusively different nature of potential class dictatorship, between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and how it would react on their according superstructures in another thread, a main point being the proletariat can only actualize its class interest politically, unlike the previous bourgeoisie).