Premodern imperialism and colonialism

[Aurorus Ruber]

Everyone here knows, of course, where the radical left stands on modern instances of imperialism and colonialism. We all agree that Europeans should not have conquered the Americas and colonized them, that Zionists should not have driven out the Palestinians and established an exclusively Jewish, that the US should not have invaded Vietnam, and so forth. Conversely we support the right of oppressed and conquered peoples to struggle for liberation from colonial empires and settler-states.

But imperialism and colonization did not begin with Columbus invading the Americas and spreading imperial control to them. Rather they have occurred throughout history, from the Roman conquest of Europe and beyond, to the Mongolian conquest of Asia, to the Islamic state of Al-Andalus established in the Iberian peninsula. What does the revolutionary left make of these conquests? Would one characterize the Jewish-Roman wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_wars) as movements for Jewish national liberation against Roman colonialism? What position would the left take on the conflict in Medieval Spain between the invading Muslims who conquered and settled the region and the indigenous inhabitants of Iberia whom they conquered?

[tuwix]

There is not much to say about it. It was inevitable effect of the formation of private property. When everything was common, there was no need to conquest. When there emerged a difference between what belongs to whom, there started to be wars. In early feudalism when whole state belonged to one man, it was obvious that his property will be the greater, the greater conquest will be.

But the solution of the problem is very simple: abolishing a private property.

[o well this is ok I guess]

standing against modern imperial conquests makes sense because the scars left are still around today
what good does it do anyone to take anything but an academic stance on dead conflicts
admitting a stance only admits how useless a mere stance is

[Rurkel]

Seems like an unjustified modernization of these two terms. "Military conquest" =/= "Colonization" or "Imperialism".

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Seems like an unjustified modernization of these two terms. "Military conquest" =/= "Colonization" or "Imperialism".

The term's roots predates modern use and the definition which Lenin gave it. It comes from Latin to refer to the Roman Empire:

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


Imperium is a Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) word which, in a broad sense, translates roughly as 'power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28philosophy%29) to command'. In ancient Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome), different kinds of power or authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority) were distinguished by different terms. Imperium referred to the sovereignty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty) of the state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state) over the individual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperium#cite_note-1) It is not to be confused with auctoritas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auctoritas) or potestas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potestas), different and generally inferior types of power in the Roman Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic) and Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire). Primarily used to refer to the power that is wielded, in greater or lesser degree, by an individual to whom it is delegated, the term could also be used with a geographical connotation, designating the territorial limits of that imperium. Individuals given such power were referred to as curule magistrates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_magistrate) or promagistrates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promagistrate). These included the curule aedile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aedile), the praetor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praetor), the censor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor), the consul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_consul), the magister equitum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magister_equitum), and the dictator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator).

Saying Imperialism is only a modern concept because it only exists the way it does now in a Capitalist society is like saying money didn't exist in the ancient world for the same reason. The root of Imperialism is literally just referring to the extension of state power beyond the borders of whatever tribe or community from which it stems.

The point is that the nature of empires changed and expanded greatly during the modern industrial era as it became possible for an Empire to expand globally and extend beyond its borders, sometimes without much application of military force anymore. It went from being a tool of the state and the aristocracy to a tool of Capital.

IMO one of the funny lines of thinking I notice from Leninists is this notion that Imperialism didn't predate capitalism. This is a mistaken position to hold.

[Devrim]

We all agree that Europeans should not have conquered the Americas and colonized them,

Marx didn't agree with you at all. He saw the conquest of the Americas as a historically progressive thing.

In addition your formulation comes across to me as essentially moralistic. What should Europeans have done?


Conversely we support the right of oppressed and conquered peoples to struggle for liberation from colonial empires and settler-states.

I am not sure who you mean by 'we' here, but certainly parts of the left don't support this, a famous example would be Rosa Luxemborg. Even Lenin only supported national liberation on a tactical basis, not as an application of principle.

Devrim

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Marx didn't agree with you at all. He saw the conquest of the Americas as a historically progressive thing.


Yeah I kind of wonder if Marx's views on this were based on his own more limited understanding of the world outside Europe though. It's not like trade and commerce wouldn't have had the same effect as conquest - but the conquest brought more blood and immediate exploitation.

Ultimately, what Marx and Engels liked was modernizing the forms and techniques of production, not the forced conquest of a people by an exploiting class. What they really saw as progressive was bringing new modes of production to Central and South America by the Spanish as opposed to the neolithic modes. We can look at their views on an occupation which didn't happen 300 years earlier but was contemporary - the invasion of Mexico by France. Since France had nothing modern to bring Mexico except wider avenues and more efficient means of Capitalist exploitation, Marx and Engels criticized it. Thus they may not have supported the spread of the Spanish Empire over the New World in the 1500s if there were other means of bringing new technologies and relations of production to the continent - which there obviously were (such as trade and commerce).



In addition your formulation comes across to me as essentially moralistic. What should Europeans have done?
Yeah I was thinking this too - what would one have expected a bunch of Conquistadors who didn't value human life to do? Thats the problem with moralistic analysis like that of the OP - it views these people devoid of their historical context and only relative to some abstract ideal. It's silly to tell off people living 500 years ago for conquering the Americas. Of course we shouldn't approve of rape, murder and exploitation, but we also shouldn't be surprised that people of that era participated in such activities. They were the consequence of a particular age and mode of production.

Of course, the idea of "historical progression" being good is itself moralistic ...



I am not sure who you mean by 'we' here, but certainly parts of the left don't support this, a famous example would be Rosa Luxemborg. Even Lenin only supported national liberation on a tactical basis, not as an application of principle.
Yeah I think this needs to be emphasized more - nations are ironically only really liberated by their own negation. Then again, I think the idea of a world without nation-states is counterintuitive to most.

[Rurkel]

The term's roots predates modern use and the definition which Lenin gave it. It comes from Latin to refer to the Roman Empire:Note that I didn't say that the word "Empire" or "Imperium" shouldn't be used in pre-modern context; that obviously would be ridiculous. I referred sorely to "Imperialism". Just like it's legitimate to talk about Greek colonies all over the Mediterranean, but it would be misleading to insist that ancient cities like Marsella, Olbia etc. represent "ancient Greek colonialism".


The root of Imperialism is literally just referring to the extension of state power beyond the borders of whatever tribe or community from which it stems.
Making it just a synonym for "conquest"?

[G4b3n]

When you study history, you shouldn't look at what should of happened but didn't and what did happen but shouldn't have, you need look at what did happen, place it in context and understand it within that context.

For example, it is rather fruitless to spend all day criticizing the Ancient Greeks for owning slaves or feudal lords for exploiting surfs.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Marx didn't agree with you at all. He saw the conquest of the Americas as a historically progressive thing.

In addition your formulation comes across to me as essentially moralistic. What should Europeans have done?

Yup, Marx most def. had some pretty terrible racist European liberal baggage. It's a good thing that we don't approach Marx like biblical scholars, eh? I mean, really, that's the part of Marx that Platypus has really picked up and run with, and its consequences (talking about the "rational kernal" of Israeli racism, supporting intervention in Iran, etc.) are pretty terrible, politically.

In any case Devrim, you're the one who is always saying that the working class needs take a revolutionary defeatist position against wars: does this cease to apply when the "other side" is at a "lower stage" of development?

[Devrim]

In any case Devrim, you're the one who is always saying that the working class needs take a revolutionary defeatist position against wars: does this cease to apply when the "other side" is at a "lower stage" of development?

I am not saying that I think Marx was right on this question. I was just stating what Marx thought.I was just pointing out that what the OP claimed was a position of all of the 'left' is actually far from that.


Yup, Marx most def. had some pretty terrible racist European liberal baggage.

Yes, he did. This is not part of that though. Marx's reasoning here was based on something else.

Basically Marx thought that the working class should support the spread of capitalism throughout the world to create the material forces for communist revolution. He didn't think that the native Americans should be disposed because he was a racist. He thought that the capitalist method of production had to spread across the world. He also supported the (very often violent) destruction of the last remnants of European feudalism. He might have come out with racist phraseology when addressing this issue, but that is not his reasoning behind it.


It's a good thing that we don't approach Marx like biblical scholars, eh?

I don't think I do at all. I will come to my view momentarily.


I mean, really, that's the part of Marx that Platypus has really picked up and run with, and its consequences (talking about the "rational kernal" of Israeli racism, supporting intervention in Iran, etc.) are pretty terrible, politically.

I don't really know much about this group, but I have vaguely heard of them. I don't think they are the only logical result of a 'bible-like' reading of Marx. Lots of other groups do that and come up with very different results. Generally I think that people have the politics they have and then use Marx to justify them rather than developing their politics from reading Marx, so Platypus has the politics they have independent of Marx's views.


In any case Devrim, you're the one who is always saying that the working class needs take a revolutionary defeatist position against wars: does this cease to apply when the "other side" is at a "lower stage" of development? Absolutely, no support for your own bourgeoisie, I think that Marx's whole thing about supporting the development of capitalism was wrong. Even in his own terms, if Marx was right in his whole schema, then capitalism was an inevitable development, so the working class didn't need to support this development as it was inevitable.

I think that rather the working class needed to defend itself, and one of the things it needed to defend itself from was being press-ganged into fighting and dying in support of imperialist expansion.

I think it is irrelevant to talk about what position communists should have taken in 1492. There weren't any communists and there wasn't a working class. In the 19thCentury though I believe that Marx was wrong, and the workers should have opposed their own states wars.

Devrim

[Devrim]

SCM, Your post requires a long reply, and I have a party to prepare, and someone to pick up at the airport. I will get back to it tomorrow, happy New Year.

Devrim

Edit: As does the one on the peasant thread too.

[Aurorus Ruber]

To put this question in context, I have been trying to explain the revolutionary left position on colonialism and imperialism and why the left opposes them. But people keep asking me why I hammer on Europe while ignoring the invasive conquests of the Mongols, the Aztecs, and many other historical empires. They ask why I condemn white settlers in America for murdering the indigenous people and stealing their land while ignoring the fact that indigenous people fought each other over land. They ask why I support the national liberation of Algeria from France and its pied noir settlers without condemning the Arabs there for conquering the region from the Berbers who originally lived there.


Yup, Marx most def. had some pretty terrible racist European liberal baggage. It's a good thing that we don't approach Marx like biblical scholars, eh?

Yes, I thought it rather obvious that many things have changed since Marx, including attitudes toward colonialism.


Yeah I was thinking this too - what would one have expected a bunch of Conquistadors who didn't value human life to do? Thats the problem with moralistic analysis like that of the OP - it views these people devoid of their historical context and only relative to some abstract ideal. It's silly to tell off people living 500 years ago for conquering the Americas. Of course we shouldn't approve of rape, murder and exploitation, but we also shouldn't be surprised that people of that era participated in such activities. They were the consequence of a particular age and mode of production.

Then why does everyone here speak so negatively of Columbus and condemn the colonization of the Americas in such harsh terms? I always took that to mean that people here repudiate colonialism and yes, consider it immoral.

[Queen Mab]

Yeah I kind of wonder if Marx's views on this were based on his own more limited understanding of the world outside Europe though. It's not like trade and commerce wouldn't have had the same effect as conquest - but the conquest brought more blood and immediate exploitation.

It's not quite as simple as this IMO.

The European conquest of the Americas was absolutely crucial, not just for the development of North America into the most advanced region in the world, but also for Europe's own industrial revolution. It was only through the mass enslavement of Africans, transported by European ships to European-owned American cotton fields, that cities like Boston had somewhere to trade with and British textile factories had cheap cotton for mass production. If you knock out European colonialism, none of that happens. You can trade with the inhabitants of Mexico and Peru, sure, but they're not going to be sailing over to Benin to take slaves to produce cotton for European markets.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It's not quite as simple as this IMO.

The European conquest of the Americas was absolutely crucial, not just for the development of North America into the most advanced region in the world, but also for Europe's own industrial revolution. It was only through the mass enslavement of Africans, transported by European ships to European-owned American cotton fields, that cities like Boston had somewhere to trade with and British textile factories had cheap cotton for mass production. If you knock out European colonialism, none of that happens. You can trade with the inhabitants of Mexico and Peru, sure, but they're not going to be sailing over to Benin to take slaves to produce cotton for European markets.

You're right - I guess I was thinking more of the colonialism of Peru and Mesoamerica than the unfortunate fate of the residents of the Caribbean.

IMO capitalism would have developed anyways, but without those surpluses you're right that it would have taken more time.


To put this question in context, I have been trying to explain the revolutionary left position on colonialism and imperialism and why the left opposes them. But people keep asking me why I hammer on Europe while ignoring the invasive conquests of the Mongols, the Aztecs, and many other historical empires. They ask why I condemn white settlers in America for murdering the indigenous people and stealing their land while ignoring the fact that indigenous people fought each other over land. They ask why I support the national liberation of Algeria from France and its pied noir settlers without condemning the Arabs there for conquering the region from the Berbers who originally lived there.


I think the point is to understand the material contexts of conquest in its historical era and oppose modern conquest.



Then why does everyone here speak so negatively of Columbus and condemn the colonization of the Americas in such harsh terms? I always took that to mean that people here repudiate colonialism and yes, consider it immoral.I imagine everyone here thinks Columbus was a pretty brutal guy, but he was a brutal guy because he grew up in harsh times. I totally understand some indigenous American smashing a statue of Columbus (as has happened in many Latin American countries) but I don't see why we should pretend that he made the choices he made out of a conscious moral failure.

As for whether people see colonialism as "immoral" or not - that probably depends from person to person. The issue though is that people make immoral choices because of a whole hot of complex factors largely shaped by their era. Talking about the morality of a choice distracts from the understanding of the historical contingencies underpinning that choice.

[Aurorus Ruber]

As for whether people see colonialism as "immoral" or not - that probably depends from person to person. The issue though is that people make immoral choices because of a whole hot of complex factors largely shaped by their era. Talking about the morality of a choice distracts from the understanding of the historical contingencies underpinning that choice.

Not everyone would call it "immoral" necessarily, but everything I have read about colonization from the left makes some resoundingly negative value judgments. Most such sources describe colonization as genocidal and exploitative, even comparing it to the Holocaust and similar atrocities. Many of them describe the colonizers and settlers themselves as parasites and labor aristocrats, thieves and murderers. While I have no idea whether everyone who make such judgments would use the term "immoral" but they certainly sound like they are condemning the colonists and their legacy nonetheless.


standing against modern imperial conquests makes sense because the scars left are still around today
what good does it do anyone to take anything but an academic stance on dead conflicts
admitting a stance only admits how useless a mere stance is

So you would say that European colonialism differs from the Roman and Mongol empires in that it contributed directly to contemporary problems. Millions of people are still living in extreme poverty and oppression because European countries invaded them, massacred and plundered them, and often gave their land to settlers. Whereas nobody today is suffering under Mongolian or Roman oppression, if only because neither of those empires has even existed for centuries. That does not necessarily absolve the Roman and Mongol empires of any atrocities they committed or make their imperialism justified. But their crimes however severe simply don't have the same relevance to the modern world that European colonialism does.


I am not sure who you mean by 'we' here, but certainly parts of the left don't support this, a famous example would be Rosa Luxemborg. Even Lenin only supported national liberation on a tactical basis, not as an application of principle.

Point taken regarding the critiques of national liberation movements, something which I should have kept in mind. I was making the point, though, that the left overwhelmingly sides with oppressed peoples living under colonialism against the colonizing powers. While plenty of people might criticize the Algerian independence movement, nobody here would actually defend the French colonization of Algeria or side with the pied noirs against the indigenous population. Likewise one can critique national liberation movements like the ANC and the IRA without necessarily supporting the colonial regimes against which they were struggling.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Not everyone would call it "immoral" necessarily, but everything I have read about colonization from the left makes some resoundingly negative value judgments. Most such sources describe colonization as genocidal and exploitative, even comparing it to the Holocaust and similar atrocities. Many of them describe the colonizers and settlers themselves as parasites and labor aristocrats, thieves and murderers. While I have no idea whether everyone who make such judgments would use the term "immoral" but they certainly sound like they are condemning the colonists and their legacy nonetheless.


Yeah most leftwing people probably find colonialism immoral on a personal level, but in the tradition of Marx the intellectual emphasis on the left is giving a scientific and historical description of how these events came to be. Voicing moral opposition to a situation doesn't really help to solve it.

[Aurorus Ruber]

Yeah most leftwing people probably find colonialism immoral on a personal level, but in the tradition of Marx the intellectual emphasis on the left is giving a scientific and historical description of how these events came to be. Voicing moral opposition to a situation doesn't really help to solve it.

Well ok, I get that not everyone here would specifically condemn colonization as "immoral" given the connotations of that term. My point was that the Left generally opposes imperialism and colonization, whether directly though national liberation movements or indirectly through calls to smash the state, obliterate national boundaries, and so forth. I am not really asking about the morality of imperialism but rather why the Left specifically opposes certain cases of imperialism while having little to say about other cases throughout history.

For instance, I have always heard countries like the US and Israel described as settler societies because they originated with invading colonists displacing the indigenous population and repopulating the land themselves. But this process of invaders conquering new territory and supplanting native peoples physically or culturally has surely occurred throughout history, not just in modern settler societies. Powerful societies like ancient Rome have been conquering new territories and spreading their culture by force for thousands of years, after all.

Japan conquered most of its current territory from indigenous peoples like the Emishi and the Ainu and drove them almost to extinction. The northern island of Hokkaido went from predominantly Ainu to falling decisively under Japanese control only several hundred years ago. The dominant ethnic group in Japan almost certainly migrated there from continental Asia rather than originating on the Japanese archipelago itself. Given all that, could not one call Japan a settler society built on the conquest and genocide of the Ainu and other indigenous peoples?

Similar processes of conquest and displacement have probably occurred even among indigenous people themselves. The spread of the Inuit across the Arctic may have involved armed conflicts with the indigenous Dorset people, who had almost disappeared by the time European settlers arrived. Bantu speaking peoples likely displaced the indigenous Khoisan when they migrated southward and their descendents the Zulu people would later build an empire around the same time that European settlers were arriving. I have heard similar claims that the Comanche spent much of the 19th century conquering neighboring tribes. How does one decide which peoples are truly indigenous and which are invasive settlers in those cases?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think Marxists focus largely on cases of imperialism or colonialism where exploitation persists. That's the case with the American conquest of indigenous communities, but not with the Roman conquest of Germans (on the contrary the Germans seem to be doing quite fine these days, and in fact themselves claimed the mantle of the Roman empire a few centuries back). The liberation of other tribes in Texas today is not against the Comanche but the current political order which rules them. The Sioux were also conquerors, but since then they went from being a dominant tribe of the Great Plains to being poor, exploited and marginalized. Who cares who they took the Black Hills from a few centuries ago? They don't own the Black Hills anymore anyways.

Also far from every radical supports national liberation movements. Many oppose them, and many only support them critically. Then there are others who tend to support them wholeheartedly.

[Aurorus Ruber]

I think Marxists focus largely on cases of imperialism or colonialism where exploitation persists. That's the case with the American conquest of indigenous communities, but not with the Roman conquest of Germans (on the contrary the Germans seem to be doing quite fine these days, and in fact themselves claimed the mantle of the Roman empire a few centuries back).

Then imagine if indigenous people in the US overcame the poverty and exploitation they currently face and achieved full equality with white people. Imagine that they had roughly the same per capita income, similar levels of educational attainment, that athletic teams dropped racist mascots, and so forth. Would that make the white Americans no longer settlers?

For that matter, given everything the Ainu have suffered over the centuries, would you consider them an oppressed ethnic group? Would the history of Japan conquering most of its territory from the Ainu and driving them to the brink of extinction make Japan itself a settler society?


Who cares who they took the Black Hills from a few centuries ago? They don't own the Black Hills anymore anyways.

But from what I have read, many Lakota still consider their tribe the rightful owner of the Black Hills and continue to demand that the federal government return them. Would the fact that the Lakota conquered the Black Hills from another tribe make their claim on the hills illegitimate?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Then imagine if indigenous people in the US overcame the poverty and exploitation they currently face and achieved full equality with white people. Imagine that they had roughly the same per capita income, similar levels of educational attainment, that athletic teams dropped racist mascots, and so forth. Would that make the white Americans no longer settlers?


The settler-settled or colonist-colonized relationship is historically relative. Are the descendants of Anglo-Saxons in England still colonists?



For that matter, given everything the Ainu have suffered over the centuries, would you consider them an oppressed ethnic group? Would the history of Japan conquering most of its territory from the Ainu and driving them to the brink of extinction make Japan itself a settler society?

You won't be able to just magically bring the Ainu back by kicking Japanese people out of the northern third of Japan. It's doubtful that remaining Ainu would really want it anyhow as their social and economic life is dependent on their connections with Japanese society. Many Ainu have intermarried with Japanese people anyhow.



But from what I have read, many Lakota still consider their tribe the rightful owner of the Black Hills and continue to demand that the federal government return them. Would the fact that the Lakota conquered the Black Hills from another tribe make their claim on the hills illegitimate?

This is an interesting question. I think we would need to take a broad view and distribute the land according to the needs of various tribes, and also without totally disregarding the non-indigenous descendants of the colonists (as well as any recent newcomers). The process of decolonization isn't so simple as saying we must ethnically cleanse all non-indigenous people from an area. This goes for other cases of colonialism too - do you really think all the Jews in Israel need to be removed by force to liberate the Palestinians? That will just cause a further cycle of ethnic violence.

[Aurorus Ruber]

The settler-settled or colonist-colonized relationship is historically relative. Are the descendants of Anglo-Saxons in England still colonists?

You won't be able to just magically bring the Ainu back by kicking Japanese people out of the northern third of Japan. It's doubtful that remaining Ainu would really want it anyhow as their social and economic life is dependent on their connections with Japanese society. Many Ainu have intermarried with Japanese people anyhow.

Well yes, I realize that much. My question at this point is whether the left would consider Japanese and the Anglo-Saxons invasive settlers or legitimately indigenous. If we do consider them indigenous, then what distinguishes them from white Americans exactly?


This is an interesting question. I think we would need to take a broad view and distribute the land according to the needs of various tribes, and also without totally disregarding the non-indigenous descendants of the colonists (as well as any recent newcomers). The process of decolonization isn't so simple as saying we must ethnically cleanse all non-indigenous people from an area.

What would you consider the appropriate course of action for non-indigenous people like the descendents of white settlers living in the US then? Would it depend on the class of the individual white person, whether any tribes in the area claim the land on which they live, and so forth?


This goes for other cases of colonialism too - do you really think all the Jews in Israel need to be removed by force to liberate the Palestinians? That will just cause a further cycle of ethnic violence.

I have always wondered precisely that ever since I first came across the concept of decolonization. From what I understand of history, decolonization has rarely been attempted on settler colonies and therefore I have few examples on which to base my understanding of how it would work. The only example that I have seen of a settler colony undergoing decolonization is Algeria after its struggle for independence. That ended with the pied noir settlers getting thrown out of Algeria and forced to return to their homeland. Although it probably helped that the pied noirs only comprised ten percent of the population and their homeland sat right across the sea and even then it involved considerable violence from what I understand. Applying that approach to Israel sounds incredibly impractical and likely to cause intense ethnic violence as you suggest. Applying it to countries like the US with such enormous settler populations seems unthinkable.