What would have happened to the colonies in a 19th/early 20th C Socialist revolution

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Had France, Britain, Belgium, Japan, Germany, Turkey or any of the other major colonial powers had real revolutions while they controlled overseas colonies, what would have happened to the colonies? Portugal's anti-fascist revolution led to decolonization, but this was after decolonization had become a major 3rd world political force, and after sizable (and nominally leftist) rebel armies had formed in most of their colonies.

The economies of Europe had become increasingly dependent on the extraction of resources from these colonies. Local governance had largely been co-opted or eliminated, depending on the region. Also, the level of economic development in the area remained largely focused on the extraction of resources for the European market, and largely provided the bare minimum levels of education, political empowerment and social advancement. These areas were highly unequal, with local elites and princes next to Colonial bureaucrats, businessmen and aristocrats on the top and most everyone else at the bottom. Most remained peasant economies, with very small working classes.

How would this issue have been managed exactly? Economically speaking, both the Colonies and Europe needed to continue their exchange (for industrial development and for resources respectively), hopefully on a more equal basis. They did not have a large industrial proletariat and their populations were fairly alienated from their European cousins. Would the colonies continue to be run "from Europe" by the European working class in a paternalistic manner, or would a local leadership be built up? Would the "right" to national self determination have been recognized? Would economic revolution be brought overseas with the same colonial armies, but carrying red banners?

Some colonies like Canada were settler-colonies and thus were more alike their overlords in Europe. The answers seem clearer in these cases. The territorial contiguity of the Russian empire, the widespread settlement of Slavs, and its interconnected infrastructure made it similar to these settler colonies. It seems easier for a union to be built between Russia and Kazakhstan than, say, India and Britain.

Also, I'm curious in specific to the viewpoints of various thinkers on this issue. I'm familiar with some views (I remember Rosa Luxemburg's views on Turkish colonialism, for instance, and some of Lenin's writings on the matter) but I'm not sure about the general consensus among Social Democrat and Communist parties of the time.

[Guardia Rossa]

Eh, they could perhaps remain as refuge areas for the bourgeoisie and the States at first (Just like the colony of Brazil became the Brazillian Kingdom with the Portuguese King in Rio de Janeiro when Napoleon invaded Portugal) but if the revolution is successful, they can't sustain themselves for long and the communists would invade the colonies to depose these Kings and spread the revolution.

After that, the communists would probably help industrialize the colonies and make sure all the remains of other modes of production are eliminated.

Other than that, (Which is in itself an idea stolen from someone in this forum) I have no idea.

[John Nada]

There wasn't a general consensus on the colonial question, and this played a big part in the 2nd International falling into revisionism and supporting WWI. Some of the positions were almost comically racist and short-sighted. Though it appears Marx and Engels did look into pre-capitalist societies and outside of Western and Central Europe more in dept towards the end of their lives, with Engels writing up a program for peasants and his plan to make another addition of the The Peasant Question in France and German (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/peasant-question/index.htm) and was going to write a new addition of The Peasants' War in Germany (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/peasant-war-germany/index.htm)(both underrated IMO).

Marx and Engels expected more advance colonies like India to make a revolution and go on from there, but the proletariat would help more underdeveloped colonies build up their productive force and then let them go. I don't see how anyone could expect to achieve socialism while keeping brutally oppressed colonies, but many did.

Actually if you factor in possibly most countries still being de facto colonies, with much of the same colonial bureaucracies, comprador-bourgeoisie, landowners, superexploitive relation with the "ex"-dominate country, development geared towards supporting the imperialists and consequential underdevelopment, ect. They just put up a flag, drew new lines on the map, and put a seat at the UN. Many were not liberated by revolutions. This might still be an issue, even if it's obscured.

There was the Austrian Social Democrats proposed solution of national-cultural self-determination based on individual ethnicity, regardless of where they lived in the world. Each nationality would have their culture preserved, each have a separate administration and institutions for every individual national, and in fostering unity within the nation, supposedly move into socialism. Lenin (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works//1913/crnq/4.htm#v20pp72-033), Stalin (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm#s4) and Pannekoek (https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/nation.htm#h8) thought it was metaphysical due to the supposed "common destiny" as the defining feature of a nation, undialectical, going to divide the proletariat into a bunch of different competing nationalist groups closer to their bourgeoisie and reactionary. It's interesting that Stalin and Lenin ascribed the existence of nations to the emergence of a capitalist base, while Luxembourg and Pannekoek view it as part of the superstructure under capitalism. One side sees it as like a farm or factory, the other a church or library.

The main proponent was Otto Bauer, but unfortunately as important it was to the debate, it wasn't translated into English till 12 years ago and isn't on Marxist.org . I don't know if it's really as Bauer described(seems like it'd lead to something like "separate but equal" and be a disaster), but it almost sounds like Zionism, though he somehow doesn't consider Jews a nation and it was also supported by opponents of Zionism who didn't feel Jews should have to move to Palestine to escape persecution. Also kind of like identity politics, with each ethnicity having separate designated political groups. It'd be interest to see if there is a connection.

The revisionists thought colonialism was progressive and "the white man's burden". The colonized people were claimed to be unable to reach capitalism, develop productive force and produce a proletariat, thus can't achieve socialism. It was even said that if there were no colonies the economy would collapse and overpopulation due to supposed lack of reasources(Malthusianism)

And there was Kautsky's proposal, that the proletariat should just let go of the colonies if that's what the colonized people want. Kautsky had an inside-out approach where the socialist revolution could help the colonies advance their productive forces to stand on their two feet, then maybe someday move on to socialism. He argued maintaining colonies was blocking, not advancing progress due to the focus towards gaining wealth. At the same time a drain on the dominate nations budget due to military expenses. It would be similar to the abolition of slavery. He claimed the primative communities might actually have an advantage of pre-existing communal formations, and cites Engels as proposing that this was true for not just Russia(Marx thought the mirs didn't have to go and could actually be advantageous for a possible socialist revolution). https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1907/colonial/index.htm

And there was the Bolsheviks position. Not only would it be a good idea to leave the subjugated nations alone, but it might be damn near required for a revolution in the dominate nation. The small but growing proletariat can still have revolutions too. It can go outside in too. The two-way relationship of imperialism effective ending the progressive aspects of capitalism relative to feudalism meant not only were the subjugated nations productive forces held back, but the dominate nation fends off crisis with looted superprofits. It's jumping to the peripheral that isn't not as developed and repeating the primitive accumulation all over again. Productive forces are actually held back and the backward productive relations maintained. Only thing left is to periodically reshuffle the slave states a bit, until the proletariat overthrows capitalism.

I don't get how if Russia was supposedly too primitive to have a mature proletariat and launch a revolution, couldn't the same be said about Britain? Britain had a vast peasant majority with pre-capitalist relations too, in the province of India.

[Emmett Till]

There wasn't a general consensus on the colonial question, and this played a big part in the 2nd International falling into revisionism and supporting WWI. Some of the positions were almost comically racist and short-sighted. Though it appears Marx and Engels did look into pre-capitalist societies and outside of Western and Central Europe more in dept towards the end of their lives, with Engels writing up a program for peasants and his plan to make another addition of the The Peasant Question in France and German (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/peasant-question/index.htm) and was going to write a new addition of The Peasants' War in Germany (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/peasant-war-germany/index.htm)(both underrated IMO).

Marx and Engels expected more advance colonies like India to make a revolution and go on from there, but the proletariat would help more underdeveloped colonies build up their productive force and then let them go. I don't see how anyone could expect to achieve socialism while keeping brutally oppressed colonies, but many did.

Actually if you factor in possibly most countries still being de facto colonies, with much of the same colonial bureaucracies, comprador-bourgeoisie, landowners, superexploitive relation with the "ex"-dominate country, development geared towards supporting the imperialists and consequential underdevelopment, ect. They just put up a flag, drew new lines on the map, and put a seat at the UN. Many were not liberated by revolutions. This might still be an issue, even if it's obscured.

There was the Austrian Social Democrats proposed solution of national-cultural self-determination based on individual ethnicity, regardless of where they lived in the world. Each nationality would have their culture preserved, each have a separate administration and institutions for every individual national, and in fostering unity within the nation, supposedly move into socialism. Lenin (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works//1913/crnq/4.htm#v20pp72-033), Stalin (https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm#s4) and Pannekoek (https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/nation.htm#h8) thought it was metaphysical due to the supposed "common destiny" as the defining feature of a nation, undialectical, going to divide the proletariat into a bunch of different competing nationalist groups closer to their bourgeoisie and reactionary. It's interesting that Stalin and Lenin ascribed the existence of nations to the emergence of a capitalist base, while Luxembourg and Pannekoek view it as part of the superstructure under capitalism. One side sees it as like a farm or factory, the other a church or library.

The main proponent was Otto Bauer, but unfortunately as important it was to the debate, it wasn't translated into English till 12 years ago and isn't on Marxist.org . I don't know if it's really as Bauer described(seems like it'd lead to something like "separate but equal" and be a disaster), but it almost sounds like Zionism, though he somehow doesn't consider Jews a nation and it was also supported by opponents of Zionism who didn't feel Jews should have to move to Palestine to escape persecution. Also kind of like identity politics, with each ethnicity having separate designated political groups. It'd be interest to see if there is a connection.

The revisionists thought colonialism was progressive and "the white man's burden". The colonized people were claimed to be unable to reach capitalism, develop productive force and produce a proletariat, thus can't achieve socialism. It was even said that if there were no colonies the economy would collapse and overpopulation due to supposed lack of reasources(Malthusianism)

And there was Kautsky's proposal, that the proletariat should just let go of the colonies if that's what the colonized people want. Kautsky had an inside-out approach where the socialist revolution could help the colonies advance their productive forces to stand on their two feet, then maybe someday move on to socialism. He argued maintaining colonies was blocking, not advancing progress due to the focus towards gaining wealth. At the same time a drain on the dominate nations budget due to military expenses. It would be similar to the abolition of slavery. He claimed the primative communities might actually have an advantage of pre-existing communal formations, and cites Engels as proposing that this was true for not just Russia(Marx thought the mirs didn't have to go and could actually be advantageous for a possible socialist revolution). https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1907/colonial/index.htm

And there was the Bolsheviks position. Not only would it be a good idea to leave the subjugated nations alone, but it might be damn near required for a revolution in the dominate nation. The small but growing proletariat can still have revolutions too. It can go outside in too. The two-way relationship of imperialism effective ending the progressive aspects of capitalism relative to feudalism meant not only were the subjugated nations productive forces held back, but the dominate nation fends off crisis with looted superprofits. It's jumping to the peripheral that isn't not as developed and repeating the primitive accumulation all over again. Productive forces are actually held back and the backward productive relations maintained. Only thing left is to periodically reshuffle the slave states a bit, until the proletariat overthrows capitalism.

I don't get how if Russia was supposedly too primitive to have a mature proletariat and launch a revolution, couldn't the same be said about Britain? Britain had a vast peasant majority with pre-capitalist relations too, in the province of India.

Well, if you consider India to be part of Britain, not the opinion of either the Indians or at least the more class conscious British workers.

One often ignored result of WWI was considerable economic development in the colonies and neocolonies as the European metropoles were destroying themselves and producing nothing but guns and bullets. After WWI you had enough industry and enough proletariat for proletarian led revolution on the Russian model to be on the agenda in places like India, and obviously in China, where you actually had one in 1926, although it failed. Before WWI, pretty doubtful.

Be it noted that, in practice, only Poland and Finland got independence from the Tsarist empire with the Bolsheviks' blessing. Central Asia was just as colonial as India or Africa, and ended up part of the USSR anyway.

[John Nada]

Well, if you consider India to be part of Britain, not the opinion of either the Indians or at least the more class conscious British workers.In the early 1900s? If that was the opinion of the class conscious British worker and not to fight for Indian's the right to self-determination, no wonder the UK never had a revolution. Never mind that imperialists(including the UK) still dominate India economically as a semicolony.
One often ignored result of WWI was considerable economic development in the colonies and neocolonies as the European metropoles were destroying themselves and producing nothing but guns and bullets. After WWI you had enough industry and enough proletariat for proletarian led revolution on the Russian model to be on the agenda in places like India, and obviously in China, where you actually had one in 1926, although it failed. Before WWI, pretty doubtful.In theory, India and China could've had revolutions before WWI. France, England, the US and Japan were able to have bourgeois revolutions. Just not any proletarian socialist revolutions.
Be it noted that, in practice, only Poland and Finland got independence from the Tsarist empire with the Bolsheviks' blessing. Central Asia was just as colonial as India or Africa, and ended up part of the USSR anyway.Under the Tsar they were colonies. But under the Soviets the Central Asian nations became Soviet Republics with the right to secede if they so chose(in theory). Right before the counterrevolution of 1991, most the people of Central Asian republics overwhelming voted yes in a referendum to keep the Soviet Union, even more than the people of the Russian Soviet Republic(still a majority, not like that bastard Yeltsin cared).

Poland and Finland had formal political independence, but were then dominated economically by imperialists as semi-colonies. In the case of Poland during the Soviet-Polish War, Lenin said France was determined to fight down the last Polish solider.:lol:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Under the Tsar they were colonies. But under the Soviets the Central Asian nations became Soviet Republics with the right to secede if they so chose(in theory). Right before the counterrevolution of 1991, most the people of Central Asian republics overwhelming voted yes in a referendum to keep the Soviet Union, even more than the people of the Russian Soviet Republic(still a majority, not like that bastard Yeltsin cared).


There are significant differences between the Russian colonies in Central Asia and British and French colonies. For one thing, there was more Russian settlement, the territories were contiguous with the rest of the Russian empire (instead of far-flung overseas territories), and there was less of a difference in the living conditions between the toiling Russian peasants and the various ethnic minorities living in the USSR.

Also, Russians, Ukrainians and other slavs were the ethnic majority in the empire. In the British empire, the Brits were in the minority, ruling over several hundred million Indians and other peoples.

[Emmett Till]

There are significant differences between the Russian colonies in Central Asia and British and French colonies. For one thing, there was more Russian settlement, the territories were contiguous with the rest of the Russian empire (instead of far-flung overseas territories), and there was less of a difference in the living conditions between the toiling Russian peasants and the various ethnic minorities living in the USSR.

Also, Russians, Ukrainians and other slavs were the ethnic majority in the empire. In the British empire, the Brits were in the minority, ruling over several hundred million Indians and other peoples.

True enough, but not important. Pre-WWI, the Germans had an African colonial empire, where they were the majority and the Herreros etc. were the minority. Was the German empire in Africa different in any other way? Not at all, notoriously murderously oppressive.

On Central Asia, it was contiguous, but not different in any other way. In the USSR, the local living conditions by the Brezhnev era were not hugely different than those of the Slavs. Under the Tsarist empire, the socio-economic gulf was every bit as large between Russian peasants and Kazakh nomads for example as between British workers and Indian peasants. People in Kazakhstan etc. are extremely aware of this, which is why they didn't want to leave the USSR, despite some ugly memories from the '30s, the Kazakh famine was just as bad or worse than the Ukrainian.

Too bad Afghanistan wasn't incorporated into the Soviet Union in the '80s, repeating the experience of the other Central Asian 'stans would have been the best possible thing that could have happened to the country.

The level of Russian settlement in Central Asia was higher than India, but lower than, for example, in French Algeria. It was just another settler colony.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

True enough, but not important. Pre-WWI, the Germans had an African colonial empire, where they were the majority and the Herreros etc. were the minority. Was the German empire in Africa different in any other way? Not at all, notoriously murderously oppressive.


Settler colonies could be violent and genocidal, from Namibia to the US to Australia, but the point is that the economic and ethnic makeup of the colony will inevitably be different from colonies with large, exploited indigenous communities.

If anything, the settler colonies will be more genocidal, since the natives are an impediment to economic growth instead of a source of necessary labor.



On Central Asia, it was contiguous, but not different in any other way. In the USSR, the local living conditions by the Brezhnev era were not hugely different than those of the Slavs. Under the Tsarist empire, the socio-economic gulf was every bit as large between Russian peasants and Kazakh nomads for example as between British workers and Indian peasants. People in Kazakhstan etc. are extremely aware of this, which is why they didn't want to leave the USSR, despite some ugly memories from the '30s, the Kazakh famine was just as bad or worse than the Ukrainian.


I'm sure there was a gulf between Kazakhs and Russians, but with the overwhelming poverty of the Russian peasantry and the fact that the economy was only beginning to industrialize makes me think that it was not as great as that between an Indian peasant and a British worker. More to the point, they had a similar relation to their economic elites as agrarian people being taxed to support a large central state apparatus, as opposed to the Western European countries (and Japan) and their colonies, where you had a sophisticated industrial economy being dependent on the resources of an oppressed overseas peasant society, both for consumption (tea, spices etc) and for industrial or commercial use (iron, gold, tropical wood, rubber etc).



Too bad Afghanistan wasn't incorporated into the Soviet Union in the '80s, repeating the experience of the other Central Asian 'stans would have been the best possible thing that could have happened to the country.


I doubt the USSR could have repeated in Afghanistan in the 80s what was done in Central Asia before and after the Russian Revolution.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

*double post* there were server problems yesterday ...