Soviet cogitations: 10562 Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17 Philosophized
08 Mar 2012, 22:37
Quote:
Progressive in what way? Marx wrote about it bringing civilization to savages, which I think is a bias based on the ideas running rampant at the time rather than a legitimate thought.
Well,to quote Stalin's Leninism:
Quote:
The third contradiction is the contradiction between the handful of ruling, "civilized" nations and the hundreds of millions of the colonial and dependent peoples of the world. Imperialism is the most barefaced exploitation and the most inhuman oppression of hundreds of millions of people inhabiting vast colonies and dependent countries. The purpose of this exploitation and of this oppression is to squeeze out super-profits. But in exploiting these countries imperialism is compelled to build there railways, factories and mills, industrial and commercial centres. The appearance of a class of proletarians, the emergence of a native intelligentsia, the awakening of national consciousness, the growth of the liberation movement -- such are the inevitable results of this "policy." The growth of the revolutionary movement in all colonies and dependent countries without exception clearly testifies to this fact. This circumstance is of importance for the proletariat inasmuch as it saps radically the position of capitalism by converting the colonies and dependent countries from reserves of imperialism into reserves of the proletarian revolution.
Soviet cogitations: 12921 Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Philosophized
08 Mar 2012, 22:45
I agree with that. While not progressive in their treatment of the natives, their development of the land and their construction of infrastructure was progressive. It's not pretty, and in fact pretty ugly due to the sheer scale of the Amerindian extermination, but progress isn't always pretty or even seemingly "good".
لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله - يا عمال العالم اتحدوا
Soviet cogitations: 10562 Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17 Philosophized
08 Mar 2012, 22:47
Of course,the emphasis is on was progressive (it seems that a few comrades here don't agree with that,but...).
Stalin wrote already in 1924,that:
Quote:
The same must be said of the revolutionary character of national movements in general. The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible reactionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such "desperate" democrats and "socialists," "revolutionaries" and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its result was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptian merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of the Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reasons .
Soviet cogitations: 3763 Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo
08 Mar 2012, 23:01
The Colonialism of America was different than colonialism in areas like Algeria or Libya in that the colonized did not gain access to the benefits of imperialism, but were instead decimated. So which populations benefited from the "progression" of imperialism?
Soviet cogitations: 3763 Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo
08 Mar 2012, 23:06
But the Settlers already had those social methods of production back in Europe. They didn't develop anything new. There was no new social means of production created by colonialism
Soviet cogitations: 10562 Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17 Philosophized
08 Mar 2012, 23:15
Yes,because it removed the "brakes" to the real rapid development of American capitalism.
Marx:
Quote:
The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.
Soviet cogitations: 12921 Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Philosophized
08 Mar 2012, 23:16
Colonisation was extremely progressive for Europe. Without the resources secured from the New World, Europe wouldn't have gotten so far ahead of other advanced cultures. Also bringing advanced forces of development to a backwards place is advancing the productive forces even if the natives of that place don't reap the rewards (which the Amerindian remnants do today to the extent that an oppressed people in America can).
Shit loz beat me to it.
Also yes American independence was progressive because it was a large part of the decline of imperial Britain.
لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله - يا عمال العالم اتحدوا
Soviet cogitations: 12921 Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05 Ideology: Marxism-Leninism Philosophized
09 Mar 2012, 03:27
Because the colonies weren't aligned on the idea of producing for Britain but for themselves. If we hadn't we'd have probably stayed backwards well into the late 20th. Our independence and our early jingoist campaigns are what set America up to capitalize on the instability caused by the two world wars.
لَا إِلٰهَ إِلَّا الله مُحَمَّدٌ رَسُولُ الله - يا عمال العالم اتحدوا