|
Yeah, I don't really buy actual revenue being a decisive factor since it is imperialism impact on the population itself not revenue which is important. If you look at something like salt politics, then it is very apparent there was exploitation occurring that caused significant discord. Why else would the salt hedge exist?
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
Salt was taxed in India since before even the Mughals the main reason it became a thing under the British was because there were British-educated lawyers and legislators taking up the issue, using all the machinery of British politics: newspapers, public campaigns, political protests that aren't immediately met with execution of the participants and torture of the ringleaders, lobbying by groups that self-identify as political parties rather than as ethnic aristocrats: the perception that the goal should to abolish the tax, rather than making another tribe pay it
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
I think that if the British had stayed for one or two more generations, like in Hong Kong, they might have made lasting progress and change possible in India. I'm not defending the actions of the Empire in 1857, but by 1967 the British were radically different in their attitudes towards the colonies. Keep in mind that by this time Rhodesia and South Africa had both been strongly criticized for their racial policies, and had left the Commonwealth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
If they had stayed until the 1980s, India might not be independent at all, cf French Guiana vs Guyana. Under de facto autonomous self-government, perhaps, but I have a hard time envisioning an Anglophone Muslim minority/Hindu pro-business elite not being terrified of Soviet-Sino-backed communist insurgency across the 1950s to 1970s, and rallying under anticommunist British flag, particularly on military matters and nuclear policy. Iran would probably have turned out differently too. (and we would be sitting around characterizing Nehru as a fascist murderer of heroic communist insurgents, not as a socialist anticolonialist. Well.) ronya fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
ronya posted:Salt was taxed in India since before even the Mughals Even if salt was taxed in India before didn't mean it continued to be a giant issue especially since the British were likely far more effective at it. Even if the British helped undermine itself through education, didn't mean they deserved all the criticism they got. The fate of the salt tax in a counter-factual world of no British influence isn't really that useful either since the British had influence in India for such a considerable amount of time. quote:I think that if the British had stayed for one or two more generations, like in Hong Kong, they might have made lasting progress and change possible in India. I'm not defending the actions of the Empire in 1857, but by 1967 the British were radically different in their attitudes towards the colonies. Keep in mind that by this time Rhodesia and South Africa had both been strongly criticized for their racial policies, and had left the Commonwealth. It could very well be argued they had to adapt because the lost of India was such a blow (beyond just revenue) not to mention the loss of the vast majority of their colonies at that point. The British Empire was on its last legs, and to be honest there wouldn't be too much to hold India to it beyond "beneficial Western influence." Also, Thatcher quite clearly didn't issue sanctions on South Africa during her entire tenure. I don't see it working out even if Hong Kong built some cool skyscrapers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
Can someone please elaborate more on the Indian judiciary?Frosted Flake posted:I think that if the British had stayed for one or two more generations, like in Hong Kong, they might have made lasting progress and change possible in India. I'm not defending the actions of the Empire in 1857, but by 1967 the British were radically different in their attitudes towards the colonies. Keep in mind that by this time Rhodesia and South Africa had both been strongly criticized for their racial policies, and had left the Commonwealth. I still call Buddha's Birthday Victoria's Day but make no mistake that I'm glad colonialism is over. Even "benevoloent" colonialism sucks and creates identity, racial, language issues. Hong Kong may be one of the better "examples" of British Colonialism but the city state really lucked out from all the other problems. Hong Kong may have the rule of law but there are still lots of problems created by the colonial legacy. It's not like being ruled for another 50 years will magically wave those problems away. We have wonderful skyscrapers and is the dream land for lots of weird libertarians and kim dot com types. However, our land and economic policy is very twisted and not sustainable. Even with a highly efficient bureaucracy there lacks experience in leadership and dealing with accountability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Even if salt was taxed in India before didn't mean it continued to be a giant issue especially since the British were likely far more effective at it. Even if the British helped undermine itself through education, didn't mean they deserved all the criticism they got. The fate of the salt tax in a counter-factual world of no British influence isn't really that useful either since the British had influence in India for such a considerable amount of time. I am not sure the desert of criticism has anything to do with counterfactuals! (see my previous remarks on rhetorical bashing) I contend that there was always discord and exploitation; the British merely unwittingly let it crystallize into a industrial national awakening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
ronya posted:I am not sure the desert of criticism has anything to do with counterfactuals! I just don't think the British get a pass because they were unluckily having colonies during an era of national awakening (not just in India obviously). As far as the Mughals they were spent power by the early/mid 18th century anyway. I do think at a certain point Britain takes responsibility (either through the East India Company or the Empire) for the shape of modern India to a large extent by at least the early 19th century with emerging influence across the 18th century. They made the choices for they made for a reason but fortunately were trying to hold on to territory and that system in a period when concepts of a nation had radically changed. Anyway at a certain point if they wanted to exploit India they needed to educate some portion of its populace for manpower to supply the bureaucracy, the mechanics of colonialism ultimately helped in a form to shape its end. It maybe be ironic but I don't know how much credit you can give to the British since we just don't know really what India would be like at that point. To be honest, I don't think colonialism is that important in a negative or positive sense at this juncture. The problems of India are relatively clear, but I am not sure we have developed as of yet the right rules unless you use absolute force and that is no longer quite as acceptable as it once was be in a colonial form or a more invasive Maoist/Stalinist sense. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
If you want to help India, send monetary donations to the Marxist parties. Other than that leave India the hell alone and fix the problems in your own country. People in this thread are literally advocating neo-colonialism. Just because you believe in social justice and it burns in your breast with a righteous fury that doesn't give you some imperative to enter other countries forcibly or peacefully and "correct" their way of life. It's not cool when the Mormons do it, it's not cool when the Catholics do it, It's not cool when the secularists do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
neither of the significant Marxist parties in India at present are, to put it lightly, good for India, and I presume you do not mean the Maoist insurgencies both of the communist parties do not compete with the ethnic BJP in the north; rather they compete with Congress, so they both engage in ethnic baiting themselves. Their only 'success' is Kerala, where their solution to domestic poverty is to send their population to the Gulf to work for remittances, in inhumane conditions but far, far away from their comfortable unions back home.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 10:46
|
|
|
The Walking Dad posted:If you want to help India, send monetary donations to the Marxist parties. Which Marxists, the parties who want to enslave the lower class even more to the Arab states, or the parties that want to make it straight up illegal to hire non-union workers ever, which currently means making the majority of Indian laborers invalid? edit: Oh and it just happens these insane concepts won't have any effect on the ethnic groups that makeup these 'parties of the people'. sexpig by night fucked around with this message at 12:14 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 12:02
|
|
|
The Walking Dad posted:If you want to help India, send monetary donations to the Marxist parties.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 12:04
|
|
|
PrBacterio posted:Wouldn't that be illegal? I imagine like most countries India has laws against foreigners giving money to political parties. Communist imperialism is ok, duh. It's like you haven't even read this pdf of Mao's red book that I skimmed over once.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 12:14
|
|
|
Afghanistan was rightfully liberated from its classist roots! But can anyone here tell me more about the Indian judiciary? Goons have mentioned it moves at a snail's pace, so what is making it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
caberham posted:But can anyone here tell me more about the Indian judiciary? Goons have mentioned it moves at a snail's pace, so what is making it? Poverty. The level of inequality is so high in India that a local tax collector, MP, or large businessman can do whatever they want because it costs just pennies for them to get a case dismissed or slowed down. Meanwhile bringing cases to trial is very difficult unless you have some clout because India has a loving enormous backlog of poorly kept records and trial dates can take years. There's even cases of Indian women giving birth and raising children while still in jail awaiting trial.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
Bro Dad posted:Poverty. The level of inequality is so high in India that a local tax collector, MP, or large businessman can do whatever they want because it costs just pennies for them to get a case dismissed or slowed down. Meanwhile bringing cases to trial is very difficult unless you have some clout because India has a loving enormous backlog of poorly kept records and trial dates can take years. There's even cases of Indian women giving birth and raising children while still in jail awaiting trial. I seem to remember there were cases regarding land disputes that began shortly after India separated from Pakistan and are still ongoing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Communist imperialism is ok, duh. It's like you haven't even read this pdf of Mao's red book that I skimmed over once. To be meaningful I think Imperialism should refer to something other than 'intervention', otherwise hundreds of NGOs are imperialist. Doesn't imperialism involve subjugating a country to extract wealth or bring under political control for purposes of building a larger alliance? Of course there have been many insincere interventions (well you see Saddam's a dictator) that were actually imperialist, but some others were less so (Libya). You say imperialism, I say solidarity and shared struggle. If the shoe were on the other foot I'd hope Indian workers would try to discuss, understand and address problems in my country with the aim of helping.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
The Walking Dad posted:Other than that leave India the hell alone and fix the problems in your own country. In this post, SA user "The Walking Dad" condemns the entire concept of international charity work, from giving out vaccines in India to educating women in Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:To be meaningful I think Imperialism should refer to something other than 'intervention', otherwise hundreds of NGOs are imperialist. Doesn't imperialism involve subjugating a country to extract wealth or bring under political control for purposes of building a larger alliance? Of course there have been many insincere interventions (well you see Saddam's a dictator) that were actually imperialist, but some others were less so (Libya). The bolded parts are synonyms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The bolded parts are synonyms. India is much too backwards and underdeveloped to be any kind of valuable ally in anti-capitalist struggle in the near future, so there's no cynical motive there, and I definitely never intended that India should be under control of a foreign country. The goal is not to control India but to give Indians the means to change it. But let's say you're right, and they are exactly the same. In that case, I'd respond that Imperialism isn't bad because it's called Imperialism, it'a bad because it is the violent subjugation of workers in other nations in order to increase capitalist profit or reduces the people to pawns in military conflicts which do not serve their interests. OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
This discussion reminds me a bit of the libertarian bleating about "authority", as though that per se was the problem. Whose authority against whom? Most people have no problem with the authority of a court and judge against a rapist, unless they come from India or Ohio. I certainly have a problem with the authority of village elders sentencing a girl to rape for the crime of uh, being raped.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The bolded parts are synonyms. E: Unless "solidarity and shared struggle" means the ruling class of the weaker country join the ruling class of the stronger one, in a mutual relationship based on brutalizing the population of the weaker country for profit. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
The Walking Dad posted:Other than that leave India the hell alone and fix the problems in your own country. Until we achieve the Worker's Paradise, who are we to criticize throwing bodies in the water supply, massive corruption, hardly any rule of law, and of course all that rape?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I don't see how. Political control implies dominance, while the latter implies partnership. Obviously it's rare that you get a true partnership of equals, there's usually some sort of imbalance, but as long as you're allowed to break off relations unilaterally I don't see how that could be defined as imperialism. Note the "For purpose of building a larger alliance". Sending resources to communists so they can take over a country and then help you legitimize communism is the definition of "building a larger alliance".
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Note the "For purpose of building a larger alliance". Sending resources to communists so they can take over a country and then help you legitimize communism is the definition of "building a larger alliance". No, sending resources to communists so they can take over a country and then fix some of the worst, most unnecessary poverty in the world. If they decide to help out in the distant, distant future after (if) they can improve their own situation, great -- but the assistance isn't for that or conditional for that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:No, sending resources to communists so they can take over a country and then fix some of the worst, most unnecessary poverty in the world. If they decide to help out in the distant, distant future after (if) they can improve their own situation, great -- but the assistance isn't for that or conditional for that. It is if your future plans are to convert more countries to communism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:But let's say you're right, and they are exactly the same. In that case, I'd respond that Imperialism isn't bad because it's called Imperialism, it'a bad because it is the violent subjugation of workers in other nations in order to increase capitalist profit or reduces the people to pawns in military conflicts which do not serve their interests. What you are saying is the same thing as any imperialist in the history of the time. My imperialism is ok because it's *my* imperialism, it's all those other imperialists that are wrong and destructive. I'm sorry you woke up today to realize you are a cultural imperialist but, well, here we are. Welcome to the human race, it's pretty awesome when you stop lying about who you are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Note the "For purpose of building a larger alliance". Sending resources to communists so they can take over a country and then help you legitimize communism is the definition of "building a larger alliance".
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Why focus on the "larger alliance" part though, that's the least important part of it. What matters is "bring under political control", which requires more than just the same/a similar ideology. Again, not if your goal is worldwide communism/[your ideology here]. The mere fact of having a state that's friendly to your ideology near the country you're trying to convert will make it a lot easier to accomplish your goals (because at the very least they won't be helping your opponents).
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:What you are saying is the same thing as any imperialist in the history of the time. No, it isn't even close. It was always about stealing from the countries in question. Do you call people who disagree with the Catholic Church for discouraging contraception, condemns FGM or speaks out against discrimination against gays in Iran, USA or Uganda 'cultural imperialists'? Your "sensitivity" is not doing anyone any favors, but if it makes you feel worldly and sophisticated then feel free to indulge it. quote:My imperialism is ok because it's *my* imperialism, it's all those other imperialists that are wrong and destructive. I'm sorry you woke up today to realize you are a cultural imperialist but, well, here we are. Welcome to the human race, it's pretty awesome when you stop lying about who you are. I'm sorry you're the kind of person who sits around and observes poverty, rape, inequality and violence and decides it isn't his place to say or do anything for the risk of offending someone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The mere fact of having a state that's friendly to your ideology near the country you're trying to convert will make it a lot easier to accomplish your goals (because at the very least they won't be helping your opponents). In that case no one can support anything they think is good, ever, and "Imperialism" has lost all meaning. And again, if my goal were "communist victory first, fix poverty sometime later'" India is the last country I'd even think about. I'd be focused on USA, Germany, Britain, France and Russia if anything, India can offer nothing on that front and will remain unable to do so for a very long time. I don't need to support some alternative contrary to what I actually think is good for India to make my motives 'pure' enough for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:In that case no one can support anything they think is good, ever, and "Imperialism" has lost all meaning. Or maybe you're actually being imperialistic and don't want to admit it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Again, not if your goal is worldwide communism/[your ideology here].
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:So your definition of political control is "My ideology reigns there"? I'm not saying having similar ideology doesn't help, it obviously can, but similar ideology doesn't mean much on its own. Hell, in that case Computer Parts is a big bad imperialist in his own words for halfheartedly supporting the status quo and discouraging any intervention of any kind, because "at the very least they won't be helping [his] opponents." Which goes to show you that his definition is not only so overly broad as to be useless, it's actually absurd.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:So your definition of political control is "My ideology reigns there"? I'm not saying having similar ideology doesn't help, it obviously can, but similar ideology doesn't mean much on its own. Obviously there are things like the Sino-Soviet split but presumably if you're pouring money into a country you're trying to support people who are friendly towards you. Unless you're just a moron who gives money to anyone who calls themselves Marxist anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:What you are saying is the same thing as any imperialist in the history of the time. My imperialism is ok because it's *my* imperialism, it's all those other imperialists that are wrong and destructive. I'm sorry you woke up today to realize you are a cultural imperialist but, well, here we are. Welcome to the human race, it's pretty awesome when you stop lying about who you are. How is it imperialism if you give your money to, let's say, a female education-oriented NGO in India whose stated purpose you agree with, and don't derive any gain from it yourself? Is Bill Gates also practicing imperialism if he's saying "I'm giving money to anyone who finds a better way to combat malaria"? Sure, as a woman I can say, "I'm for women's rights in other countries because strengthening them will also make me secure in mine" - but it's so divorced from any immediate gain (not to say, the cause may be so difficult to achieve that it may be impossible) that I think it's really arguing in bad faith to claim that I'd be giving the money for any sort of selfish purpose. The means are less important; the intent is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Obviously there are things like the Sino-Soviet split but presumably if you're pouring money into a country you're trying to support people who are friendly towards you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
So Computer Parts, is it OK to talk about helping people in India as long as suggest a Chicago School Islamic Theocratic regime, just to make sure there's no chance that it could ever support other things I like later and prove the purity of my motives? Leaving aside the fact that I truly think some socialist programs and strong state power are the only thing capable of actually helping India at this juncture, making sure I'm not accused of Computer Parts's deliberately vague redefinition of Imperialism should be my foremost priority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:It was always about stealing from the countries in question. No, it's about power. Resources are a type of power, but ideology is also power. Hence, I don't know, the entire loving Cold War. You are an imperialist. Your power of choice is in the ideology of communism. You want it spread, even [Maybe even especially] to areas that don't currently care for it slightly. Why? Because you are right, and they are wrong. They *should* have communism in their life, and by golly you are going to help them see the light. quote:Do you call people who disagree with the Catholic Church for discouraging contraception, condemns FGM or speaks out against discrimination against gays in Iran, USA or Uganda 'cultural imperialists'? Your "sensitivity" is not doing anyone any favors, but if it makes you feel worldly and sophisticated then feel free to indulge it. You mistake the point. There are exactly two positions towards the rest of the world around you: There is isolationism, and there is imperialism. Think of it as defense and offense. You are either trying to keep the rest of the world out and not caring in the slightest what they do with their time as long as it doesn't impact you....or you are attempting to exert some form of control on the world around you, to extend your thoughts and beliefs to others, so they are more agreeable to you and what you want. Pretty much everyone chooses imperialism. Everyone is to some degree or another an imperialist. Stop pretending you aren't, as if imperialism is this great wrong. Of course you are imperialist. Chaos is scary, you want some control over the world. You have beliefs you think are right, so manifestly people that don't have those beliefs are wrong. You want to educate them to the truth. It's part of not being a total sociopath, caring about other people. Imperialism and the impulses behind it are not all labor camps and oppression and atrocity. Pretending it is is just some bullshit lie people tell themselves to feel morally superior. You don't need an unbalanced relationship to be an imperialist [You'll probably have one, because like people not all nations are created equal], you don't need to get everything from the relationship while the other person gets nothing, you don't need to be totally uncaring and unempathic to the people around. You just have to want to exert power in a nation not yours. And you do. e: meristem posted:How is it imperialism if you give your money to, let's say, a female education-oriented NGO in India whose stated purpose you agree with, and don't derive any gain from it yourself? Because you are applying your western liberal values to the running of another, non-western non-liberal country and attempting to promote them there. Again, being an imperialist doesn't mean you are wrong. That's sort of the point. When you pretend that imperialism is innately bad, you start down the road of moral relativism and isolationism. Or at least massive hypocrisy. And conversely, you have to acknowledge the fundamental truth behind giving the money: Other people can be wrong, other countries can be oppressive to the people in them even by their own choice, and it is not wrong to impose your will on them. It is absolutely possible for you to know better, and if you do you may feel morally impelled to act. quote:Is Bill Gates also practicing imperialism if he's saying "I'm giving money to anyone who finds a better way to combat malaria"? Well no, that's not really a cultural issue on it's own. Much like me deciding to or not to clean my car today isn't imperialism. quote:Sure, as a woman I can say, "I'm for women's rights in other countries because strengthening them will also make me secure in mine" - but it's so divorced from any immediate gain (not to say, the cause may be so difficult to achieve that it may be impossible) that I think it's really arguing in bad faith to claim that I'd be giving the money for any sort of selfish purpose. Again, the point: Imperialism isn't innately selfish, nor is it about immediate gain. It's about imposing your will on the world around you. That *is* what you want to do. The fact you are using money and influence rather than guns and bombs doesn't change that, nor does the fact your end goal is "Having women treated like human beings" rather than "Stealing all their poo poo". Mulva fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
Boogaleeboo posted:You mistake the point. There are exactly two positions towards the rest of the world around you: There is isolationism, and there is imperialism. Think of it as defense and offense. You are either trying to keep the rest of the world out and not caring in the slightest what they do with their time as long as it doesn't impact you....or you are attempting to exert some form of control on the world around you, to extend your thoughts and beliefs to others, so they are more agreeable to you and what you want. Your ridiculous dichotomy offers literally no analytic utility to anyone or anything. It does not allow us to describe things more accurately and it does not yield any insight into current or historical events and relationships. In short, no serious scholar divides the world up like this, only weirdo Ron Paul devotees. Boogaleeboo posted:Pretty much everyone chooses imperialism. Everyone is to some degree or another an imperialist. Stop pretending you aren't, as if imperialism is this great wrong. Of course you are imperialist. Chaos is scary, you want some control over the world. You have beliefs you think are right, so manifestly people don't have those beliefs are wrong. You want to educate them to the truth. It's part of not being a total sociopath, caring about other people. I don't know why you think Imperialism is a good term to force onto the idea of caring about people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 16:28
|
|