[PEN-L:8911] Marx and colonialism, slavery
In response to on and off list remarks, Marx believed that "merchant's capital is older than the capitalist mode of production" (vol. 3, ch. 20) and is a necessary precondition for capitalism (primitive accumulation): "merchant's capital appears as the historical form of capital long before capital established its own domination over production. Its existence and development to a certain level are in themselves historical premises for the development of capitalist production." (Marx, vol. 3, ch. 20). And Marx makes very clear the nature of merchant's capital: "so long as merchant's capital promotes the exchange of products between undeveloped societies, commercial profit not only appears as outbargaining and cheating, but also largely originates from them...Merchant's capital, when it holds a position of dominance, stands everywhere for a system of robbery, so that its development among the trading nations of old and modern times is always directly connected with plundering, piracy, kidnapping slaves, and colonial conquest." (Marx, vol. 3, ch. 20) Marx makes equally clear the role that such colonialism and slavery played in the rise of capitalism: "there is no doubt--and it is precisely this fact which has led to wholly erroneous conceptions--that in the 16th and 17th centuries the great revolutions, which took place in commerce with the geographical discoveries and speeded the development of merchant's capital, constitute one of the principal elements in furthering the transition from feudal to capitalist mode of production. Thje sudden expansion of the world-market. the multiplication of circulating commodities, the competitive zeal of the european nations to possess themselves of the products of Asia and the treasures of america, and the colonial system--all contributed materially toward the destroying the feudal fetters on production." (vol. 3, ch. 20) For recent work on this, the Williams-Rodney thesis (Williams for Eric Williams, Rodney for Walter Rodney, author of _How Europe Underdeveloped Africa_) see the work of William A. Darity, Jr. (cites available on request).
Re: Marx on colonialism--names
In a message dated 97-10-31 09:37:26 EST, you write: OK, I have to confess. I've been posting to PEN-L and other lists under the name Jerry Levy to provoke controversy, and with it attention. Because as we say in the self-promotional trade, there's no such thing as bad publicity. Doug Damn, I'd like to confess to wild controversial postings under another name -- like Suzie Creamcheese or something, but I can barely keep up with responses to the trash, er commentary, I produce under my own name. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] p.s. what WOULD be a good alternative name? "she who must be obeyed?" Hmm, no, that's already in use by Rumpole, h
Re: Marx on colonialism
Maggie wrote: I realize this isn't one of your main points, but I think you are a little simplistic about Henry Carey's writings, and I think you may have Henry confused with his father, Mathew Carey, who HATED the British. Nope. It was Henry. I tried to send more information on this yesterday, but it never made it to pen-l. I will try again. - Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 916-898-5321 916-898-5901 fax
Re: Marx on colonialism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this was not at all unusual, most political economists in the colonies and u.s. wrote under multiple names OK, I have to confess. I've been posting to PEN-L and other lists under the name Jerry Levy to provoke controversy, and with it attention. Because as we say in the self-promotional trade, there's no such thing as bad publicity. Doug
Re: Marx on colonialism
Ajit: I think the poor method is on your side 100%. First of all, you seem to say irresposible things about decent people in public. First you imlicated a person like Gandhi, who lost his life in fight for communal harmony in India, with "nasty communal fights with muslims". Now, if it was not Gandhi, then it "certainly" must be Nehru. Where did you get your "certain" information about Nehru from? I agree with you that the connection between Gandhi and the cruel and repressive policies of the official party of Indian post-colonialism are tenuous. The point I was making is that it as foolish to make these connections as it is to make any connections between Marx and Stalin, as you do. Why don't you take a look at the text that is being discussed. And the text is by Marx and not Engels. So I quote the text again. "The question is, can mankind fulfill its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state in Asia? If not, whatever may have been the CRIMES [IMPHASIS ADDED] of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution. Then, whatever bitterness the spectacle of the crumbling of an ancient world may have for our personal feelings, we have the right, in point of history, to exclaim with Goethe: [Should this torture then torment us Since it brings us greater pleasure? Were not through the rule of Timur Souls devoured without measure.]" If this is not called pardoning the 'crime', then what is it? Marx's mistake was in thinking that the capitalist transformation of India would be analogous in some fashion to that which took place in Europe and North America. The lines from Goethe are relevant to the national experience of England, France, the United States, etc. What Marx did not anticipate was that the "greater pleasure" was unrealizable in places like India, Kenya, Argentina, etc., which were to remain permanently underdeveloped. The British Empire was criminal to the inhabitants of the British Isles, but the process of capital accumulation did provide the basis of proletarian revolution since such accumulation inevitably produces a powerful working class. Marx was focused on colonialism, not imperialism. The phenomenon of imperialism only captured the attention of Marxism as the imperialist system itself became better defined, which is in the 1870s and 80s. I'm not sure what Ajit's problem is. Is it that Marx deviated from Marxism? Or is it that Marxism itself leads to the support of colonialism and imperialism. Louis Proyect
Re: Marx on colonialism
In a message dated 97-10-29 10:17:57 EST, Michael Perelman writes: Be careful taking Marx's writings on India at face value. These writings were part of an effort to undermine Henry Carey, who was an important figure at the NY Tribune and how was a major influence on Duhring. Carey emphasized that everything English was bad. Marx countered that the British were helping India develop. I wrote about this in my Marx's Crises Theory. I realize this isn't one of your main points, but I think you are a little simplistic about Henry Carey's writings, and I think you may have Henry confused with his father, Mathew Carey, who HATED the British. Brief history: Mathew Carey was an Irish rebel who left Britain one step ahead of the police in 17(??). He escaped by dressing as a woman and boarding a ship transporting primarily indentured servants to the colonies. Shortly after landing in Philadelphia, he borrowed money from Lafayette and opened the first publishing house in the United States. Mathew was also a prolific writer, publishing pamphlets on economics, poverty, and women's rights (one of the first published u.s. feminists) under something like 20 different psuedonyms (this was not at all unusual, most political economists in the colonies and u.s. wrote under multiple names). His earlier writings all center around the theme of providing protections for manufacturing in the northeast to make the colonies, then the states, independent of British manufactured goods. In this he ran several campaigns which directly opposed the interests of southern plantation owners -- and he was also vigorously anti-slavery. His later writings almost all centered around issues of poverty -- he called for a social movement to pay living wages, citing discrimination and low wages as one of the primary reasons for poverty amongst women. Mathew also espoused a number of causes ignored not only by the upper classes, but by early men's unions and workingmen's organizations as well -- particularly upgrading the piece rates paid seamstresses. Henry was Mathew's son (one of 9 surviving children). Unlike his father, Henry's main claim to fame was to provide a voice for the conservative upper-class intelligentsia in nineteenth-century usa. Marx refers to Henry Carey as one of the "appologists." One of Henry's most influential works was a comparison of money wages paid workers in the northeast with wages paid workers in England. Henry finds that the wages and living standards of New England workers are far superior to those in England. He credits the higher wages in the US with two things: one is no state sponsored poor rates, and the other is democracy. A close examination of this work reveals tremendous weaknesses: the wages he refers to as higher are those paid only a minority of workers in the newest, most technologically advanced factories in the states. When wages in general are assessed in light of living standards, his whole argument falls apart. Henry wasn't so much anti-british as he was anti-competition for any u.s. industry, including agreeing with protections for southern planters. He was a protectionist. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Marx on colonialism
Doug Henwood wrote: OK, I have to confess. I've been posting to PEN-L and other lists under the name Jerry Levy to provoke controversy, and with it attention. Because as we say in the self-promotional trade, there's no such thing as bad publicity. OK, I have to confess as well. I've been using Doug's mailing address [EMAIL PROTECTED] in order to discredit him. Indeed, I authored the most outrageous flames and libels that Doug has been unfairly accused of having written. Moreover if you read what "Doug Henwood" (i.e. I) have written, then you will most likely (and unjustly) conclude that Doug is an anti-Marxist empiricist. Jerry
Re: Marx on colonialism
Lou: I am still confused by: The real culprit in all this teleological totalitarianism was not Marx, nor Hegel. Nor the Enlightenment thinkers before Hegel. Nor Descartes who got the whole totalitarian rational-thought campaign going. You have to go back to Plato who put Reason on a pedestal and started the mechanisms that led to the Gulag Archipelago. (1) Are you opposing all teleological theories? I may be missing nuance, but you seem later on to endorse the notion that an imperialism that imposes capitalist relations does help to move a society toward socialism. Could you spell this out a bit more? (2) Isn't it just a bit forced to blame this all on Plato? Does teleology really follow from rationalism? Why? On interpretations of Indian history in general, the main point to add is that "India" should not be assumed to have been static before British colonialism. In other words in addition to putting the "Asiatic Mode" in the trashcan, we should also be skeptical of other stagnationist theses. It can be argued that the Brits delayed industrial capitalism through suppression of industry and indigenous finance, and that in many regions they actually stabilized and reinforced a crumbling feudalism. Best, Colin PS Ajit seems right in challenging Michael's exculpation of Marx on India. If you think about it you can get anybody off the hook for anything they write by this kind of maneuver. Marx was not a careless writer and did think about the political impact of what he published so it's surely appropriate to hold him accountable.
Re: Marx on colonialism
Date sent: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:00:37 -0800
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: James Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
devine writes:
Marx was also quite critical of _European_ societies. One of his mottoes
was "ruthless criticism of all existing" and sometimes he took it to
curmudgeonly extremes. If I remember correctly, he wrote a book about
Gladstone (a British P.M.) and the Crimean War that was quite mean to those
Brits. He also embraced the then-fashionable habit of using ethnic
stereotypes, including those against two groups to which he himself
belonged (Jews and Germans). (This fashion started becoming unfashionable
only in the 1940s.)
Yes, Marx said many bad things about many people from
many places, including Europe. But this misses the whole point at
issue here: that Marx said many derogatory remarks about non-
European people IN THE NAME OF EUROPEAN COLONIZATION!
Still, I am glad you abandoned your rosy picture of Marx on
colonialism. Of course, there are some in pen-l who want to
whitewash the whole issue, or blame Hegel and Plato. Let me remind
them of some of the remarks Marx made about non-Europeans, all of
which are cited in an excellent article
by Nimni "Marx, Engels and the National Question" (SS, 1989):
On Spaniards and Mexicans: "The Spaniards are indeed degenerate. But
a degenrate Spaniard, a Mexican that is the ideal. All vices of the
Spaniards - Boastfulness, Grandiloquence, and Quixoticism - are found
in the Mexicans raised to the third power."
On Chinese: "It is almost needless to observe that, in the same
measure in which opium has obtained the sovereinglty over the
Chinese, the Emperor and his staff of pedantic mandarins have become
dispossessed of their own sovereignty. It would seem as thought
history had first to make this whole people drunk before it could
rise them out of their hereditary stupidity"
On Lasalle: "It is now perfectly clear to me that, as testified by his
cranial formation and hair growth, he is descended from the negroes
who joined Moses' exodus from Egypt (unless his paternal mother or
grandmother was crossed with a nigger). Well this combination of
Jewish and Germanic stock with the negroid substance is bound to
yield a strange product".
Now, Marx did also make derogatory remarks against Scandinavians and
eastern Europeans - those outside mainstream European civilization -
but they don't appear to have the same condescending manner. And, I
might add, these citations listed above are pale by comparison to some
other remarks Marx made against Africans.
Having said this, I would not jump to the conclusion that Marx was a
racist in the sense that we understand that term today.
ricardo
If Michael P. or someone else who knows this stuff can tell us, I'd
appreciate knowing what old Chuck's attitudes toward Europeans.
Also, as Michael pointed out quite correctly, Marx did write a lot about
European colonialism in the "third world" beyond the "modern theory of
colonization" chapter at the end of CAPITAL, vol. I. But did Marx have a
_theory_ of looting and forced-labor colonialism as developed as his theory
(or Wakefield's theory) of settler colonialism? ("Looting" was typically
the first type of colonialism, followed by creation of forced labor
systems, as with the haciendas or encomiendas in the Spanish New World.)
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ.
7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
Re: Marx on colonialism
Ajit: I have not read Plato. But Descartes definitely does not have any teleological theory of history. Plato? Highly recommended. Especially "Apology", the dialog about Socrates' death sentence. Recent scholarship argues that he had it coming to him, but I'll reserve judgment on that. Aristotle is very good also. The deal with Descartes is that he is the father of modern rational philosophy. The Enlightenment would not be possible without Descartes. (Of course, we Marxists would argue that the Englightenment would not be possible without the mercantile revolution. Lots of good literature on this as well.) Gandhi did not form any party nor was member of any political party. To implicate Gandhi with "nasty communal fights with Muslims" is sheer nonsense. Where you get your informations from? His disciples Nehru and Indira Gandhi certainly did. If we can blame Marx for Stalin, why not blame Gandhi for the Congress Party's repression and brutality. The point is that this is a poor method for understanding politics. This only proves my point. There is a clear teleological stages theory of history here. Crimes of capitalism, in this case colonialism, is pardoned because it was essential preparation for socialism. I think later on, e.g. in CAPITAL, he is no longer tied to such theory of history. Pardoned? This ascribes a moralistic quality to Marx and Engel's writings that does not apply. Engels wrote about the cruelty and exploitation of the factory system in "Origins of the Working Class in England." He did not "pardon" this system. He did just the opposite. He wrote a powerful denuciation of the system. By the same token, he understood (only partially) that this system was an inevitable product of the accumulation of capital. He developed a more scientific understanding as his partnership with Marx matured. Socialists do not "pardon" the emergence of capitalist property relations, nor do we put them on a pedestal. We take note of them and look for opportunities to transform them. This is ABC. Louis Proyect
Re: Marx on colonialism
At 08:16 29/10/97 -0800, Michael P. wrote: From: Ajit Sinha [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think you are trying to find an easy way out for Marx. Marx's writing on India is definitely problematic. After saying things like, I don't know what "easy way out" means. Marx himself describes his intentions in a letter to Engels. I have elaborated on this subject elsewhere, as I said before. I will refrain from posting more text since I suspect that this subject might be without much interest on pen-l. Your article on Switzerland was of course an indirect smack at the leading articles in the Tribune (against centralisation, etc.), and its Carey. I have continued this hidden warfare in my first article on India, in which the destruction of the native industry by England is described as revolutionary. This will be very shocking to them. [Marx to Engels, 14 June 1853; in Marx and Engels 1975, pp. 78-80] ___ Nowhere in this letter Marx is suggesting that he did not believe in what he wrote in his article on India. I think, to interpret Marx's articles on India as a vailed polemic against Carey would be quite problematic. It may imply that Marx was not a serious scholar-- how could a serious person go on to justify enormous amount of crime committed against a people in public, simply to piss somebody off? And particulary when he more or less belongs to the group of victimizers than the victims. This is no joke Michael. I don't know why this subject will be of no interest on pen-l, particularly when 'Clinton got cold' type of topics seem to be of enough interest on pen-l. And again you yourself have many times asked for more non-US or Euro centered topics to be discussed on pen-l. So what's wrong with this topic? Cheers, ajit sinha __ Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 916-898-5321 916-898-5901 fax
Re: Marx on colonialism
At 11:02 29/10/97 -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: Ajit: This is a serious problem with teleological theory of history, as well as the Marxist theory of praxis, which accepts the teleological theory of history. As long as one holds that historical and dialectical materialism is the 'true' theory and the road to truth (as Lenin did), then many crimes against humanity can be justified in the name of history and human destiny. A Stalin can always justify killing millions of innocent people in the name of history and human destiny. Same goes with the philosophy of praxis (2nd and 11th Thesis on Feuerbach). Well, wait a second. The real culprit in all this teleological totalitarianism was not Marx, nor Hegel. Nor the Enlightenment thinkers before Hegel. Nor Descartes who got the whole totalitarian rational-thought campaign going. You have to go back to Plato who put Reason on a pedestal and started the mechanisms that led to the Gulag Archipelago. I have not read Plato. But Descartes definitely does not have any teleological theory of history. Ajit: It asserts that it would prove the correctness of the theory by practice. If the practice involves crime against humanity then that must be committed to prove the truthfulness of the theory (both Paul and Jim should take a note of it). That's why I think the Gandhian concern for compatibility between means and end is important. Louis Proyect: Gandhi? Didn't the party he form get involved in all sorts of nasty communal fights with the Moslems? I guess we have to put the Bhagvad-Gita in the prisoner's docket along with Plato's Republic. __ Gandhi did not form any party nor was member of any political party. To implicate Gandhi with "nasty communal fights with Muslims" is sheer nonsense. Where you get your informations from? ___ On the question of whether India was inherently a stagnant society or not: It seems to me that Marx, following Hegel, does want to come up with a 'materialist' theory, as opposed to Hegel's 'idealist' theory, of stagnating nature of Indian society. Marx was wrong in adopting the Asiatic Mode of Production as the key to explaining British domination over India, China et al. More recent research puts the rest of the world on roughly the same level as Western Europe prior to the age of colonialism. I especially recommend Janet Abu-Lughod's "Before European Hegemony 1250-1350". What Marx did say about India is not simply that capitalism was going to civilize the barbaric Indians. He thought that capitalism was revolutionizing the means of production, but that genuine PROGRESS was achievable only through socialism. The 2nd International enshrined the view that Great Britain was "civilizing" India, but Marx's writings tended to have much more tension around the question of the British role. There have been attempts by the Analytical Marxists to breathe new life into the British "civilizing" mission thesis, especially from John Roemer: "There are, in the Marxist reading of history, many examples of the implementation of regimes entailing dynamically socially necessary exploitation, which brought about an inferior income-leisure bundle for the direct producers... Marx approved of the British conquest of India, despite the misery it brought to the direct producers, because of its role in developing the productive forces. Thus, the contention is proletarians in India would have been better off, statically, in the alternative without imperialist interference, but dynamically British imperialist exploitation was socially necessary to bring about the development of the productive forces, eventually improving the income-leisure bundles of the producers (or their children) over what they would have been." The following paragraph in Marx's 1853 article, "The Future Results of British Rule in India", presents a more richly dialectical presentation of the possibilities India faced after England's conquest. "All the English bourgeoisie may be forced to do will neither emancipate nor materially mend the social condition of the mass of the people, depending not only on the development of the productive powers, but on their appropriation by the people. But what will they not fail to do is lay down the material premises for both. Has the bourgeoisie ever done more? Has it ever effected a progress without dragging individuals and people through blood and dirt, through misery and degradation. "The Indians will not reap the fruits of the new elements of society scattered among them by the British bourgeoisie, till in Great Britain itself the now ruling classes shall have been supplanted by the industrial proletariat, or till the Hindus themselves shall have grown strong enough to throw off the English yoke altogether." _ This only proves my point. There is a clear teleological stages theory of history here. Crimes of capitalism, in this case colonialism, is pardoned because it was essential preparation for
Re: Marx on Colonialism
Yes, I heard Kevin Anderson of "News and Letters" and author of "Lenin and Hegel" speak on the notebooks and their importance at a Socialist Scholars Conference a couple of years ago. The talk was provocatively titled "Marx as Multiculturalist." It whetted my appetite for their publication. Kevin stressed that the Marx of the notebooks is nothing like caricature of him that we get from some post-Colonialists, etc. I suspect that their publication will provide a missing link to Lenin's writings on the colonial world, which can by no stretch of the imagination be interpreted as a mandate for the "civilizing" mission of Western Europe. Louis Proyect At 12:14 PM 10/30/97 -0600, you wrote: In the last two years of his life Marx was engaged in an intensive study of pre-industrial cultures coming under colonial rule. The first comprehensive collection of his so-called "ethnological notebooks" will be published next year by Yale, under the title "Property and Patriarchy." The editor is David Smith, a sociologist at the University of Kansas. Smith, who recently lectured here about this, finds that Marx frequently expressed his dismay at the social destruction underway, and his sense that something valuable was being wiped out by European civilization. According to Smith, Marx was especially impressed by the gender equality he found in tribal societies. This text will represent Marx's most mature thinking on colonialism. Smith's editing project is huge, since apparently Marx composed these notes rather chaotically in six languages. I think this may be a very important resource from an historical and political standpoint, and may require us to revise our thinking about what a "marxist" position is on this subject.
Re: Marx on colonialism
The racist remark about the Albanians was made by a certain James Robertson, who is the grand poobah of the World Spartacist League, at a meeting in NYC. James Robertson and Karl Marx have little in common. Louis Proyect At 11:39 AM 10/30/97 -0800, you wrote: In response to Ricardo, I didn't know I had a "rosy picture" of Marx's theory of colonialism. What I said was that he didn't really have a _theory_ of colonialism beyond that of (white) settler colonialism. BTW, is it true (as some have alleged) that Marx refered to Albanians as "goat-fuckers"? in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
Re: Marx on colonialism
Ajit wrote:
history. As long as one holds that historical and dialectical materialism
is the 'true' theory and the road to truth (as Lenin did), then many crimes
against humanity can be justified in the name of history and human destiny.
A Stalin can always justify killing millions of innocent people in the name
of history and human destiny.
This is too much. Crimes against humanity are/have been justified on
*many* grounds. Stalin's justifications ("agents of Germany"; forced
collectivization; crushing minority nationalism) were all the *antithesis*
of Lenin's Marxist approach, which is not driven by "history and human
destiny" but flesh and blood men and women in class-divided society.
Bill Burgess
Re: Marx on colonialism
Ajit Sinha quotes Marx in some ways praising the British colonization of Hindustan. This reminds us that no-one can be understood outside the historical context in which he or she wrote (i.e., Victorian Britain for Marx). But we knew that. This also tells us once again to avoid an uncritical adulation of any individual and to instead seek to synthesize truth from many sources -- even if one thinker's (Marx's) contributions dominate -- and even if it risks Ajit's accusations of "follow[ing] itse bitse bits of a thousand philosophers and creat[ing] your mumbo-zumbo philosophy par excellance." He continues: This is a serious problem with teleological theory of history, as well as the Marxist theory of praxis, which accepts the teleological theory of history. I'm not convinced that Marx was a teleological fellow (especially if you look at all of his writings during his "Marxist" period as he became less abstract), but even if he was, one can get a lot from his thought simply by dropping the teleology. (The last thing I want is some silly scholastic argument about whether or not Big Chuck was a teleologist and hair-splitting about the meaning of "teleology.") As long as one holds that historical and dialectical materialism is the 'true' theory and the road to truth..., then many crimes against humanity can be justified in the name of history and human destiny. A Stalin can always justify killing millions of innocent people in the name of history and human destiny. It sure seems like a lot of folks have committed crimes as bad as, or worse than, Stalin's without embracing any kind of teleological theory. Did Pol Pot embrace teleology or was he more of a follower of French Structuralist Marxism? (At some point immediately after PP's take-over, the REVIEW OF RADICAL POLITICAL ECONOMICS had a little story about this, praising him, to its shame.) Actually, it doesn't matter whether or not Stalin was a believer in "historical and dialectical materialism" or PP was an Althusserian, since all the Big Oppressors of human history were total opportunists, doing anything that increased or preserved their own personal power and the power of their immediate supporters. They used all sorts of fancy slogans to justify their policies. They never hesitated to revise the received doctrine to fit with their current policies. Unfortunately for the left, some of the BOs used Marxist jargon in their rationalizations. The case of the left-sounding BOs seems that of practice dominating theory. (We have to remember that Marx favored workers' democracy, not dictatorship by the minority. The latter is Blanquism.) Same goes with the philosophy of praxis (2nd and 11th Thesis on Feuerbach). It asserts that it would prove the correctness of the theory by practice. If the practice involves crime against humanity then that must be committed to prove the truthfulness of the theory (both Paul and Jim should take a note of it). That's why I think the Gandhian concern for compatibility between means and end is important. The "Jim" above is yours truly. I for one would never reduce the validity of all issues to "does it work in practice?" Logic, other kinds of empirical evidence besides practice and experience, and methodology not only help develop theory but help us interpret practice. The lessons of practice are not obvious without further reasoning. BTW, I've always interpreted the "unity of theory and practice" as involving the compatibility of means and ends (derived from my reading of Albert Camus's THE REBEL before I got into Marxism). I'm sorry if this fits with Ajit's charges of eclecticism. As is my usual practice, I'll leave the discussion of the "true" meaning of the 2nd and 11th theses on Feuerbach (not to mention the other ones) to others. But I can't see Stalinism in the Theses and doubt that either JS or PP had them in mind when they became BOs. I strongly doubt that these Big Educators of Their People read Thesis III, which among other things tells us that the educators are educated themselves and Feuerbachian materialism "necessarily arrives at dividing society into two parts, one of which is superior to society." Marx was criticizing those thinkers who see themselves as somehow "above" society and able to stuff their "Truth" down people's throats. Instead, Marx sees the oppressed as the main source of the abolition of the oppression, collective self-liberation as it were. On the question of whether India was inherently a stagnant society or not: It seems to me that Marx, following Hegel, does want to come up with a 'materialist' theory, as opposed to Hegel's 'idealist' theory, of stagnating nature of Indian society. The theory of Asiatic Mode of Production was a poorly designed theory to achieve this end. He relies on Bernier's travel accounts for his information about India and the idea that there was no private property in land... Bernier's accounts are quite superfecial and incorrect has been argued by many Indian
Re: Marx on colonialism
Ajit: This is a serious problem with teleological theory of history, as well as the Marxist theory of praxis, which accepts the teleological theory of history. As long as one holds that historical and dialectical materialism is the 'true' theory and the road to truth (as Lenin did), then many crimes against humanity can be justified in the name of history and human destiny. A Stalin can always justify killing millions of innocent people in the name of history and human destiny. Same goes with the philosophy of praxis (2nd and 11th Thesis on Feuerbach). Well, wait a second. The real culprit in all this teleological totalitarianism was not Marx, nor Hegel. Nor the Enlightenment thinkers before Hegel. Nor Descartes who got the whole totalitarian rational-thought campaign going. You have to go back to Plato who put Reason on a pedestal and started the mechanisms that led to the Gulag Archipelago. It asserts that it would prove the correctness of the theory by practice. If the practice involves crime against humanity then that must be committed to prove the truthfulness of the theory (both Paul and Jim should take a note of it). That's why I think the Gandhian concern for compatibility between means and end is important. Gandhi? Didn't the party he form get involved in all sorts of nasty communal fights with the Moslems? I guess we have to put the Bhagvad-Gita in the prisoner's docket along with Plato's Republic. On the question of whether India was inherently a stagnant society or not: It seems to me that Marx, following Hegel, does want to come up with a 'materialist' theory, as opposed to Hegel's 'idealist' theory, of stagnating nature of Indian society. Marx was wrong in adopting the Asiatic Mode of Production as the key to explaining British domination over India, China et al. More recent research puts the rest of the world on roughly the same level as Western Europe prior to the age of colonialism. I especially recommend Janet Abu-Lughod's "Before European Hegemony 1250-1350". What Marx did say about India is not simply that capitalism was going to civilize the barbaric Indians. He thought that capitalism was revolutionizing the means of production, but that genuine PROGRESS was achievable only through socialism. The 2nd International enshrined the view that Great Britain was "civilizing" India, but Marx's writings tended to have much more tension around the question of the British role. There have been attempts by the Analytical Marxists to breathe new life into the British "civilizing" mission thesis, especially from John Roemer: "There are, in the Marxist reading of history, many examples of the implementation of regimes entailing dynamically socially necessary exploitation, which brought about an inferior income-leisure bundle for the direct producers... Marx approved of the British conquest of India, despite the misery it brought to the direct producers, because of its role in developing the productive forces. Thus, the contention is proletarians in India would have been better off, statically, in the alternative without imperialist interference, but dynamically British imperialist exploitation was socially necessary to bring about the development of the productive forces, eventually improving the income-leisure bundles of the producers (or their children) over what they would have been." The following paragraph in Marx's 1853 article, "The Future Results of British Rule in India", presents a more richly dialectical presentation of the possibilities India faced after England's conquest. "All the English bourgeoisie may be forced to do will neither emancipate nor materially mend the social condition of the mass of the people, depending not only on the development of the productive powers, but on their appropriation by the people. But what will they not fail to do is lay down the material premises for both. Has the bourgeoisie ever done more? Has it ever effected a progress without dragging individuals and people through blood and dirt, through misery and degradation. "The Indians will not reap the fruits of the new elements of society scattered among them by the British bourgeoisie, till in Great Britain itself the now ruling classes shall have been supplanted by the industrial proletariat, or till the Hindus themselves shall have grown strong enough to throw off the English yoke altogether." What could be clearer? Marx adds an enormous proviso when he talks about the "progress" that capitalism brings. Unless there is socialist revolution, capitalism has done nothing except revolutionize the means of production. This has nothing to do with the ameliorative scenarios developed by Oxford dons like G.A. Cohen and John Roemer. Marx's understanding of the problems facing India under colonial rule, while flawed, are by no means like the imperialist apologetics found in "economist" readings. Marx was for socialism, not telegraphs, railways and smokestacks. Louis Proyect
Re: Marx on colonialism
At 14:13 28/10/97 -0800, Michael Perelman wrote: Be careful taking Marx's writings on India at face value. These writings were part of an effort to undermine Henry Carey, who was an important figure at the NY Tribune and how was a major influence on Duhring. Carey emphasized that everything English was bad. Marx countered that the British were helping India develop. I wrote about this in my Marx's Crises Theory. __ I think you are trying to find an easy way out for Marx. Marx's writing on India is definitely problematic. After saying things like, "There cannot, however, remain any doubt but that the misery inflicted by the British on Hindostan is of an essentially different and infinitely more intensive kind than all Hindostan had to suffer before", he goes on to conclude: "But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfill its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution. Then, whatever bitterness the spectacle of the crumbling of an ancient world may have for our personal feelings, we have the right, in point of history, to exclaim with Goethe: [Should this torture then torment us Since it brings us greater pleasure? Were not through the rule of Timur Souls devoured without measure?]." This is a serious problem with teleological theory of history, as well as the Marxist theory of praxis, which accepts the teleological theory of history. As long as one holds that historical and dialectical materialism is the 'true' theory and the road to truth (as Lenin did), then many crimes against humanity can be justified in the name of history and human destiny. A Stalin can always justify killing millions of innocent people in the name of history and human destiny. Same goes with the philosophy of praxis (2nd and 11th Thesis on Feuerbach). It asserts that it would prove the correctness of the theory by practice. If the practice involves crime against humanity then that must be committed to prove the truthfulness of the theory (both Paul and Jim should take a note of it). That's why I think the Gandhian concern for compatibility between means and end is important. On the question of whether India was inherently a stagnant society or not: It seems to me that Marx, following Hegel, does want to come up with a 'materialist' theory, as opposed to Hegel's 'idealist' theory, of stagnating nature of Indian society. The theory of Asiatic Mode of Production was a poorly designed theory to achieve this end. He relies on Bernier's travel accounts for his information about India and the idea that there was no private property in land (By the way Bernier's travel accounts were used by Adam Smith, James Mill, J.S. Mill, etc., and I think Hegel as well). Bernier's accounts are quite superfecial and incorrect has been argued by many Indian Medieval historians. So this aspect of Marx's thesis does not hold much water. I'm sure Ricardo disagrees. Cheers, ajit sinha
Re: Marx on colonialism
From: Ajit Sinha [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think you are trying to find an easy way out for Marx. Marx's writing on India is definitely problematic. After saying things like, I don't know what "easy way out" means. Marx himself describes his intentions in a letter to Engels. I have elaborated on this subject elsewhere, as I said before. I will refrain from posting more text since I suspect that this subject might be without much interest on pen-l. Your article on Switzerland was of course an indirect smack at the leading articles in the Tribune (against centralisation, etc.), and its Carey. I have continued this hidden warfare in my first article on India, in which the destruction of the native industry by England is described as revolutionary. This will be very shocking to them. [Marx to Engels, 14 June 1853; in Marx and Engels 1975, pp. 78-80] Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 916-898-5321 916-898-5901 fax
Re: Marx on colonialism
Be careful taking Marx's writings on India at face value. These writings were part of an effort to undermine Henry Carey, who was an important figure at the NY Tribune and how was a major influence on Duhring. Carey emphasized that everything English was bad. Marx countered that the British were helping India develop. I wrote about this in my Marx's Crises Theory. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marx on colonialism
Ricardo writes: ... Marx's views on the political cultures of
non-European societes were quite negative - just see his writings on India,
Mexico, or even Eastern Europe. ...
Marx was also quite critical of _European_ societies. One of his mottoes
was "ruthless criticism of all existing" and sometimes he took it to
curmudgeonly extremes. If I remember correctly, he wrote a book about
Gladstone (a British P.M.) and the Crimean War that was quite mean to those
Brits. He also embraced the then-fashionable habit of using ethnic
stereotypes, including those against two groups to which he himself
belonged (Jews and Germans). (This fashion started becoming unfashionable
only in the 1940s.)
If Michael P. or someone else who knows this stuff can tell us, I'd
appreciate knowing what old Chuck's attitudes toward Europeans.
Also, as Michael pointed out quite correctly, Marx did write a lot about
European colonialism in the "third world" beyond the "modern theory of
colonization" chapter at the end of CAPITAL, vol. I. But did Marx have a
_theory_ of looting and forced-labor colonialism as developed as his theory
(or Wakefield's theory) of settler colonialism? ("Looting" was typically
the first type of colonialism, followed by creation of forced labor
systems, as with the haciendas or encomiendas in the Spanish New World.)
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ.
7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
Re: Hegel-Marx on colonialism
Date sent: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 18:47:57 -0400 (EDT) Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Louis N Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:David Harvey on the Communist Manifesto That Hegel and Marx's views on colonialism were quite similar has already been shown by Avineri in his essay "Marx on Colonialism and Modernization". Marx's views on the political cultures of non-European societes were quite negative - just see his writings on India, Mexico, or even Eastern Europe. It is important, however, to be clear about what he was critical before we adopt a retrograde nationalist position, as dependency theory was to do later. David Harvey spoke on the Communist Manifesto last night at NYC's Brecht Forum as part of a year-long celebration of its 150th anniversary. Harvey has some of the most interesting insights into the Marxist classics today, especially involving questions of their "spatial" dimension. Since he a geography professor, this is not surprising. Harvey spent much of his talks discussing shortcomings or omissions in the Communist Manifesto. For example, the question of how the state comes into existence is only dealt with in a sketchy manner. Also, there is little discussion of how the world is "territorialized." Marx and Engels accepted the division of the world as it stood in 1848 pretty much on its own terms. There is also very little consideration of the power of financial institutions, which Harvey found puzzling given the major role that the Rothschild and Baring banks were playing in Europe in those days. This oversight has been corrected by Doug Henwood, needless to say. One of the presuppositions of the Communist Manifesto is that local struggles meld into national struggles, which culminate in proletarian revolution. Harvey wondered if this was a simplistic view in light of the tendencies to retain a stubbornly local character with their own dynamic. He also questioned whether the socialist movement has failed to develop a geographical strategy that is anywhere as comprehensive as the bourgeoisie's. The bosses have learned to divide up workers in such a manner that trade union and political struggles are weakened. They, for example, have calculated that 50 workers per plant in distances of 200 miles from each other has a powerful dampening effect on the ability to form unions. Workers need a geographical strategy of their own. Another problem is the tendency of the Communist Manifesto to depict the working-class in much more homogenous terms than it has developed historically. This means that the problem of conceptualizing socialism is much more difficult than originally anticipated. Perhaps the key is to conceive of a form of socialism that embraces heterogeneity rather than struggling against it. In almost a sidebar, Harvey developed some very interesting insights on the importance Marx and Engels attached to the question of colonialism. One of the goals of the Communist Manifesto was to develop a strategy for internationalism. The bourgeoisie had spread its tentacles world-wide and it was incumbent on the workers to forge ties across national boundaries. Harvey pointed out that colonialism was embraced by Hegel in "The Philosophy of Right" in 1821. This work was of enormous significance to Marx and he felt the need to confront and overcome Hegel's imperialist world-view, as reflected in the following passage from Hegel's work: "The principle of family life is dependence on the soil, on land, *terra firma*. Similarly, the natural element for industry, animating its outward movement, is the sea. Since the passion for gain involves risk, industry though bent on gain yet lifts itself above it; instead of remaining rooted to the soil and the limited circle of civil life with its pleasures and desires, it embraces the element of flux, danger and destruction. Furthermore, the sea is the greatest means of communication, and trade by sea creates commercial connections between distant countries and so relations involving contractual rights. At the same time, commerce of this kind is the most potent instrument of culture, and through it trade acquires its significance in the history of the world... "To realize what an instrument of culture lies in the link with the sea, consider countries where industry flourishes and contrast their relation to the sea with that of countries which have eschewed sea-faring and which, like Egypt and India, have become stagnant and sunk in the most frightful and scandalous superstition. Notice also how all great progressive peoples press onward to the sea." Marx was attempting to put these questions on the terrain of capital accumulation rather than philosophy when he wrote chapter 33 of volume one of Capit
