Why the f*** are both Franquito and Plankton in the Socialism thread

They keep tagging me in for my opinion

I'm also a socialist. I only vote for the green party.

Why were Spanish colonies dominated by a small class of large landowners while the land in Anglo Colonies was mostly held by yeoman?

well. could be worse

Lmao yo holy s***

Bro rly went full race science

Crayz

They’re two forms of imperialism

One is settler colonialism where the genocide/expelling of a native population and replacement by a new population to exploit resources

The other is what I call “cut and dry” imperialism, where an indigenous population is subjugated by a colonial minority-led government for the sake of economic extraction

The former is usually far more ideologically predicated than the latter

Yeah it's the former that I'm talking about, I'm wondering why the land distribution was different in say Mexico or Argentina and the US or Australia

you just did a dialectical materialism

Well settler colonialism is different specifically on the basis of how indigenous populations are treated in overarching socioeconomic structures

And the Inherent genocidal nature of settler colonialism means there must have been a practical or ideological reason genocide was preferable to subjugation

From there it would be a case by case study for each instance

When did you become a Marxist

@frolein

"Edward Wakefield was one of the most ardent British politicians to argue for capitalist expansion and accumulation in the colonies, particularly in Aotearoa (New Zealand). Wakefield deplored the fact that in the American colonies men acquired land easily, supported themselves by their own labour. This made it difficult to accumulate capital for there was little unemployed labour to put to work. He attributed this ability of some working men to acquire land and develop self-sufficiency as a direct cause of the American Revolution.

Wakefield was fixated on how to replicate British class society where, instead of each man having his own plot of land, some would have to work for others and accumulate wealth for their employers and not for themselves. Previously slavery had been used to generate a reserve supply of labour. For later colonies slavery was no longer an option as it had been abolished in 1833.
The convict method in Australia was the next evolution of the colonial endeavour. Vagrancy laws were introduced in Britain to round up the poor and dispossessed who were suffering from the effects of the economic crisis. Prison ships, “hulks”, were used at first then the poor were shipped to Australia. Because of their convict status, Australian workers were unable to accumulate capital themselves but made their employers rich. Convicts from Britain, however, were not enough. After clearing the numerous Aboriginal lands in Australia through genocidal policies, the new colony found itself with thousands of acres and too little “free” labour to do the work.

Each attempt at colonisation was a more refined effort to secure power and resources in the hands of the ruling classes of the imperialist countries."

I'm saying they were both settler colonies lol, like both got an influx of settlers genociding the natives and expropriating their land

I never said every idea Marx ever had was wrong

it’s just common sense that a group which has higher likelihood due to circumstances, to have generational wealth and access higher quality education — will overrepresent in academia

I’m only in here to call out that guys dumb racist idea that askenazis are inherently smarter

Everyone knows IQ is subject to environmental factors in early development; which brings wealth into the equation

Yeah not sure, is interesting though that British politicians are on record realising they f***ed up with America and switched up the approach for future colonies

I think after the gold rush the settlers started buying up the land from the big landowners so Australia eventually did get that small landholder class as well

@kool2 also what book is that from

I think a lot of the dynamics in Latin American colonialism was different to the point that it wasn’t the same sort of colonialism that English America and Australia experienced

And I think it had to do with the commodity value of subjugated peoples’ labor and how it weighed against the theoretical commodity value of a settler

Most progressive middle eastern country @emu

Yeah I'm curious about what dynamics made their settler colonialisms different

Reading about how hoxha was gay and the explanation was "well he studied in france for a while"

Well for one the Latin American, Indian and African colonial systems were able to co-opt and exploit competing political systems to gain a pole position. From there they were able to successfully overpower indigenous subjects before replacing and integrating those systems into/with their own through violence once division was successful.

North America had a much more divisive/immediately violen set of interactions between settlers and natives, thus reducing potential for cooperation (leading into subjugation) and practically requiring the literal extermination of indigenous populations

The western subjugation of China in a sense was a proof of concept of exactly how existent systems were important for the imperial project . The ability to puppet the well-respected predicate imperial system removed the need for the expensive investment of colonialism, allowing imperial extraction from the Chinese with very little comparative effort

It essentially boils down to, “are there systems of government and economy we can decisively overpower and integrate?” If the answer is no, then those systems are torn down and replaced with one of Europeans willing to build such an integrated system

Approaching colonialism with that specific framework in mind kinda helps us understand where settler colonialism starts and ends, and exactly what colonial dynamics differed in different points in time and place

As we understand, capitalism aims to commodify any relation it can find. And if it cannot be commodified, it will be destroyed and replaced as best seen fit by commodifying forces

Reapplying this idea into the division between prototypical settler colonialism and extractive imperialism helps us understand that the parts of systems that worked for capitalism were preserved. But no entire system was preserved, and many were entirely destroyed and replaced when they couldn’t serve capital.

Crayz