>>392332>Pax Britannica. Short, but peace. Yeah, it was totally peaceful considering the British had to actively, violently suppress discontent in order to maintain their "peace". It was totally peaceful when the zeal to expand empires caused multiple world wars. It was totally peaceful when Britain starved millions in artificial famines. It was especially peaceful when colonialism actively inflamed South Asian communalism and religious fundamentalism, causing many of the most horrific conflicts of the twentieth century.
>Are you talking about the precolonial tribes who still used stone tools, didn't knew how to write and lived in outrageous misery? Helping them to develop was the central talking point of the colonial propaganda. >Most colonies were just protectorates anyway and barely had any white people in them. Hell, Monaco is a colony. 1. This is a /pol/ tier understanding of pre-colonial civilization.
2. You seriously believe that colonialism developed the colonies, rather than giving the colonizers egregious profits? You are literally falling for fucking Victorian-era propaganda that only makes sense if you imagine Great Britain as some absurdly-generous nation that was willing to spend over a century helping the people of the world at its own expense. It also has to ignore the sudden gap in development between the colonizing power and the colonized world, as well as the fact that the colonized countries were left in an extreme amount of poverty compared to their former overlords.
Seriously, if you're not going to take my word for it, just read the attached book, Rodney lays out in undeniable terms what colonialism did to Africa, with parallels in other colonized nations. Needless to say, it was the exact opposite of "development".
>Go read your classics. Antic patriarchal family businesses, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, communism. I have, haven't you ever read what Marx and Engels actually had to say about colonialism? Marx only described colonialism in the bleakest of terms, and while early Marx expressed hopes that colonialism could prove progressive, that hope had faded by at least the time of the Indian Revolt.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/england/colonialism.htmhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/china/index.htmhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/india/index.htm#fiwi
>Colonialism made primitive and feudal society evolve to the capitalist stage and made the good old chain slavery and it's torture punishments evolve into wage labor with in almost every place the choice to keep working the land for food or to sell their labor for a wage. You are acting as if colonialism came as some grand eradicator of slavery, when in reality, many colonized societies had already moved squarely into the feudal mode of production. In many ways, colonialism actually retarded and actively regressed these societies. In West Africa, colonialism stimulated the slave market at the expense of the growing feudal empires, and the chattel-style slavery that Europeans practiced was objectively more cruel and primitive than the tribalistic forms of slavery found in Africa. And again, under colonialism, even after "abolition", Africans still worked as de facto slaves for the enrichment of their overlords, just look at the Belgian Congo.
>Why do you think the French gave guns to the former tribes living in the constant fear of raids from the other tribes who kept them weak on purpose? Because a staple of colonialism is inflaming reactionary tensions within the colonies in order to prevent anti-imperial solidarity. Why do you think colonialism supported communalism, fundamentalism, and ethnic tensions within the colonized communities? It's hard to believe the French would pit tribes against each other for some sort of noble goal of defending the weaker tribe.
>And now I will even say that colonialism have nothing to do with capitalism, it's an imperial trope. Morocco was, and arguably still is a colonial power. China have a long history of colonialism, that's why they were initially glad the French came to free them. I could name the Persian empire, the Maya, the incas… You're using an extremely infantile definition of colonialism, where colonialism is just the process of taking over another country for one's own benefit. Colonialism is rather a particular economic form in which emerging capitalist economies seek capital accumulation through the economic exploitation of another people without real efforts to integrate the colonized peoples into your patrimony. It is intrinsically linked to capitalism, as shown by the fact that feudal and slave-era empires sought active assimilation and integration of their conquests into their nation and political system, while colonization uniquely saw the colonized peoples subjugated under corporate rule and short-term exploitative governments that were disinterested in broader socio-political integration. Obviously settler-colonialism is different from the above, but even that is driven by an active genocidal effort to habitate a land and consume its resources. In either case, while conquest as a whole is not necessarily capitalist, colonialism in particular, having begun with the early exploratory colonies and the conquest of the New World and matured in the conquests of Asia and Africa, is intrinsically linked to capitalism.
>The only singularity of the capitalist colonization was to make many society more developed. Yes, at the cost of labor. I hate to outright insult you, but holy shit, are you even aware of what Britain did to South Asia and Africa? The sheer levels of poverty inflicted through uneven "trade". Please, read the attached book as well as this MR article on British exploitation of India.
https://monthlyreview.org/2021/02/01/the-drain-of-wealth/
>The colonized had to work for their overlords and to provide soldiers and as much money as they could, and when the Khan decided it was not enough he would just kill everyone. You are right, it's not colonialism, it's a lot worse.Genghis Khan was a monster, and he certainly killed many people in his conquests, but if you were to look at actual conditions for those under his rule, I think you'd find it tough to argue that it was more exploitative than under the Belgian Congo or the British Raj.
Look man, I really don't know what on Earth you're trying to argue here. Are you a Negri or Harvey fan who wants to argue for the progressive force of globalization? Are you a recent ex-pollack who still hasn't abandoned their whitewashed view of colonization? Are you an unironic Fabian or Kautskyite who somehow time travelled to the present? Or are you just a reactionary who is larping as left after you came here from the /pol/ raids? Because, and I will try to say this in the nicest way possible, I really don't understand how somebody could come to an explicitly Marxist-Leninist forum and peddle unironic colonialist apologia that's been debunked since before any of us were born.