let's take the view of Marx, for examplecolonialism brought the nascent capitalist mode of production from western europe into all the different corners of the world, drawing them together in world trade that was just beginning to formthis was the start of really truly global human socialized production, where the whole of the human race produced and reproduced itself in a single 'system', one could say, instead of consisting of scattered islands of various kinds of primitive modes of productionfurthermore, colonialism ended all the antiquated modes of production in these areas and their ideologies. whatever a leftist must think of capitalism, surely this mode of production is better than the ones that preceded it? the old patriarchal modes of production which practically and legally held women and children in slavery, which also generally had slavery and were dependent on it were destroyedanother important thing I want to say is that the capitalist mode of production is in any case the historical foundation of the upcoming socialist mode of production. you cannot have the socialist mode of production spring up out of nowhere without the prerequisite conditions, much like the capitalist mode of production didn't appear in ancient rome or ancient greece, but only in those places under those conditions that allowed it to appearI think that many leftists are frankly just nationalists that like Fanon and critics of orientalism, but they don't have Marxian thoughts. they are mad that their shitty backwards countries got their asses kicked and brought into sapience by the british, spanish and the french, so they become theoretical parasites
>>539945224Yes Marxism is rooted in modernism. No shit Sherlock.
>>539945225kill yourself tranny
>>539945224Colonialism bad because white people even though we obviously uplifted every shithole we've been in. We now decolonize aka kill all white people. It's just about genociding whites like everything else. Oi vey.
>>539945224People believe Marx wasn't a Jew and that he wasn't a racist
>>539945224This seems like the kind of question best addressed to, y’know, leftists…
>>539945228Marx was for large 3rd world migration, welfare state, minorities, lgbtqi2p+ and free university
>>539945228What reason is there to think marx WAS a racist?>>539945224Every single positive aspect of colonialism that you can bring up could have easily been accomplished via trade. It was a for profit enterprise that relied on keeping the colonised people in the dark when it came to certain technologies, taking their resources and refining them in the colonisers country where the real money is made.Just a weird question, "why is forcing other people to do something they don't want to do wrong?", not a single nation on earth that has experienced colonialism has since said it was something they liked.
>>539945231>why is forcing other people to do something they don't want to do wrong?>why are people forced to pay taxes to governments they don't support?>why am I supposed to fork all my earnings back to my ex-wife when she cheated on me and won't let me see my kid?>why am I forced to enlist to fight on the behalf of someone who is actively working against me?Many questions, so few answers. Lefties just can't face reality and then operate by gaslighting people with unprovable axioms like "reality has a left-wing bias". how do we even know the nature of reality to begin with?
>>539945224Yes, it's crypto-nationalists on the losing side of the history seething about their condition in the only way that is left for them because it supports "le victim is always right" narrative.But this only appeals to the theoretical parasites in politics and academia as you said, because of course it's much easier to idealize the caste system than to live in it as a bottom feeder Pajeet, right? Or to wear the hijab with Che icon proudly rather than to actually submit to a literal caveman husband.So it's just reactive and impulsive identity politics without historical awareness. I'm not a fan of Marx but he's not a retard and those people don't get Marx for sure.
>>539945224>Why exactlyBecause they unfairly mistreated the indigenous population, according to leftists, resulting in unequal resource-sharingThere is some merit to this criticismHowever, the counterpoints are:1) we were treated worse under indigenous rule. My great grandparents fled our own people to the West because "oppressive unequal racism" under the gaijin was BETTER than the oppression at homeAlso,2) leftists' way of "evening out" this perceived inequality is wholly consequentialist and is utterly unfair to whites, which is anathema to a deontologist like me>Marxwas a grifting idiot. The Marxist view is that technological developments don't result in greater increased productivity. Marx claimed that the alleged productivity was only due to 1) colonialism expanding the resource base, 2) machines are operated by women and children, and 3) in any case the time and effort spent developing and building those machines would have been better spent doing the work manually.He was a fucking Luddite, in other words.Because everyone knows that if you open up your computer, inside are a thousand jeet women and children performing the maths computations that run your computer. Technology is a mirage, thus saith the Marx.t. Ex-Commonwealth
>>539945234>The Marxist view is that technological developments don't result in greater increased productivity. Marx claimed that the alleged productivity was only due to 1) colonialism expanding the resource base, 2) machines are operated by women and children, and 3) in any case the time and effort spent developing and building those machines would have been better spent doing the work manually.Source?
>>539945234>machines are operated by women and childrenMaybe now but not historically
>>539945235>>539945236Source for point 2 is stated almost in whole in Capital, Vol 1, Chapter 15, Section 3a.The rest are from other bits, I can't source them right now.In Chapter 7 he also basically scoffs at the idea that capitalists deserve to be paid for risking their capital, and dismisses the notion, despite devoting more or less the entire chapter to it, simply as "lol no" without addressing the simple financial reason: you won't find investors willing to do something for nothing.Das Capital is basically a lot of waffle trying to tediously and tendentiously explain a lot of horseshit. But it works today because nobody wants to wade through all that mass of words, and the language is archaic and tiresome.
>>539945237I'll check it out. Though I suspect that there really might be Luddite tendencies considering how popular such thought was at the time. >In Chapter 7 he also basically scoffs at the idea that capitalists deserve to be paid for risking their capital, and dismisses the notion, despite devoting more or less the entire chapter to it, simply as "lol no" without addressing the simple financial reason: you won't find investors willing to do something for nothing.He is absolutely right about this. The need to invest capital in order to achieve productive human activity is an artefact of capitalism itself. It presumes the the class of Bourgeois capitalists exists and then uses it to justify itself. The whole investment thing is circular reasoning.
>>539945224I dont know, how do you feel about Jews taking over your shit, and what they do to you to make that happen and keep it that way?>i would be happy if they built anything-Pay them back for penicillin, the polio vaccine, the pacemaker, jeans, the microphone, the laser and the nuke with which we have ruled the world for over 80 years (and much much more!)
>>539945238>The whole investment thing is circular reasoningI won't argue any further than that even in prison, death row, POW and concentration camps, amongst otherwise uneducated people let alone financially-educated, everyone who is aware of the risks always defaults to demanding a certain price for that risk. Nobody hazards their possessions for absolutely nothing, not even an illiterate farmer who nevertheless can tell between a broiler and an egg-layer, a milch cow and steak, and seed-corn from harvest.
>>539945234>The Marxist view is that technological developments don't result in greater increased productivity. Marx claimed that the alleged productivity was only due to 1) colonialism expanding the resource base, 2) machines are operated by women and children, and 3) in any case the time and effort spent developing and building those machines would have been better spent doing the work manually.@grok
>>539945224they started with their conclusion and worked backwards
Remember Marx was writing before the Western working class was turned to mulch in the tens of millions on the Somme
Looking through the whole thing and still can't see how this thread is on /lit/. >>>/pol/
>>539945224>many leftists are frankly just nationalists that like Fanon and critics of orientalism, but they don't have Marxian thoughts. they are mad that their shitty backwards countries got their asses kicked and brought into sapience by the british, spanish and the french, so they become theoretical parasitesthis is it really.The same people who complain about European colonialism will think that the Islamic invasion+occupation of Iberia/al-Andalus was the greatest thing to ever happen to Europe. It's all just anti-White rhetoric at the end of the day.
>>539945224>Why exactly was colonialism badit wasn't.>according to leftists?because they're fucking retarded.
>>539945224How about I come to your house and exploit you and steal all your wealth? I’m gonna teach you how to run your house properly. You sleep in the shed now.
