Answer with the most upbears will be deemed the one true leftist on hexbear
Edit: what the fuck there's no more upbears what is this reddit
Answer with the most upbears will be deemed the one true leftist on hexbear
Edit: what the fuck there's no more upbears what is this reddit
no like not at all. Latin America had feudal type systems in the most complex societies when the Europeans arrived. They did not "already have their revolutions" that's literally just wishful thinking. And the indigenous people of the Americas weren't so peaceful all the time either, Aztec imperialism was very bloody, though you can't really get worse than the European Renaissance Thunderdome.
They definitely existed within the framework of Marx's theory though. More feudal in nature for sure than anything else. There was some form of primitive accumulation and currency systems, but no industrial development really beyond the more basic agricultural machines.
I used poor phrasing with the idea that they "had their revolutions" in the sense that they were against capitalism. I think they did have revolutions, and those revolutions we're driven by class dynamics of their respective societies, but none of them had the conditions for capital development on the scale of western Europe.
I disagree with that. Europe is not a particularly resource rich place or a particularly great place for Capital development unless you're one of those people who ~loves the struggle~ and argues it inspired them to hustle hard and have sigma grindset. The whole place was practically full by ancient times! Those white devils had to go "OS" and get it how they lived it just to survive.
It's more or less a matter of luck that Europe was the place that got to Capitalism first. Plenty of other societies were headed that way, as people said ITT the Aztecs and others already had the makings of a Feudal society. There's easily a historical timeline where they create some sort of massive Mesoamerican empire that expands overseas.
Like I said in my first comment here, I think the fact that European empire was built on the corpse of the Roman Empire really helped it move along. Rome built a ton of roads and infrastructure as well as trade links that were later exploited by primitive mercantilists and capitalists.
The small size of Britain also made it easier for capitalism to develop. The existing trade routes were strengthened by new sea faring routes, those routes became a great way to get raw material and the enclosure of the commons proletarianized huge swaths of the British peasantry.
As Britain became a global colonial empire, the proletarianization of the rest of Europe quickly followed, then the world through colonization and financial imperialism.
Without the enclosure of the commons, capitalism wouldn't have been able to develop as quickly as it did. In Scotland, the peasants were literally driven to the sea with enclosure and had no where else to go. In larger areas this is harder to do as you need a more developed security force to maintain your private claim on the land.
I do disagree with saying that humans have a "stages of development" that I noticed some other people are saying. Humans are not the most predictable in terms of guessing how something will develop. Anthropology made this mistake, and many others by creating a false ideal of an ancient society they wanted to exist. This is also why need to stop saying any society is was or is "primitive" at all.
I never said any society was primitive. I don't think any good Marxist would call a society primitive in a derogatory sense. When you talk about things like "primitive" accumulation and "primitive" capitalism, you aren't talking about a lower form of society or people, but a precursor form of something to come.
As certain conditions are met, new forms of organization naturally occur. Driven primarily through the existence and distribution of surplus. Surplus grain means either more leisure time for the farmers, or the formation of a non-farming population that manages the surplus (early government/kingdom).
Primitive accumulation is just the early stages of what we know now as private property, primitive capitalism/mercantilism was the early stage of financial capital, workshops the primitive form of industrial capital. All of these develop inevitably into modern Imperial capitalism and each has its roots in a specific relationship to productive forces.
Why did Britain do all that and Japan didn't? Why was the legacy of the Roman empire so much more significant than say India or China? Britain was barely part of the Roman Empire, they knew those bog apes were uncivil savages. "Closing off land so one guy gets all the profit" is hardly an Anglo invention unless you think the British race is uniquely evil or crafty or something.
deleted by creator