Perhaps the easiest way to understand why colonialism was so horrific is to imagine it happening in your own country now. It is invaded, conquered, and occupied by a foreign power. Existing governing institutions are dismantled and replaced by absolute rule of the colonizers. A strict hierarchy separates the colonized and the colonizer; you are treated as an inconvenient subhuman who can be abused at will. The colonists commit crimes with impunity against your people. Efforts at resistance are met with brutal reprisal, sometimes massacre. The more vividly and accurately you manage to conjure what this scenario would actually look like, the more horrified you will be by the very idea of colonialism.
One would think this revulsion was now universally shared. But that is far from being the case. The majority of British people are still proud of colonialism and the British Empire. Americans continue to show an almost total indifference to the lasting poverty and devastation inflicted on the country’s indigenous population.
When anyone points me to the Soviet Union or Castro’s Cuba and says “Well, there’s your socialism,” my answer isn’t “well, they didn’t try hard enough.” It’s that these regimes bear absolutely no relationship to the principle for which I am fighting. They weren’t egalitarian in any sense; they were dictatorships.
and:
The primary lesson here is not about “egalitarianism” or “socialism” or even “communism” since Castro, Mao, Stalin, and Lenin did not actually attempt to implement any of those ideas. Instead, the lesson is about what happens when you have a political ideology that contains a built-in justification for any amount of horrific violence. The bad part of Marxism is not the part that says workers should cease to be exploited, but the part about the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The dominant “communist” tendencies of the 20th century aimed to liberate people, but they offered no actual ethical limits on what you could do in the name of “liberation.”
He also clearly doesn't read, Jesus Christ.
Anyway, shitting on the Cuban and Chinese revolutions is supporting imperialism and colonialism.
Any anarchist (and tons of other people on the left) has good-faith criticisms of the Soviet Union and other socialist projects. You can disagree with those criticisms (I disagree with many of them myself) but that doesn't make them imperialist, especially if they're coming from someone who's explicitly opposed to imperialism. To put it another way: do you have to unthinkingly support anything and everything Cuba or China does or else you're an imperialist? Of course not; critical support is a thing.
they offered no actual ethical limits on what you could do in the name of “liberation.”
This specifically is a classic anarchist or left-libertarian point: yeah, oppression by private capitalist interests is bad and needs to stop, but oppression by the state (regardless of that state's political nature) is possible, too, and is also bad and needs to stop. If you oppose the death penalty in modern America, you can oppose the death penalty in modern Cuba and China without being an imperialist.
He also clearly doesn’t read
I mean, this is just laughable, bad-faith nonsense. He cites leftist authors plenty and reviews their books. This is what bothers me about burning the guy at the stake because he doesn't show adequate reverence for Marx -- you have a guy who's unarguably doing more than his part to advance the cause of socialism and we're creating a part of the left willing to make shit up out of whole cloth to throw at him. That's not a good trend and it should be strangled in its crib.
Any anarchist (and tons of other people on the left) has good-faith criticisms of the Soviet Union and other socialist projects. You can disagree with those criticisms (I disagree with many of them myself) but that doesn’t make them imperialist, especially if they’re coming from someone who’s explicitly opposed to imperialism.
Disparaging socialist states, as a self-proclaimed socialist, by asserting that they aren't or weren't socialist or fighting for any egalitarian values whatsoever or that they were just dictatorships is reinforcing imperialist narratives. While these "criticisms" might be good faith in the sense that they're sincere, they're worthlessly simplistic and demonstrate no attempt to investigate these countries and their historical context whatsoever.
This persistent attitude among Western socialists that every socialist revolution in history was actually fake socialism, that it was just dictatorial "authoritarianism" or whatever, while insisting that Scandinavia is somehow socialist, is rooted in Western chauvinism.
To put it another way: do you have to unthinkingly support anything and everything Cuba or China does or else you’re an imperialist? Of course not; critical support is a thing.
That's a strawman. I never said you have to unthinkingly or uncritically support socialist countries. But it's clear from the piece that Robinson doesn't support them at all:
It’s that these regimes bear absolutely no relationship to the principle for which I am fighting. They weren’t egalitarian in any sense; they were dictatorships.
...
The primary lesson here is not about “egalitarianism” or “socialism” or even “communism” since Castro, Mao, Stalin, and Lenin did not actually attempt to implement any of those ideas. Instead, the lesson is about what happens when you have a political ideology that contains a built-in justification for any amount of horrific violence.
You absolutely, as a citizen living in the imperial core, have to support countries struggling against American imperialism to not be an imperialist. He doesn't.
I mean, this is just laughable, bad-faith nonsense. He cites leftist authors plenty and reviews their books. This is what bothers me about burning the guy at the stake because he doesn’t show adequate reverence for Marx – you have a guy who’s unarguably doing more than his part to advance the cause of socialism and we’re creating a part of the left willing to make shit up out of whole cloth to throw at him. That’s not a good trend and it should be strangled in its crib.
Oh come on, I obviously didn't mean that literally. No shit he reads things.
But he specifically does not read (or at least didn't understand even slightly) any of Marx, Engels, or Lenin, based on how he interpreted "dictatorship of the proletariat" to mean a literal dictatorship in the modern sense.
He's not "advancing the cause of socialism"; he's diluting it into meaninglessness and stripping it of its revolutionary character at a time when people are becoming radicalized. He's a textbook opportunist, and it's good that he's getting dunked on.
From an article titled "A Quick Reminder of Why Colonialism Was Bad." Current Affairs also publishes plenty of pro-Palestine articles. Where are these bad takes on imperialism?
Here's a classic example.
In particular:
and:
He also clearly doesn't read, Jesus Christ.
Anyway, shitting on the Cuban and Chinese revolutions is supporting imperialism and colonialism.
Any anarchist (and tons of other people on the left) has good-faith criticisms of the Soviet Union and other socialist projects. You can disagree with those criticisms (I disagree with many of them myself) but that doesn't make them imperialist, especially if they're coming from someone who's explicitly opposed to imperialism. To put it another way: do you have to unthinkingly support anything and everything Cuba or China does or else you're an imperialist? Of course not; critical support is a thing.
This specifically is a classic anarchist or left-libertarian point: yeah, oppression by private capitalist interests is bad and needs to stop, but oppression by the state (regardless of that state's political nature) is possible, too, and is also bad and needs to stop. If you oppose the death penalty in modern America, you can oppose the death penalty in modern Cuba and China without being an imperialist.
I mean, this is just laughable, bad-faith nonsense. He cites leftist authors plenty and reviews their books. This is what bothers me about burning the guy at the stake because he doesn't show adequate reverence for Marx -- you have a guy who's unarguably doing more than his part to advance the cause of socialism and we're creating a part of the left willing to make shit up out of whole cloth to throw at him. That's not a good trend and it should be strangled in its crib.
Disparaging socialist states, as a self-proclaimed socialist, by asserting that they aren't or weren't socialist or fighting for any egalitarian values whatsoever or that they were just dictatorships is reinforcing imperialist narratives. While these "criticisms" might be good faith in the sense that they're sincere, they're worthlessly simplistic and demonstrate no attempt to investigate these countries and their historical context whatsoever.
This persistent attitude among Western socialists that every socialist revolution in history was actually fake socialism, that it was just dictatorial "authoritarianism" or whatever, while insisting that Scandinavia is somehow socialist, is rooted in Western chauvinism.
That's a strawman. I never said you have to unthinkingly or uncritically support socialist countries. But it's clear from the piece that Robinson doesn't support them at all:
...
You absolutely, as a citizen living in the imperial core, have to support countries struggling against American imperialism to not be an imperialist. He doesn't.
Oh come on, I obviously didn't mean that literally. No shit he reads things.
But he specifically does not read (or at least didn't understand even slightly) any of Marx, Engels, or Lenin, based on how he interpreted "dictatorship of the proletariat" to mean a literal dictatorship in the modern sense.
He's not "advancing the cause of socialism"; he's diluting it into meaninglessness and stripping it of its revolutionary character at a time when people are becoming radicalized. He's a textbook opportunist, and it's good that he's getting dunked on.