Treatment of colonial empires if a nation went socialist.

[Samm]

If at the height of colonialism a socialist or communist goverment was to succeed in seizing power in one of the major European powers what were their plans if any for the empires these countries possesed. I know that Marx considered the British rule of India somewhat progressive but in the event of socialists actually gaining power how do you think they would act. Would they simply grant the colonies independence or attempt to force them to become socialist as well. (PS I realise that the circumstances leading to such a revolution might well involve the country involved losing its colonies anyway but lets assume for the sake of arguement that they don't.)

[The Ubbergeek]

I heard that the early french left actually supported colonialism at first, and the old right was against colonilist ventures...

[Alexpira]

IMHO don't see conditions for socialism or communism in any European nation before 1910s, so I guess that this thread should be better located in the forum After 1900

A good question would be the fate of the French Colonial Empire if France becomes communist or strongly socialist in 1936....

[Samm]

Originally Posted by Alexpira

IMHO don't see conditions for socialism or communism in any European nation before 1910s, so I guess that this thread should be better located in the forum After 1900

A good question would be the fate of the French Colonial Empire if France becomes communist or strongly socialist in 1936....

Hmm maybe but I think that late the dissolution of the empire would be pretty inevitable since the whole idea that imperialism was propping up capitalism had appeared. I could be wrong though. What do you think would be the result of a serious attempt by a colonial empiire to introduce socialism. (obviously of the top down sort) on its colonies.

[MAlexMatt]

I can only see them keeping them and exploiting them just as much as before any socialist takeover.

In the breach, pragmatism overtakes ideology.

[Johnrankins]

The USSR pretty much answered that question after WWII!

[Georgepatton]

Originally Posted by MAlexMatt

I can only see them keeping them and exploiting them just as much as before any socialist takeover.

In the breach, pragmatism overtakes ideology.

But the justifications for that exploitation would, of course, change. Just rub out a few words, and we're "Bringing the light of modern civilization, medicine, technology, and glorious socialism to the Dark Continent."

This is going to have to be accounted for in socialist political thought. I'd be interested in seeing the method in which the dichotomy is resolved, and who buys it.

[Saladan]

I can honestly see socialist nations retaining their colonies and using different justification for it.

I mean did the fact that the US started as a group of colonies and played up that part in their history and national character stop them from joining the colonial game?

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by Saladan

I can honestly see socialist nations retaining their colonies and using different justification for it.

I mean did the fact that the US started as a group of colonies and played up that part in their history and national character stop them from joining the colonial game?

Again, the USSR did so OTL!

[PRFU]

Originally Posted by Johnrankins

The USSR pretty much answered that question after WWII!

Yup. Its pretty much written into the Communist Manifesto to ultimately impose or liberate the entire World into Socialism, depending on how you look at it. The USSR had the bulk of eastern Europe, China has Tibet (not to mention numerous incursions into other countries) North Vietnam invaded S. Vietnam, N. Korea invaded S. Korea. So the empire in question would simply be renamed the 'Union of Socialist Republics' and carry on regardless..

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Nothing will change.

[Samm]

Ok it seems the consensus is that fundementally things will remain the same but how might the administration and justifications change. After all the rise of the USSR got the nations that had been previously part of Russia reclasified as Soviet republics and some of them massively altered. Especially the Ukraine. Not only that but the colonial empires were very different from the Russian ones most notably due to the fact that living standards were much better in the dominant country than the (non white) colonies while a Russian peasant was no better off than a non Russian one. How might places like India or Singapore going to be altered by the revolution in Britain. Will see any equivilant of Stalins attempts to modernise the Ukraine. And what alterations might be made to the colonies to make it look better. One idea I had was a workers union sort of thing for each colony. Say an indian workers Union and African workers union to represent their people in some capacity. (or at least try to)

[Georgepatton]

Originally Posted by Samm

Ok it seems the consensus is that fundementally things will remain the same but how might the administration and justifications change. After all the rise of the USSR got the nations that had been previously part of Russia reclasified as Soviet republics and some of them massively altered. Especially the Ukraine. Not only that but the colonial empires were very different from the Russian ones most notably due to the fact that living standards were much better in the dominant country than the (non white) colonies while a Russian peasant was no better off than a non Russian one. How might places like India or Singapore going to be altered by the revolution in Britain. Will see any equivilant of Stalins attempts to modernise the Ukraine. And what alterations might be made to the colonies to make it look better. One idea I had was a workers union sort of thing for each colony. Say an indian workers Union and African workers union to represent their people in some capacity. (or at least try to)

One thing that I'm wondering about colonial empires is the possibility of resistance to the revolution in the colonies. A revolution in the UK proper might be supported by lots of people there, but fervently opposed by those in South Africa, or India. Granted, the People's Republic of Great Britain could send out the People's Navy to export the revolution.

Or what about Canada? How well do you think the US would take the PRGB trying to export the revolution to Canada?

[SavoyTruffle]

Originally Posted by Georgepatton

One thing that I'm wondering about colonial empires is the possibility of resistance to the revolution in the colonies. A revolution in the UK proper might be supported by lots of people there, but fervently opposed by those in South Africa, or India. Granted, the People's Republic of Great Britain could send out the People's Navy to export the revolution.

Or what about Canada? How well do you think the US would take the PRGB trying to export the revolution to Canada?

If the US leader were along the lines of Woodrow Wilson then I'd imagine the US taking upon itself the assertion of the Monroe Doctrine.

[Georgepatton]

Originally Posted by SavoyTruffle

If the US leader were along the lines of Woodrow Wilson then I'd imagine the US taking upon itself the assertion of the Monroe Doctrine.

I can't imagine any US leader of the period who isn't Debs not telling them to shove off. And maybe even him, I don't think he was up for violent revolution.

[Ben the banjo player]

As has been said, the USSR answered that question. They didn't give up Russia's colonial empire in Central Asia; rather, they justified keeping all that territory by saying it was their mission to help bring backward peoples into the next phase of civilization.

My guess is that any Western European power that went Communist would probably keep its empire, giving colonies some (ostensible) self-determination and promoting natives to positions of power within their republics but keeping them firmly within their sphere of influence.

[M79]

No changes, just the same results under different justification. The more people talk about something "in the name of the people", "in the name of the workers", or "in the name of helping (random ethnic group)" it's just diplo-speak for, "let's exploit them for our own benefit"

[Samm]

Hmm fascinating. Well then how about when the colonies start demanding independence. Will it be easier or more difficult under this regime. And if they do gain independence will they attempt to keep socialism or move rapidly away from it.

[Color-Copycat]

Imperialism... imperialism never changes

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by Samm

Hmm fascinating. Well then how about when the colonies start demanding independence. Will it be easier or more difficult under this regime. And if they do gain independence will they attempt to keep socialism or move rapidly away from it.

They do what the Russians did when you had revolts in Hungry. East Germany and Czechoslovakia and send in the army.