Treatment of colonial empires if a nation went socialist.

[Wolfpaw]

It was a Socialist premier who intensified the Algerian War and a Socialist governor of Algeria that implemented a horrific militia program. All of this from men who had previously been staunchly for French withdrawal prior to reaching office.

Colonialism is colonialism. Socialist, liberal, conservative--it does not matter. The colonizer always responds in the exact same way: force.

[Samm]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

It was a Socialist premier who intensified the Algerian War and a Socialist governor of Algeria that implemented a horrific militia program. All of this from men who had previously been staunchly for French withdrawal prior to reaching office.

Colonialism is colonialism. Socialist, liberal, conservative--it does not matter. The colonizer always responds in the exact same way: force.

Well not always Britain gave up its empire without a fight (more or less) as eventually did Russia. I think that in the end the European empires must fall but the question is will socialism speed up or slow down this and will a socialist, say, Britian be as reasonable about it.

[Wolfpaw]

Originally Posted by Samm

Well not always Britain gave up its empire without a fight (more or less) as eventually did Russia.

This is just patently untrue.

Originally Posted by Samm

I think that in the end the European empires must fall but the question is will socialism speed up or slow down this and will a socialist, say, Britian be as reasonable about it.

Unless there was some overarching anti-imperialist crisis, they'll likely toughen their stance initially so as not to appear weak, then try to bargain down from a position of strength.

[mtg999]

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?

This is both true and not.

As you are referring to, the USA's long held policy of effectively puppetising many nations in Latin America (particularly Central America) does prove that its own colonial origins was not a impediment to its own version of imperialism.

However, I have also heard it posited by some historians that one of the reasons the US never became a fully-fledged colonial power (apart from coming late to the colonial game) WAS partly ideological. Basically, when the US came to control a certain area, it went for one of two options:


1/ If the native population is small and judged to be fit for integration, ie Hawaii, the area was generally set on a path for full statehood and full rights of American citizens.


2/ If the native population was considered to large to integrate within the US, ie the Phillipines, it was set on a course to full independence as quick as possible.


The idea that I have heard posited it that the obvious third option, turning the area into a long-term colony was considered distasteful in America political culture, due to the US's own history as a colony and also the more universalist, nature of American foreign policy.

Of course, you could say this is the most hypocritical policy, but I expect a socialist European nation with an empire would follow a similar policy, ie 'end capitalist imperialism, set the colonies free', then quickly ensuring that friendly puppet goverments take control in the former colonies.

[mtg999]

Originally Posted by Ben the banjo player

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.

This is probably the best answer so far.

Basically, I agree that the essence of imperial domination would not change, but I disagree with others who suggest that NOTHING would change. Even going back as far as the early 20th century, OVERT racism (much of the justification for official state colonialism), was a lot more unacceptable in left-wing circles than among their right-wing counterparts, so there would be at least some changes.

[Wolfpaw]

Originally Posted by mtg999

This is probably the best answer so far.

Basically, I agree that the essence of imperial domination would not change, but I disagree with others who suggest that NOTHING would change. Even going back as far as the early 20th century, OVERT racism (much of the justification for official state colonialism), was a lot more unacceptable in left-wing circles than among their right-wing counterparts, so there would be at least some changes.

Power changes things. Look at the Russian Left, which--upon gaining a foot in power--soon divided into good ol' All Russian Imperialists and those who genuinely believed in self-determination. The winners were the same folks who rolled into Budapest circa '56 and Prague in '68.

France has Mollet and Lacoste shoving France's cock deeper into the sausage grinder of Algeria.

I'll give Wilson credit in sticking to his anti-colonial roots with pretty frequent consistency. He was a pretty solid dude.

Belgium's Socialist government dismissed decolonization in the '50s and then said, "Maybe we'll leave in the '80s."

[RousseauX]

Originally Posted by 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.

Basically, but some actual changes like de jure federation structure (which did matter in the end), probably get rid of some of the most overt colonialist stuff like Russification is going to take place.

Power changes things. Look at the Russian Left, which--upon gaining a foot in power--soon divided into good ol' All Russian Imperialists and those who genuinely believed in self-determination. Guess who won.

Stalin and Khrushchev were two non-Russian leaders of a Socialist Russian state, not to mention the Jews before the 1930s. A certain number of "natives" (within certain limits, probably still need to be white) would get more opportunities than otherwise. But yeah, it's still going to be an incredibly repressive state for all the colonial peoples.

[Color-Copycat]

Originally Posted by mtg999

The idea that I have heard posited it that the obvious third option, turning the area into a long-term colony was considered distasteful in America political culture, due to the US's own history as a colony and also the more universalist, nature of American foreign policy.

Of course, you could say this is the most hypocritical policy, but I expect a socialist European nation with an empire would follow a similar policy, ie 'end capitalist imperialism, set the colonies free', then quickly ensuring that friendly puppet goverments take control in the former colonies.

Yeah, the Anti-Imperialist League held quite a bit of sway in Washington, and imperialist ventures often damaged presidential prospects for reelection. Just look at McKinley relatively hands off approach to the Boxer Rebellion compared to the others in the Eight Nation Alliance.

[scholar]

Originally Posted by 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 White Man's burden was born out of primarily liberal ideals of 'civilizing the savages and educating them in the ways of proper men'.

[scholar]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

Colonialism is colonialism. Socialist, liberal, conservative--it does not matter. The colonizer always responds in the exact same way: force.

Actually, you'd be surprised. Not all colonialism is done by conquering lands on distant continents, the vast majority of colonialism in history occurred between neighboring peoples and some of them were peaceful absorption.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by mtg999

This is probably the best answer so far.

Basically, I agree that the essence of imperial domination would not change, but I disagree with others who suggest that NOTHING would change. Even going back as far as the early 20th century, OVERT racism (much of the justification for official state colonialism), was a lot more unacceptable in left-wing circles than among their right-wing counterparts, so there would be at least some changes.

Overt racism wasn't the reason for the Russian colonies in Eastern Europe after WWII. They were of the same race as the Russians.

[scholar]

Originally Posted by Johnrankins

Overt racism wasn't the reason for the Russian colonies in Eastern Europe after WWII. They were of the same race as the Russians.

No they weren't, otherwise they wouldn't have separate languages, cultures, genetic markers, and countries.

[Color-Copycat]

Lol. Ninja'd

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by scholar

No they weren't, otherwise they wouldn't have separate languages, cultures, genetic markers, and countries.

OK, race as seen in the late 19th and most of the 20th century. Don't get pedantic. Poles, Germans, and Czechs aren't Black, Native American , Central Asian or East Asian.

[Wolfpaw]

Originally Posted by scholar

Actually, you'd be surprised. Not all colonialism is done by conquering lands on distant continents, the vast majority of colonialism in history occurred between neighboring peoples and some of them were peaceful absorption.

True, but the vast majority were steeped in blood, especially the explicitly racist ones.

[The Ubbergeek]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

True, but the vast majority were steeped in blood, especially the explicitly racist ones.

I always considered that the word 'racism' stand for not only discrimination on races, but also cultures and ethnies.

Like how japaneses had treated koreans, britishes's contempt for irishes, etc...

And the anti-semitism special case.

[HeWhoIsMe]

Originally Posted by The Ubbergeek

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

I was under the impression that exactly the opposite was true.

I am now trying to track down a leaflet I once laid my eyes on somehwere.
It was distributed among the Parisians by some socialist/marxist organisation during an International Trade Fair (or something) that took place in Paris in the early 1900s. The slogan on the leaflet read something along the lines of "People of France! Don't take any pride in the ruthless exploitation of the peoples of the colonies".

I'm not quite sure whether that was part of a consistent overall strategy against colonialism on behalf of the french Left, or simply an isolated attempt at focusing opposition against the capitalist Trade Fair, though.

[Awilla the Hun]

The old British liberals were far more pro Empire than the early-mid 19th century Conservatives. And the post WWII Labour Party, whilst not as explicitly imperialist as Churchill, were not as such anti-imperialists. Well, some were, but many also believed in trying to restructure the British Empire to keep Britain going as a power. (Witness Bevan boasting about how the Americans will be "eating out of our hands" due to the mineral wealth of Africa.) Develop Africa (and, in fairness, they did make a sporting attempt at shouldering the white man's burden-for their own benefit anyway-and economically developing it; politically, not so much, as they still relied heavily on native chiefs until alternatives started to appear), crush nationalism where it needed to be crushed, retreat in some places, channel most nationalism into "moderate", pro British lines, and have an empire in the end largely of naval bases and puppets. It was under Labour that much of the Malayan Emergency is fought-and India released, although that was certain since 1940 at the latest.

[Cináed]

Taking britain as an example... supposing a British communist revolution took place in the 1920s, you'd have a very interesting dynamic between the motherland and the colonies.

Firstly, a lot of the colonies - certainly the white dominions - would shear off almost immediately. Any surviving royals and politicians would flee to Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia to take up the governments of those countries. Whether you'd get some sort of Empire-in-Exile is open to debate - it might be that these nations completely go their own way, or that they retain close ties to eachother.

Secondly, other colonies which are governed through indirect rule - Malaysia, Nigeria, large swathes of India - are unlikely to embrace the message of communism. These nations and regions have highly traditionalist forms of government, and are unlikely to embrace any communistic ideology, particularly if the British military is in disarray following said revolution. They'll either be gobbled up by other colonial powers or (in India's case) establish a swift independence under government of their own invention.

I guess it all depends how many crypto-communists you could get into the colonial administration before the revolution, really. I have a sneaking suspicion that Airstrip One would lose most of her empire very quickly.

Now, an early, peacefuly elected socialist government which secures major dominance - that's an interesting premise. You might have an earlier, top-down end to institutional racism, and the advancement of non-whites to positions of major responsibility within the British Civil Service. You might also get some sort of rationalisation of the empire's administrative structures, maybe with some sort of 'Imperial Federalism', with genuine indigenous representation from around the world.

With those avenues suddenly wide open, you'd create a governing colonial class of co-opted natives who would see no need to seek independence.

The problem is that any such structure would be comprehensively dominated by India if it were to be done fairly. To prevent disputes about one nation dominating unfairly, the bonds holding the empire together would need to be pretty loose, and allow for local flexibility. As such, I doubt you would see truly socialist ideals in the colonies for a long, long time.

One interesting side effect would be a much larger, earlier non-white population in Britain. While there would doubtless be local hostility on the ground, a dominant socialist governement would be keen to play up its internationalist credentials and lay emphasis on the multi-national nature of the Empire. Expect a lot of two-way traffic in bureaucrats, politicians and businessmen from one area of the empire to the other.

It's a fascinating idea.

[Analytical Engine]

I've been reading up on France during and after the Revolutions of 1848. Had they played their cards right, the socialists could have taken power rather than the future Napoleon III.