Treatment of colonial empires if a nation went socialist.

[PRFU]

Originally Posted by Wolfpaw

This is just patently untrue.

There are a handful of examples of former colonies gaining independence peacefully, its unusual but entirely possible.

Originally Posted by mtg999

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.

It goes back even further, it could even refer to the war of 1812.

Originally Posted by mtg999

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.

True, but in its place there was a militant anti-clericalism, which would impact heavily on most of the colonies of the time. The colonial powers of the OTL were usually relatively tolerant to local religions, with a few exceptions, preferring usually to send in missionaries to convert the natives voluntarily.

Originally Posted by HeWhoIsMe

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.

It reads more like pre-Revolutionary idealist propaganda. As soon as the Revolution was finished France pretty much resumed business as usual, only maybe without such a strong influence of the church and the politics of the european royal houses. During the Haitian Revolution the French Royalists actually fought on the side of the Haitian revolutionaries, not that the French Revolutionaries were bona fide socialists as such.

Originally Posted by Cináed

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.

I don't know if there would be a much larger non white population, after all those who went to Britain did so because of opportunities available there that didn't exist in their own countries/ colonies. As for playing a greater role in the civil service etc, it could be argued that non whites were motivated by some sense of working for equal rights, wheras in the ideal socialist scenario this wouldn't be necessary as they would be able to administer their own affairs in the colonies. Incidentally non whites were not only members of the communist and liberal parties, but also conservative.

[PRFU]

Originally Posted by 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.

That would be very interesting, had they remained they could potentially (barring OTL Stalinist/ Hitler co-operation) have stifled the Nazis early on.

[mtg999]

Originally Posted by Johnrankins

Overt racism wasn't the reason for the Russian colonies in Eastern Europe after WWII.

The reason was of course Russia's desire to secure a buffer zone against any potential threat from Western and Central Europe.

Which brings me to my next point ...

Not all colonialism is done by conquering lands on distant continents, the vast majority of colonialism in history occurred between neighboring peoplesand some of them were peaceful absorption.

The above point is very good.

Whilst I don't want to be seen as nit-picking or trying to justify any sort of colonialism, I do believe there is a slight difference contigous (Russian, Ottoman, etc) empires and non-contigous empires (British, French, etc).

There is theoretically a realpolitik argument that ensuring pro-Russian governments in Eastern Europe is vital to the national security of the core Russian state.

Uganda, vital to the UK's national security? Not so much.

[mtg999]

Originally Posted by Cináed;5549426[B

]One interesting side effect would be a much larger, earlier non-white population in Britain[/B]. 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.

Very interesting point and one that had slipped my mind previously.

I know it's a little off-topic, but one thing I've always wondered is, why didn't more non-white people, from British colonies settle in the UK prior to the end of WWII? My understanding is that the UK has never had explicitly racist immigration policies like both Australia and the USA have had in the past. Also wouldn't they be automatically British subjects and therefore eligble for a British passport?

[Julius Vogel]

I would imagine if Britain went Socialist then decolonised prior to the 1930s (noting that the PODs could change all sorts of things), Australia or NZ would be tempted to seize various Pacific islands.

I think IOTL Britain acted as a restraining influence on our tendancies to colonise further islands (see Blackbirding etc).

[scholar]

Originally Posted by Johnrankins

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.

Don't be absurd.

All 'white people' are not of the same race and never recognized each other as such. Hell, what you listed aren't even all in the same ethnic group (slavic) you have Germans as well. I hate it when people grossly generalize. East Asian is not even close to a Race. Central Asian flagrantly ignores the differences between Turkic, Persian, and other groups, and Native Americans were a vast array of different peoples across two continents. Don't even get me started on 'black' because that is one of the most perpetuated ignorance of modern times. There are many different Ethnic groups in Africa with a vast array of body builds and skin tones, and then we have the fact that some South Asians and native Australians are just as black as Africans.

[Corbell Mark IV]

Neither the Soviets or the Red Chinese had any problem with having empires.

As per the Warsaw Pact and Tibet.

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by scholar

Don't be absurd.

All 'white people' are not of the same race and never recognized each other as such. Hell, what you listed aren't even all in the same ethnic group (slavic) you have Germans as well. I hate it when people grossly generalize. East Asian is not even close to a Race. Central Asian flagrantly ignores the differences between Turkic, Persian, and other groups, and Native Americans were a vast array of different peoples across two continents. Don't even get me started on 'black' because that is one of the most perpetuated ignorance of modern times. There are many different Ethnic groups in Africa with a vast array of body builds and skin tones, and then we have the fact that some South Asians and native Australians are just as black as Africans.

You are aware that "race" is not a scientific concept and can thus be defined as loosely or closely as any user chooses to, right? The Virchow commission came to the conclusion that there was no such thing as a German race as early as the 19th century, and yet that never stopped German racists from invoking one (or three, as the case may be). So whether Germans, Poles and Russians are the same race or not entirely depends on your ideological intent or conviction, because there is no anatomical, genetic or phenotypic test you can apply.

As to the original question, that depends on what kind of Socialist those Socialists are, and how much power being "in power" entails. IMO the most likely scenario is that they try not very hard to improve the lot of the poor natives and otherwise change nothing at all, because it would cost them votes and gain them nothing. That is, of course, assuming they depend on voters or public opinion. If we posit some kind of violent revolution to intiate the dictatorship of the proletariat, I'm pretty sure the colonial subjects will soon find themselves just as free as the liberated workers of the motherland.

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by Corbell Mark IV

Neither the Soviets or the Red Chinese had any problem with having empires.

As per the Warsaw Pact and Tibet.

They did have a problem with having colonies, though. All these tribals were newly liberated peoples whose consciousness was being raised, while the East European nations were all brother allies in the struggle for liberation. The budget for changing door signs at the former Colonial Office would have to be considerable.

Seriously - a Socialist government with dictatorial powers would have to do something. It would most likely not entail total freedom, but they would have to abolish some old rules at the very least. Most likely, instead of whites in pith helmets overseeing natives in brightly coloured local clothes, you'd have natives and whites in practical, sensible working clothes overseeing natives in drab industrial stuff. If these Socialists are anything like OTL's lot, they will go at it with great enthusiasm for complete liberation and come back convinced that the whole colonial project will take at least three more decades, and conservatives are pussies when it comes to teaching the native.

[blindgoose]

If you're talking about non-Marxist capitalist projects such as Stalinism and Maoism, then continuing oppression of the colonies is likely, as is a continuing view of them as colonies. If actual Marxists took control of a state and governed like Marxists, then it depends on what period you're in and how expansive this revolution is. In all likelihood, if it's before Lenin's work on Imperialism, then colonialism would be viewed as progressive in some measure but the relationship between colony and colonizer would be significantly altered and I would expect to see the establishment of workers' councils in the colonies to make proposals on colonial policy and other such things. After Lenin's work on Imperialism and the National Question, I would say the most likely event would be that similar revolutions occur in the colonies which throw off the colonial yoke and either establish their own bourgeois states or new workers' states. As time passes, the likelihood of an overarching international governance in which both the former colonizer and the former colony have equal say and fair representation becomes more likely.

In order to understand this problem, you have to understand that Marxism isn't about revolution in the general sense, but specifically international proletarian revolution. Because the working-class is an international class and the success of a revolution in any one state is dependent upon the success of the international revolution (as we saw with the degeneration og the USSR in the '20's) international forms of governance (or at least trans-national) are highly likely to be put in place if the socialists you are talking about are governing like actual socialists and not capitalist bureaucrats (i.e. Stalin, Mao, etc.)

[scholar]

Originally Posted by carlton_bach

You are aware that "race" is not a scientific concept and can thus be defined as loosely or closely as any user chooses to, right? The Virchow commission came to the conclusion that there was no such thing as a German race as early as the 19th century, and yet that never stopped German racists from invoking one (or three, as the case may be). So whether Germans, Poles and Russians are the same race or not entirely depends on your ideological intent or conviction, because there is no anatomical, genetic or phenotypic test you can apply.

Actually there was a German Race as early as the 19th century. The reason why Bismark him the Kaisers "German Emperor" instead of "Emperor of Germany" was because it gave a claim to the Swiss, Dutch, and Austrians. This implies that there being a German Race and identity existed well before the 19th century.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by scholar

Don't be absurd.

All 'white people' are not of the same race and never recognized each other as such. Hell, what you listed aren't even all in the same ethnic group (slavic) you have Germans as well. I hate it when people grossly generalize. East Asian is not even close to a Race. Central Asian flagrantly ignores the differences between Turkic, Persian, and other groups, and Native Americans were a vast array of different peoples across two continents. Don't even get me started on 'black' because that is one of the most perpetuated ignorance of modern times. There are many different Ethnic groups in Africa with a vast array of body builds and skin tones, and then we have the fact that some South Asians and native Australians are just as black as Africans.

Again AS SEEN IN THE late 19th and early to mid 20th century. There is no such thing as scientifically based race. Everyone's genes are far too mixed up. Race is a social not a scientific concept. Ask most people from the 1920s or the 1950s and they would consider Slavs and Germans different ETHNIC GROUPS but the same race. As far as the different ethnic in Asia, Africa etc. I KNEW THAT ALREADY. I don't think an Arab is a Persian is an Egyptian or that a Chinese is a Japanese is a Korean with only slight diference in culture but many people of that era did and that is what I was referring to.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by scholar

Actually there was a German Race as early as the 19th century. The reason why Bismark him the Kaisers "German Emperor" instead of "Emperor of Germany" was because it gave a claim to the Swiss, Dutch, and Austrians. This implies that there being a German Race and identity existed well before the 19th century.

That would be because they seen as the same ethnic group not race and that is two different things.

[Tocomocho]

I honestly don't see where is the discussion. Take the Soviet Central Asian republics and the French colonial empire around WW2, mix the two and that's basically it. An union of "free" socialist republics that are run from the metropoli because it's there where the capital and parliament is anyway, with government-enforced laicism if not outright atheism, and where anyone can achieve power as long as he is a true socialist (and literate, and speaks the government's language), regardless of race, ethnicity or religion. A "New Socialist Man" that doesn't care about those things, in essence.

Now, if people revolt against that in some deep African or Asian jungle? Those aren't people silly boy. They are capitalist pigheads and enemies of the people, so you send the free people's army and squash them.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by Tocomocho

I honestly don't see where is the discussion. Take the Soviet Central Asian republics and the French colonial empire around WW2, mix the two and that's basically it. An union of "free" socialist republics that are run from the metropoli because it's there where the capital and parliament is anyway, with government-enforced laicism if not outright atheism, and where anyone can achieve power as long as he is a true socialist (and literate, and speaks the government's language), regardless of race, ethnicity or religion. A "New Socialist Man" that doesn't care about those things, in essence.

Now, if people revolt against that in some deep African or Asian jungle? Those aren't people silly boy. They are capitalist pigheads and enemies of the people, so you send the free people's army and squash them.

You are talking mainly about empty propaganda. In the real world the Russians reserved most of the political power and the most prestigious jobs for themselves and their fellow Slavs. They had the Central Asians do mostly grunt labor with an occasional bone thrown their way . Soviet society was as racist as any other.

[Antiochus]

I was actually wondering this yesterday.

Originally Posted by mtg999

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.

I think you're right, and that's probably how a real socialist government would proceed. Either try to absorb or let go of colonies (probably under friendly socialist governments) similar to the USA. I don't think any of the examples that people have used above are applicable, and are all terrible.

1. The USSR was dominated by Stalin for a good period and that isn't really a typical socialist government.

2. The USSR wasn't really anymore than the USA throughout the Cold War and geopolitics and the Cold War count as pretty mitigating circumstances.

3. Examples of British and French socialists are relative and are very right wing and were in a democracy pandaring for votes (and in Britain's case even loyal to a monarchy).

[Tocomocho]

Originally Posted by Johnrankins

You are talking mainly about empty propaganda.

Indeed.

In the real world the Russians reserved most of the political power and the most prestigious jobs for themselves and their fellow Slavs. They had the Central Asians do mostly grunt labor with an occasional bone thrown their way . Soviet society was as racist as any other.

Yet when communism got sufficienly rooted the general secretaries of the Central Asian SSRs ceased to be Russians and their fellow Slavs and were replaced by Central Asians. Central Asians that spoke Russian, had been educated in Moscow and turned mosques into anti-religion museums, if not stables, that's it.

That's what I'm talking about. Concepts like Assimilation and Évolués are horrificably racist in a cultural sense, but not a biological one. So they would be continued and encouraged under a communist regime, as would be interracial marriages.

[Johnrankins]

Originally Posted by Tocomocho

Indeed.



Yet when communism got sufficienly rooted the general secretaries of the Central Asian SSRs ceased to be Russians and their fellow Slavs and were replaced by Central Asians. Central Asians that spoke Russian, had been educated in Moscow and turned mosques into anti-religion museums, if not stables, that's it.

That's what I'm talking about. Concepts like Assimilation and Évolués are horrificably racist in a cultural sense, but not a biological one. So they would be continued and encouraged under a communist regime, as would be interracial marriages.

With the USSR being as centralized as it was being General Secratary of an SSR gave little real power. You just followed orders from above. The moment you stepped slightest bit out of line you were replaced by someone who wouldn't.

[carlton_bach]

Originally Posted by scholar

Actually there was a German Race as early as the 19th century. The reason why Bismark him the Kaisers "German Emperor" instead of "Emperor of Germany" was because it gave a claim to the Swiss, Dutch, and Austrians. This implies that there being a German Race and identity existed well before the 19th century.

No, at least not in the sense the term is commonly used. You are, of course, at liberty to adopt the poetic usage, but the commopnplace view of race is that it has a biological basis. As early as the 1880s, it was established that there are no biological traits that differentiate Germans from their neighbours. In that sense, and this, after all, is the sense from which the concept of racism derives, there is no such thing as a German race. In the sense of identity, of course, there is a cohesive sense of Germanness, but even the nuttiest end of the Ariosophist fruitbar brigade did not try to claim a biological German existed. (They tended to view Germany as a blend of usually three, sometimes up to five "Aryan" sub-races in just the right proportions, which is convincing if you close one eye and squint very hard)

[PRFU]

Originally Posted by Antiochus

I was actually wondering this yesterday.




I think you're right, and that's probably how a real socialist government would proceed. Either try to absorb or let go of colonies (probably under friendly socialist governments) similar to the USA. I don't think any of the examples that people have used above are applicable, and are all terrible.

1. The USSR was dominated by Stalin for a good period and that isn't really a typical socialist government.

What did they do that wasn't typical of a Socialist Government?

2. The USSR wasn't really anymore than the USA throughout the Cold War and geopolitics and the Cold War count as pretty mitigating circumstances.

Any more what?

3. Examples of British and French socialists are relative and are very right wing and were in a democracy pandaring for votes (and in Britain's case even loyal to a monarchy).

Which Socialist parties were right wing? And how is a constitutional Monarchy with some symbolic power and cultural influence any worse than an absolute dictator such as Stalin for example?