this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024
922 points (86.4% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
456 readers
382 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc.
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Kings sending Conquistadors was not capitalism. Or if it was then the entire middle ages was also Capitalism. Capitalism did plenty of bad shit without covering for the authoritarian sanctioned missions of the 1500s.
Guess you never heard of the east India company.
They were a crown chartered company in the 17th century. Not the 16th. And they were founded to make it easier for the crown to colonize and control those colonies.
It was not chartered for the crown to more easily colonize and control those colonies. It received a chartered from the crown on 12/31/1600 (with non-chartered operations beginning the year before) to serve as a monopoly trading company operating east of the cape of good hope. Initially, they made profits as pirates despite some initial successes.
They open up lines of trade with Mughal empire which starts trade colonialism. After the death of Aurangzeb, the east India company grabs land,extracts wealth through taxes and labor and they enter into being an exploitation colonializer. and then when the state is leaned on more and more, the state takes over operations and nstionalizes the company in 1858.
The British and Spanish were at war. That's how wars were fought back then.
And they asked for permission to form the company because they couldn't keep going to India without the Crown's help. That became clear when they lost an entire expedition. The EIC goes on from there to become the defacto government of modern day Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh in the Crown's name. With an Army twice the size of the normal British Army. They also operate an absolute monopoly over the area. The modern day equivalent would be if Amazon was your local store, employer, police, army, navy, justice system, and highest level of government available unless you were insanely wealthy. And whenever they get in trouble, Moldova sends them help.
That's Mercantilism, not Capitalism. There's capital involved, but it is not the economic system of Capitalism.
I don't disagree with anything you said in this comment, but in the previous comment that the EIC was created to control the colonies for the crown. This really only begins to happen after the fall of Aurangzeb.
There's much more details to discuss about how the EIC plays a role in developing capitalism and capitalist control considered it existed for two and a half centuries. But I think we're bracketing our discussion to their activities in the 17th century.
They absolutely were creating colonies. They did the same thing in India that colonial powers did all over the world. They kept testing the boundaries. Which is why they fought and lost a war to Aurangzeb. They had always been there to conquer and their first instinct was war, not trade.
I don't know how you support the statement that "their first instinct was war, not trade". Even the war you referenced was because trade negotiations broke down. For about 80 years they had been granted trading rights by the Mughal Empire. Skirmishes during that time were with other European powers and not with the Mughal Empire. What events transpired that support their role as colonists and not trade partners?
My second issues is claiming that these activities were for the crown. They were not "founded to make it easier for the crown to colonize and control those colonies." You are regularly ascribing intention to the founding by flattening activities across 100-150 years.
According to them. Even today Israel blows up their own negotiations to justify oppressing Palestinians harder. Colonizers all follow the same playbook. And they absolutely went after the Mughal's ships, that's why negotiations broke down and they got stomped.
And yeah it was absolutely for the crown. The crown wouldn't have authorized it and fought colonial wars against the Spanish and Dutch if they weren't using it to spread their rule in all but name. They wouldn't have allowed the EIC to even exist, same with the Spanish, French, and Dutch companies.
I think I'd like something more specific and I don't think you are capable of doing that.