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
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.