“For many countries that experienced the benefits/brutal horrors of European/American colonialism/imperialism, a communist system is an attractive form of government.”
Well lets go over that Checklist. Russia was not a ‘colonialised’ people. Neither were the Chinese. These were the two largest communist nations.
How does your prof explain that Marxism essentially says the opposite, that Marxism requires a modern state with industrial production in order to form a class divide between the proletariat and the workers?
This does not fit at all with agrarian peoples without industry of their own.
Lets look at America, and Canada, and India and other colonial nations. What do they all share? Today they are representative democracies. Why should we expect people in foreign countries to abide by different rules than the American people went through?
It’s clear to me that the most successful former colonials all have some form of representative goverment. This includes, Canada, the US, Australia. Even South Africa who was the fourth dominion experienced considerable material wealth all through the first half of the 20th century.
It seems clear to me from these examples, that the best government for former colonials is representative democracy.
Many of these colonized people were stripped of their ancestral possessions and reduced to slave labor in some sort of agricultural or industrial ‘farm’. To them, having an equal share of the country’s resources while having an equal share of a political voice makes practical sense.
Class, can you, as a historian, have empathy for those countries that toiled under colonial oppression? Moreover, can you see why some of the people of these captive countries may have embraced communist ideology?
“For many countries that experienced the benefits/brutal horrors of European/American colonialism/imperialism, a communist system is an attractive form of government.”
Well lets go over that Checklist. Russia was not a ‘colonialised’ people. Neither were the Chinese. These were the two largest communist nations.
How does your prof explain that Marxism essentially says the opposite, that Marxism requires a modern state with industrial production in order to form a class divide between the proletariat and the workers?
This does not fit at all with agrarian peoples without industry of their own.
Lets look at America, and Canada, and India and other colonial nations. What do they all share? Today they are representative democracies. Why should we expect people in foreign countries to abide by different rules than the American people went through?
It’s clear to me that the most successful former colonials all have some form of representative goverment. This includes, Canada, the US, Australia. Even South Africa who was the fourth dominion experienced considerable material wealth all through the first half of the 20th century.
It seems clear to me from these examples, that the best government for former colonials is representative democracy.