Marxist And Leninist Perspectives On Colonialism History Essay

Marxist And Leninist Perspectives On Colonialism History Essay Colonialism can be defined as the control that a country or government holds over the territory and the people in a foreign country. It can also be defined as the practice of one country acquiring full or partial political control over another country. It is the establishment, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies of one country in another. Also, colonialism is a term which refers to the settlement of colonies and migrates there as inhabitants. It is where a powerful country takes over a less powerful country and begins to rule that country as theirs. Colonialism and imperialism are often used inter changeably, but they are two different words having different meaning. As both colonialism and imperialism means political and economic domination of the other scholars often find it hard to differentiate the two. Although both words discuss suppression of the other, colonialism is where one nation assumes control over the other and imperialism refers to political or economic control either formally or informally. Colonialism can be thought to be a practice and imperialism as the idea driving the practice. It is also a term where a country conquers and rules over other regions. It means exploiting the resources of the resources of the conquered country for the benefit of conqueror. Karl Marx and Lenin had different views on colonialism but they both support democracy and equality. Karl Marx views colonialism as a major moment in the historical process of primitive accumulation and therefore as a precondition for the domination of the capitalist mode of production. Karl Marx influenced colonialism both post colonialism and anti colonialism. Karl Marx influenced the anti colonial independence movement around the world and the post colonial theory. Karl Marx analyzed colonialism as a progressive force which brings modernization to a society that is feudal. He also discussed how the British colonialism made impact on the Indians. Karl Marx mentioned the Indians as a feudal society who experienced modernization but in a painful manner or way. Karl Marx believed that that colonialism did not automatically lead to the prevalence of the capitalist mode of production in the colonies, since the latter as well as capital accumulation have for their fundamental condition the annihilation of that private property which rests on the labor of the individual himself. Karl Marx considered colonialism to be an indispensable feature of imperialism. The obstacle that the internal of pre-capitalist mode of production oppose to the solvent effect of trade is apparent in the English commerce with India and China. These social obstacles to capitalism advances more rapidly to wealth and greatness than any other human society. Whereas in colonies inhabited by barbarous nations was actually more difficult to displace the natives. Karl Marx used oriental despotism to describe a class domination that used the states power of taxation in order to extract resources from the peasantry. According to Marx, oriental despotism emerged in India because agricultural productivity depended on large scale public works. According to Karl Marx he said that the first stage of human development is personal dependence. He believed that every individual should be independent on his or her own. He believed that should be able to do what they want to do on their own without being controlled by someone else. Karl Marx also talked about the sufferings brought during the transition from feudal to bourgeois society while insisting that the transition is both necessary and ultimately progressive. He said that the penetration of foreign commerce will cause a social revolution in India. This had both negative and positive consequences according to Marx. Karl Marx argued that colonial control was necessary not as a means of excluding rival industrial nations. Karl also stressed the importance of the colonial states for transforming those non-capitalist modes whose political level was crucial for their reproduction. Imperialism is thus a tendency to expansion of a developed capitalist power, a tendency created in the last instance by economic processes, but also supported by political and ideological process. Some events like the World War II, show that it was not the economically most developed capitalist country which challenged the British colonial imperialist supremacy, but an imperialist country mainly motivated by national claims against its neighboring states. After the World War II and the national liberation movements which followed, most former colonies won their national independence, which led to the dissolution of empires and to the end of colonialism. Marxist approaches to imperialism consider, though that ex-colonies and developing countries are still subordinated to imperialist countries through dependency relations. The dependence created by colonialism is still manifested in all the key spheres of the developing countries economic life. According to Lenin, he defined the struggle for national independence in colonies as essential for these colonies, as the only political course of action which could bring an end to oppression and economic misery. He also defined these struggles as inherently progressive, as the politics of the struggles of working people for social justice and showed why such anti-colonial struggles would win. In the year 1915 to 1916 argued that colonial liberation struggles were important components of the worldwide revolutionary process and he declared his conviction that many of them would succeed during the lifetime of capitalism. In the year 1917 until the end of his active life, Lenin adopted his fully matured theory of liberation in the colonial world. Lenins theory influenced the world decolonization process. Lenin stated in his theory that colonial liberation movement would succeed in the era of imperialism, that they were progressive and that they would not be bourgeois nationalist to the extent that exploited and revolutionary socialists provided them with directions. Lenin also demanded of all revolutionary socialists that they fight for the liberation of all colonies and any party in any colony-owning country which did not fight strongly for the liberation of its countrys colonies would be excluded for the international. Lenin also argued that support for colonial liberation was a direct support for the worlds revolution. As late as 1916, Lenin still hoped that it might be possible to unite political movement in colonies and the countries which own these colonies. Lenin later abandoned this vision and never returned to it. After the year 1916, Lenin never suggested not even once that that working class parties in colonies should be fused to those in the colonizing country, except as they fused into a single international. Karl Marx and Lenin taught that colonialism resulted from the same logic that drove the economic development and modernization in Europe. Lenin was skeptical of theories which placed undue emphasis of the unified global nature of capitalism which underplay the role of nations and states. He showed that capitalism cannot be reduced to the economy, by ignoring the state or the political and ideological relations of power. He emphasized that the nation state is an important influence on the way economies are organized in the normal course of capitalist development and that there are important economic forces propelling the reproduction of nation states. Capitalist power over the working classes is at the same time economic, political and ideological and it is condensed by the capitalist state in each national social formation. Lenin thought that the articulation and intertwining of all existing capitalist powers, each of which possesses a different strength and development level. It forms the worlds imperialist chain, the weakest link of which was Russia in 1917. Lenin suggested that imperialism is a permanent relationship structuring the interactions between two types of countries. Although imperialism took the form of military competition between capitalist countries, it would result in collusion between capitalist interests to maintain a stable system of exploitation of the non-developed world.

Drawing The Boundaries Of The Ethical Self Essay -- Philosophy Ethics

Drawing The Boundaries Of The Ethical Self This paper evaluates some philosophical views regarding the self who is an ethical deliberator and agent-specifically the traditional atomistic individualist self and the expanded biocentric self of deep ecology. The paper then presents an alternative manner of thinking about the ethical self which avoids some of the philosophical difficulties of the foregoing views. This alternative draws on the recent work by Val Plumwood and Donna Haraway. Haraway's cyborg identity is a kind of self-in-relation (Plumwood's term) which allows for ethical deliberations that take relations with others seriously without losing individuality in problematic holism (as deep ecology does). Self-in-relation is defined by the relation of intentional inclusion. This relation is given a functionalist, non-mentalistic interpretation. The notions of ontological foresight and moral foresight are introduced to enable determinations of moral responsibility without falling back into the problematic universalism whi ch otherwise results from the functionalist view of cyborg self-in-relation. Ethical deliberation does not typically begin with an explicit articulation of the concept of self which underlies such deliberation. But a self is assumed, and usually in Western ethical thought it is an atomistic egocentric individual self. Ethical deliberation, whether deontological, utilitarian, or otherwise, assumed a self/other boundary of some kind, and such an assumption imports bias into our ethical conclusion. Ethical deliberations frequently focus on the interests or rights of individuals, without justifying the assumption of an egocentric individual self. If the traditionally-assumed egocentric individual self ci... ... the self which avoids the difficulties which result from the universalization of the deep ecology modes as well as those which result from individual egocentrism. Cyborg selves are neither isolated egos nor world-souls which merge individuals. Cyborg selves are contingent, multiple, adaptive, connected. The mutable character of cyborg selves points out the necessity for acknowledging, rather than assuming, the boundaries of the self as a part of ethical deliberation. References Haraway, Donna J. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge. Plumwood, Val. 1995. "Nature, Self and Gender: Feminism, Environmental Philosophy, and the Critique of Rationalism." in People, Penguins, and Plastic Trees: Basic Issues in Environmental Ethics, 2d ed., eds. Christine Pierce and Donald VanDeVeer. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Is Mass Media Harming our Society? Essay -- Media Dangers, Internet, TV

In today's society, mass media, including television, radio, and newspaper or magazines have become very dependable sources to so many people. People spend many hours everyday reading about celebrities in the tabloids, watching biased news channels, or participating in violent video games. Even though most media is highly entertaining, people have become so reliant on media that we seem to be harming our community in a very negative fashion. Mass media works as a socializing factor and affects the way we view the world and how we interact with other people. However, the messages that are seen in most of the magazines these days are negative images, especially for the youth of the world. For example, on the front page of popular magazines such as Teen and Cosmopolitan, are celebrities whom are extremely thin and suffer from eating disorders or celebrities who are abusing drugs and alcohol and getting away with it. Both of these situations are extremely popular topics, especially in high school and college, and there is no reason we should be advertising it on the front page of tablo...

DBQ- Gin Act of 1751 Essay

In mid-eighteenth century England, Parliament passed the Gin Act of 1751, which restricted the sale of gin through increased retail license requirements and higher taxes on such liquor. This measure was enacted to reduce the consumption of spirits and the subsequent crime it engendered. Indeed, gin production increased nearly 500% from 1701 to 1751. However, the general populace became engaged in a fierce debate for and against the new legislation. While authors, artists, and religious leaders argued for the act, economists, businessmen, and landowners argued against it with equal fervor. Meanwhile, politicians were torn amongst themselves over the situation at hand. Each group held the position it did for either intrinsic or extrinsic reasons, usually but not always to serve their own best interests. Authors, artists, religious leaders, and certain politicians all supported the Gin Act of 1751, but each for individual motives. For example, one anonymous author described gin drinkers as â€Å"poor ragged people, cursing and quarreling with one another†, in clear correlation with his book’s title, Distilled Liquors: The Bane of the Nations (1736). His passion against gin was predictably conceived from painful firsthand experience in the London city streets. This sentiment is echoed in a different author’s similar observation. From a 1747 excerpt of The London Tradesman, he laments that society is caught in a vicious cycle of drunkenness, impossible to break. Both authors derive concern from a genuine desire to improve the human condition. However, the same cannot be said for artist William Hogarth in his opposing pictures, Gin Lane (1751) and Beer Street (1750). Because he was commissioned to create this anti-gin propaganda, his motives were purely business-ori ented. Nonetheless, people in Beer Street are portrayed as happy, healthy, and prosperous, while those in Gin Lane are scrawny, lazy, and careless. Another anti-gin activist was religious leader, John Wesley, who also possessed an alterior motive for his platform. To maintain a positive image for the newly founded Methodist church, Wesley deemed it necessary for its members to be pious, God-fearing, and sober. Additional supporters of the gin act included certain politicians whose government positions were contingent upon their ability to foresee the long-term effects of major legislation, such as the gin act. Such politicians, including county magistrates from Middlesex and Lord Lonsdale, held the opinion that gin was a destructive vice that rendered citizens unfit for any useful purpose in society. By that logic, they concluded the gin act to be a necessary and justified law that posterity would look well upon. In contrast, economists, businessmen, landowners, and other politicians rejected the Gin Act of 1751, but again for different reasons. Economists, such as Daniel Defoe, represented the anti-gin act platform on the grounds that gin was essential to â€Å"support the landed interest† and reduce England’s grain surplus. However, Defoe’s opinion may have differed had he not been a wealthy man untouched by the horrors of city slums. Because of his detachment from common society, Defoe was only able to see the cold, scientific ramifications of decreased gin production. Such was also the case with William Pulteney, a rich landowner who petitioned Parliament for lesser restrictions on gin sale, because gin was a thriving business to which many owed their source of income. Still others protested the gin act for completely different reasons. In one businessman’s letter to an important gin distiller (1736), he voiced legitimate concern that high gin license fees would violate property rights and hurt the economy. This very issue was also raised by a member of Parliament (1736), who cited vast possible financial losses to the crown as a result of extortionate taxes. Lord Bathurst of Parliament rejected the gin act for yet another reason. He believed drinking in moderation was a necessary evil for the maintenance of sanity. However, he was oblivious to the fact that alcohol consumption of most English drunkards was anything but moderate. Altogether, the Gin Act of 1751 was a highly controversial piece of legislation among the English demographic. While authors, artists, religious leaders, and some politicians defended its morality, economists, businessmen, landowners, and other politicians attacked its potential threat to political and economic stability. However, the act was not repealed, since it took into account only those opposed to the sale and production of â€Å"this great evil†.