For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
England had a rapidly growing capitalist economy
Pure coincidence that it happened immediately after Spain and Portugal brought all that gold and silver into Europe. It's not connected in any way. The Incas could have created capitalism too if they tried harder
someone at Jacobin should read Settlers or Open Veins of Latin America
someone at Jacobin should read
Yes, I agree.
This would be like arguing that because college football existed in the 19th century, the NFL is unrelated to the creation of modern football.
So the Jacobin basically only exists to make succdems feel good about themselves right?
synthetic left
That's a perfect term for it!
Spanish gold had driven Netherlands' development, and the Dutch War of Independence was caused primarily by Spanish efforts to redirect some of the investment to Spain proper.
Is there a TL;DR for the different paths taken by the colonial powers in the Americas?
It seemed like the Spanish colonies were sort of doomed by a resource curse. There was too much mining wealth too early, so there wasn't as much interest in broad economic development. The English and Dutch colonies had to develop more self-sustenance because they weren't semding home every atom of silver west of the prime meridian.
Sort of what you said but also:
Spain gave out land and plantations to church and royal elites and sent military resources to build the existing population into the system through their labor (slave and otherwise).
British colonization encouraged the everyman to hop on a boat and sail over, and the labor force was made up by a lot of these people (plus slaves ofc). The American Indians were not assimilated directly into the workforce (until later) but were usually excluded from direct participation.
This is the reason why Mexico in its current form isn't considered an active settler-colonial project (although a there's a solid argument that it's somewhere along the spectrum) while the US definitely is.
So that’s why the global north thinks we’re all indigenous and are surprised when we do settler-colonial things like clearing out indigenous land for European settlers or have reactionary politics.
We absolutely are settler-colonial projects. Ask your average Latin American about the indigenous and it’s no different from how Israelis talk about Palestinians.
we don't know how to make sense of mestizo nationalism because anglos didn't integrate.
i'm not sure what people are supposed to do when they have no connection to half of their heritage.
Appreciate you coloring in my sort of clumsy explanation comrade!
Every country in the americas is a settler colony except haiti
Cuba was a settler colony but is now a revolutionary socialist state?
yea, but its origins is still a settler colony
Fair, just wanted to make sure I'm on the right track.
Succdems and revisionist likes that
I agree that primitive accumulation is something that can be analyzed as hypothetical and theoretical, not necessarily a proven process in all possible instances. But claiming it for England?? That and Spain plus Netherlands are like the 3 most obvious cases where it's true lol
A created B
We're bringing back vulgar materialism baby
was Jacobin always bad or did it suddenly begin nose diving
Erasing primitive accumulation from capitalism is naked colonial apologia, unsurprising from Jacobin. Settler mindset.
