{AK} I don’t really know much about Marxism. I like Adorno, & the Frankfurt School.
In a general sense, yes, you could totalise the concept of ‘coercion’ & see oppression everywhere. Where, then, do you put non-coercion? There are answers to this, but they’re complex.

[Different T] “… how the current economic theory along with technology can achieve many of the aims of “colonization” without the use of the “barbaric practices” you find deplorable.”

{AK} One has to distinguish between the formal aims of “current economic theory” & the practices that actually occur during implementation of those theories.

[Different T] “Your “positions” (or maybe your lack thereof) have become clearer, though.”

You can’t really fixate, overly, on this or that position, if the results are bad. The theory could be great, but the implementation not so great. So you would have to theorise about the bad implementation. Or the theory could be wrong, so you need another.
I’ve been trying to create & implement an information management system or ‘workflow’, on my computor, on & off, for months. I’m not a programmer, so there are limitations. I have found that it is crucial to specify what one actually does, what one wants, & what one might want in the future. This entails a need for flexibility: to create facets of order, orderings, instantly: to have frequently used ‘orderings’ always available but not have them exercise a limiting, ‘coercive’ effect on researches. It’s not always easy to achieve this, given the variability of functions in different softwares. If one commits data to a software, that ties you in to its procedures, which might render interoperability difficult with future softwares you might wish to use. There are multiple considerations involved, you have to attend to all of them, if you wish to get things right.

[Different T] “Finally, you mentioned this earlier: “Well, this is complex, & I realise my writings, thus far, on these topics have been speculative, they lay the groundwork for something else.””

{AK} The “something else” is thinking from the 70s/80s/90s. That thinking assumes all contemporary ‘extremities’ & much more.

Again, “I am most interested in understanding how you maintain your view of colonization while not making the complete Marxist leap.” However, indications now appear that this will not be understood.

To break with the current style of this discourse, we could discuss “selection bias” among the earliest explorers, that modern histories of China (India is not mentioned because personal knowledge does not allow) would not be nearly as kind, or how the current economic theory along with technology can achieve many of the aims of “colonization” without the use of the “barbaric practices” you find deplorable. However, it is becoming increasingly likely such discourse would not be productive. As in, it would not further the understanding mentioned in the beginning of the comment.

Your “positions” (or maybe your lack thereof) have become clearer, though.

Finally, you mentioned this earlier: “Well, this is complex, & I realise my writings, thus far, on these topics have been speculative, they lay the groundwork for something else.”

[Different T] “Thank you for another excellent comment.”

{AK} You’re welcome, thank you for your questions.

[Different T]” It is unclear why you bring up this distinction, especially when the territories in question did not have Western conceptions of “state.””

{AK} “Western conceptions of “state”” have not been the only conceptions of state.

[Different T] “Your quoted passage is from a priest who provides an answer to the question for you.”

{AK} His answer is one of horror & reluctance to use the word ‘conquest’ for the atrocities. The quote is from here: http://www.politicalconcepts.org/issue1/conquest/
It’s an interesting article.

[Different T] “Does not your perspective look at colonization as a whole and not at the most “deplorable” instances.”

{AK} This seems illogical. A “perspective” that “look[s] at colonization as a whole”, cannot exclude ““deplorable” instances”, if it is to remain holistic. Unless you think the ““deplorable” instances” are insignificant anomalies? But there seems to be sufficient numbers of such as to indicate definite trends.

[Different T] “Next, some of your insights regard the “fact” that the old Indian and Chinese traditions did not engage in such neo-colonialism. You do seem to admit that once Western traditions were introduced (or forcibly applied), the old Eastern traditions were displaced. The question becomes, why? Is it possible that those Eastern traditions were actually reliant on “isolation” in order to sustain themselves?”

As both Chinese & Indian traditions are ancient, it is difficult to characterise them simply. Different things could be said of them at different times.
You could turn that round, into, were they self-sufficient? And wealthy, too. For was it not their wealth that attracted both Mughal & European invaders?
Why was the West (Middle East & Europe) not able to develop wealth independently? Why the focus on violent expansion & military technology?

[Different T] No. You are now combining conceptions in strange ways. You go from “customs” to “contracts” (a legal term) to “laws” (in this instance, enacted ex post facto) and end at “criminal” (another legal term).

{AK} I disagree. There are multiple ranges of historical consideration informing each of these words. In any case, “agreed upon contracts” was your introduction. ‘Laws’ would apply to some of those territories, ‘customs’ & ‘mores’ to others: likewise, with ‘criminality’ & transgression of custom.
Prefacing genocidal slaughter with a ceremonial mechanics of ad hoc legislative formality does not alter its fundamental barbarity.

[Different T] “Weakens your statement:”

{AK} You don’t seem to have completed your response?

[Different T] “Could it be that the West uses “agreed upon reference points” in order to “stabilize” this multiplicity.”

{AK} Well, yes, of course. I guess, everyone does, to different extents & in different ways.

[Different T] “Is it that your position is only “a discourse of distribution resentments?” Not among modern “economic” considerations, but of more fundamental energies “if one tradition stresses war, & the other emphasises other developments.””

{AK} It’s not worth ‘taking a position’, the whole thing’s such a mess. Getting some clarity & perspective is necessary. That, if an entire tradition so frequently wages war on innocents, it is a ‘regime’, not a ‘civilisation’.

[Different T] “These comments appear more as an extrapolation on the “speculative.””

{AK} Extrapolations & speculations are both forms of extension.

Thank you for another excellent comment.

{AK} Having allies in a state is one thing, having the sanction of the rulers of that state, can be another.

[Different T] It is unclear why you bring up this distinction, especially when the territories in question did not have Western conceptions of “state.”

{AK} And if there are no ‘rulers’? Is it ‘Christian’ for the ‘Christians’ of that time to waltz in & take over?

[Different T] Your quoted passage is from a priest who provides an answer to the question for you. Does not your perspective look at colonization as a whole and not at the most “deplorable” instances. This goes back to:

“Next, some of your insights regard the “fact” that the old Indian and Chinese traditions did not engage in such neo-colonialism. You do seem to admit that once Western traditions were introduced (or forcibly applied), the old Eastern traditions were displaced. The question becomes, why? Is it possible that those Eastern traditions were actually reliant on “isolation” in order to sustain themselves?”

{AK} You’re talking about investments in territories whose customs are arcane to the investor. If those “agreed upon contracts” contravene the laws of those territories, you’re talking about criminal alliances.

[Different T] No. You are now combining conceptions in strange ways. You go from “customs” to “contracts” (a legal term) to “laws” (in this instance, enacted ex post facto) and end at “criminal” (another legal term).

{AK} The notion of property, propriety, belonging, etc., cannot be dismissed so easily, in any of its forms. A conceptual analysis, & speculation, can show the likely tendencies & extrapolations of differing mappings of the idea of property onto the entities of ‘the individual’, ‘tribe’, ‘community’, ‘society’, etc., but each of these entities is problematic, can be characterised in multiple ways, the multiplicity being impossible to stabilise without agreed upon reference points.

[Different T] Weakens your statement:

{AK} Could it be that the incomprehension shown by the West (Islam & Christianity). continues on?

[Different T] Could it be that the West uses “agreed upon reference points” in order to “stabilize” this multiplicity.

Is it that your position is only “a discourse of distribution resentments?” Not among modern “economic” considerations, but of more fundamental energies “if one tradition stresses war, & the other emphasises other developments.”

Finally, you mentioned this earlier: “Well, this is complex, & I realise my writings, thus far, on these topics have been speculative, they lay the groundwork for something else.”

These comments appear more as an extrapolation on the “speculative.”

[Different T] The intent is to show that having allies in the colony who were “provoked” was usually part of the package.

{AK} Having allies in a state is one thing, having the sanction of the rulers of that state, can be another. And if there are no ‘rulers’? Is it ‘Christian’ for the ‘Christians’ of that time to waltz in & take over?

“In 1542, the Spanish Dominican priest Bartolomé de Las Casas published his Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, in which he describes the horrors and atrocities of the conquest of the Americas. Las Casas had arrived in Santo Domingo in 1502 and witnessed the invasion and conquest of the New World. He accompanied the conquistador Diego Velázquez, and in his Short Account he describes the massacres of Velázquez in Cuba, of Hernán Cortés in Mexico, and of Francisco Pizarro in Peru. According to Las Casas, the conquistadors engaged not only in wholesale slaughter of the predominantly peaceful indigenous population but took pleasure in the most gruesome mutilations and torture. He describes how the conquerors would kill and maim the civilian population or burn them alive; how they would kidnap and abduct entire groups into slavery and bondage; and how they would drench the land in a sea of blood and misery.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Different T]” The intent is to draw attention to political policies which result in the loss of property and the nullification of agreed upon contracts without any direct physical force. To make things simpler, you could substitute “direct foreign investment” with “private investment” and achieve the same effect.”

{AK} You’re talking about investments in territories whose customs are arcane to the investor. If those “agreed upon contracts” contravene the laws of those territories, you’re talking about criminal alliances.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Different T] “I am unsure what you refer to here. I am most interested in understanding how you maintain your view of colonization while not making the complete Marxist leap that all property is “coercive” and all subjugation (or to use Marxist terminology, oppression [understood as subjugation which Marxist’s do not favor]) is evil.”

{AK} Were European states not using Christianity as a justification for ‘civilising’ incursions into foreign territory? Does not Christianity speak of ‘doing unto others as one would have others do unto oneself’? Would this not apply to territorial permissions?

Colonisation and property are two different, yet relating, concepts.
Property has to do with the propriety of possession, or belonging. What should belong to whom, or whom should belong to what?

I believe Proudhon said: “Property is theft.” But Marxism does believe in property, just not ‘private property’.
The notion of property, propriety, belonging, etc., cannot be dismissed so easily, in any of its forms. A conceptual analysis, & speculation, can show the likely tendencies & extrapolations of differing mappings of the idea of property onto the entities of ‘the individual’, ‘tribe’, ‘community’, ‘society’, etc., but each of these entities is problematic, can be characterised in multiple ways, the multiplicity being impossible to stabilise without agreed upon reference points.

Could it be that the incomprehension shown by the West (Islam & Christianity). continues on? That the same banal metaphysical assumptions essentially govern their prevalent outlooks? That this deliberated set of limitations has become entrenched, the reifications of an ad hoc ‘rationality’ that can only affirm its own limitations, as ‘profits’ or ‘dreams’, without any other awareness? Innately teleological, in a very particular way, its every valuation, devalues all else not on its itinerary?

{AK} I didn’t suggest that. Not sure where you got that from. My referral to ‘modern international law’ & ‘ancient analogues’ alone, suggests the opposite.

[Different T] This is the statement that caused the confusion:

{AK} so there was always an awareness of the rights of other nations & their peoples.

[Different T] However, your intent is clearer now.

{AK} So, aggression against those areas is ‘unprovoked’: those areas were not aggressors.

[Different T] This statement is ahistorical. Were not colonizers most often working directly with a certain amiable faction in the colony?

{AK} Whether or not this was the case, is not necessarily significant. Trade has often continued on between nations at war.

[Different T] The intent is to show that having allies in the colony who were “provoked” was usually part of the package.
[
Different T] A very simple counter-example can be demonstrated. How do you perceive the nationalization of firms with large amounts of direct foreign investment?

{AK} Your counter-example is not relevant.

[Different T] The intent is to draw attention to political policies which result in the loss of property and the nullification of agreed upon contracts without any direct physical force. To make things simpler, you could substitute “direct foreign investment” with “private investment” and achieve the same effect.

{AK} When narratives of mitigating circumstance are offered for unprovoked European hostilities, yet rejected as ‘left-wing’ ideologising when applied to the allegedly innate ‘criminality’ of minority groups, a certain irony is revealed. Your discourse is merely questioning, but nevertheless suggests such a narrative as explanatory of European aggressions. NR essentially rejects or elides such narratives when it comes to the minority groups it attacks.

[Different T] I am unsure what you refer to here. I am most interested in understanding how you maintain your view of colonization while not making the complete Marxist leap that all property is “coercive” and all subjugation (or to use Marxist terminology, oppression [understood as subjugation which Marxist’s do not favor]) is evil.

[Different T] Before a point by point response, the overall sense of your post in a certain regard is that subjugation is a “modern” phenomena among nations.

{AK} I didn’t suggest that. Not sure where you got that from. My referral to ‘modern international law’ & ‘ancient analogues’ alone, suggests the opposite.

[Different T] This statement is ahistorical. Were not coloniser’s most often working directly with a certain amiable faction in the colony?

{AK} Whether or not this was the case, is not necessarily significant. Trade has often continued on between nations at war.

{AK} It may be that the architects of ‘Free Market’ thought had only ‘free trade’ in mind when designing the theory, but this does not exclude the actual practice of coercive ‘military regulation’ as it were.

[Different T]A very simple counter-example can be demonstrated. How do you perceive the nationalization of firms with large amounts of direct foreign investment?
.
{AK} The quoted sentence refers to the beginnings of ‘Free Market’ theory & the history of modern European colonial exploitation through coercive ‘military regulation’ since, say, 1600. It does not refer to uncoerced, free trade. Your counter-example is not relevant.

{AK} It seems ironic that a more charitable & nuanced understanding is sought in the case of European hostilities and their aetiologies, just at the point when ‘Neoreaction’ is reversing away from such conciliatory (PC?) discourses. lol

[Different T] It is not clear how you come to this conclusion or why you consider this discourse representative of NR.

{AK} When narratives of mitigating circumstance are offered for unprovoked European hostilities, yet rejected as ‘left-wing’ ideologising when applied to the allegedly innate ‘criminality’ of minority groups, a certain irony is revealed. Your discourse is merely questioning, but nevertheless suggests such a narrative as explanatory of European aggressions. NR essentially rejects or elides such narratives when it comes to the minority groups it attacks.

[Different T] Before a point by point response, the overall sense of your post in a certain regard is that subjugation is a “modern” phenomena among nations.

{AK}Colonial revenues, however, issue from areas which are not threats to state security. So, aggression against those areas is ‘unprovoked’: those areas were not aggressors.

[Different T] This statement is ahistorical. Were not coloniser’s most often working directly with a certain amiable faction in the colony?

{AK} It may be that the architects of ‘Free Market’ thought had only ‘free trade’ in mind when designing the theory, but this does not exclude the actual practice of coercive ‘military regulation’ as it were.

[Different T]A very simple counter-example can be demonstrated. How do you perceive the nationalization of firms with large amounts of direct foreign investment?

{AK} It seems ironic that a more charitable & nuanced understanding is sought in the case of European hostilities and their aetiologies, just at the point when ‘Neoreaction’ is reversing away from such conciliatory (PC?) discourses. lol

[Different T] It is not clear how you come to this conclusion or why you consider this discourse representative of NR.

{AK} The “preconditions” of the concept of criminality would be a notion of law. International law, lacking any other superior authority, can only be derived from consensual agreements that, in their turn, ultimately derive from custom. The legislative consideration of conduct between nations is ancient, & analogues of modern international law can be found all over the ancient world. so there was always an awareness of the rights of other nations & their peoples. It should be noted that present day structures of ‘modern international law’ are equally consensual, & customary, as those of former times.

[Different T] In this statement, are you not assuming something other than “Aggressions always have germinal contexts, can always be seen as products of ‘feedback loop[s]‘”. You go from the “germinal context of aggression” to “unprovoked, hostile actions” quickly and without explanation.

{AK} Yes. Well there are developmental logics of germination, & of escalatory feedback, when it comes to European conflicts, & this might suffice to explain local hostilities. In the Ramsay example, both France & Spain had been enemies, & were potential threats. It can be seen that, given a scenario of uncertain relations between neighbouring states, fraught tensions ensue. It can be seen, too, that once one state becomes a recipient of colonial revenues, others are driven to replicate this in order to maintain financial parity & security: wealth buys military capability (“…do we see an export of such contexts & ‘loops’?”).
Colonial revenues, however, issue from areas which are not threats to state security. So, aggression against those areas is ‘unprovoked': those areas were not aggressors.

[Different T] And finally, you assume some sort of morality of peace (while again assuming all the preconditions that make the very conception of “peace” possible, and yet divorce them from consideration).

{AK} The concept of peace is thousands of years old. The morality of peace, likewise.
If you’re questioning the assumption of preconditions for actually enabling peace, that would be different.

[Different T] Regarding the topic of the West’s “ironic” use of the “free market,” have you considered a more delineated approach. That is, if you define the proponents of the “free market” more specifically than “Britain and USA” you are likely to find the very agents touting the “free market” are against the protectionist policies and military interventions. Have you considered these systems contain disparate forces and that lumping them together for ease of conception harms the ability to accurately assess those forces and renders your diagnosis as “schizophrenic hypocrisy.”

{AK} It may be that the architects of ‘Free Market’ thought had only ‘free trade’ in mind when designing the theory, but this does not exclude the actual practice of coercive ‘military regulation’ as it were. And as we see from history, there has been no restraint in this area of implementation, especially with regard to colonialism.
Of course, there are always “disparate forces”, Ramsay is a case in point. I’m not “lumping them together”, I’m referring to the very real contentions & exploitations between states, contentions which benefit economies & treasuries, which would have indirectly benefited Ramsay, too. It is to his credit that he spoke up.

It seems ironic that a more charitable & nuanced understanding is sought in the case of European hostilities and their aetiologies, just at the point when ‘Neoreaction’ is reversing away from such conciliatory (PC?) discourses. lol