Karl Marx - The British Rule in India, 1853 (Voice)

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 17 ноя 2024

Комментарии • 9

  • @Adriaticus
    @Adriaticus Месяц назад +3

    I just discovered this channel and I will certainly be returning. As I have ADHD, I listen to history videos such as these while doing chores, playing games, etc.
    Thank you for this video, the quality is far above what can be expected from such a small channel. You will certainly grow in the future, however I suggest adding visuals and or additional content types in the future.

    • @MarxistAudiobooks
      @MarxistAudiobooks  Месяц назад +1

      Thank you for the feedback! I will definitely look into adding more visuals. I've considered alternative content types however I am a bit stuck for ideas.

    • @Adriaticus
      @Adriaticus Месяц назад +2

      @@MarxistAudiobooks If you want your channel to go into a more political direction then there is no shortage of news to discuss, and political atmosphere to analyse. However if you want to focus more on history I would love to hear about the different political climates that allowed Marxist, communist and socialist movements to succeed and why these ideologies have recently declined.
      Ultimately you should focus on what interests you, as that is what you will do best at.
      P.S: I noticed that you have digitalised a wide variety of leftist literature, that can now be accessed free of charge. People might not have access to this information otherwise, so thank you very much for this.

  • @oatdilemma6395
    @oatdilemma6395 Месяц назад +6

    Just remember folks, without the millions of sepoys, opportunistic merchants/tradesmen, artisans, ministers, princes, rajas, and emirs, the British wouldn't of had a single chance at taking the subcontinent. Funny though that the united Indian identity wouldn't even exist without British colonialism, then again Great Britain wouldn't exist without Norman colonisation.

    • @MarxistAudiobooks
      @MarxistAudiobooks  Месяц назад

      It was the same in many African States unfortunately - in How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, Walter Rodney made a stirn point of shaming and blaming many Africans who themselves collaborated with colonisers. To condemn the ruling classes of colonial societies is not the same as to condemn the whole colonial peoples, of course, as with respect in some ways to our contemporary capitalist society.
      And similarly, most African States would not exist with their current borders if not for the balkanisation of the continent by Britain and other colonisers. Contemporary nation-states in Africa are more or less stuck with their colonial borders and newly created post-colonial national identities, in lieu of any real successes of pan-africanism for the time being.

    • @aaradhyarawat7589
      @aaradhyarawat7589 Месяц назад

      The region of India from Indus to Sri Lanka to Nepal and all of that Bangladesh has always been a diverse region on surface level but not in depthness to the point people consider other neighbouring region as alien and barbarian. Society is molded here on the basis of Religion, as around the most of the world with a exclusive emphasis of Spiritual philosophical culture of gurus and division of people on the basis of rigid classist hierarchies aka Varna or Caste system here in India. It didn't had "United" in Political sense, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't have been united if the British wouldn't have launched invasion. Maratha Empire alone in 1752 had more than 70% of the region of Indian subcontinent under it's control. Had If they been got centralised like Japanese in Meiji and Chinese under CCP, they would also have got that "Political sense". Qing was as Chinese as French is English. One more historical lesson, India has been under One Unified rule for many times, particularly under Mauryan and Indianised-Timurid Mughal Empire. When the British left, Indian subcontinent was divided into many princely states. It didn't became unified again for no reason. It's civilization state in its own which was fragmented over the years and then united by it's own people and outsider many times.

    • @ABO-Destiny
      @ABO-Destiny Месяц назад

      True.
      The concept of united india had never existed except through conquests

    • @ABO-Destiny
      @ABO-Destiny Месяц назад +1

      ​​​@@aaradhyarawat7589
      Not correct.
      Just for your information,one of the bloodiest battle in history of human kind had occurred inside india about 2200 years ago during the reign of Emperor Ashoka - what we know as battle of Kalinga without mass killing weapons we have these days. Speaks volumes about commonness and shared culture.
      I had calculated, the possible casualty figures during that battle and compared that with possible population of India subcontinent from google data and it came out higher percentage of human lives than casualties caused by Mongol conquest or by WW1 or WW2.
      You can check that data.

  • @ShadowChrome518
    @ShadowChrome518 Месяц назад +3

    If every person would listen/read the major works of Marx, they would understand the core essence of Marxism and finally open their eyes to the degeneracy and regressive system that they currently revel in. Most people, including unabashed anti-marxist-leninists, ironically claim to value all view points yet outright refuse to even glance at seminal works by Lenin, Marx, Engels, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Stalin, Castro, Bakunin and Guevara. It is no surprise that most Eurasian countries that experienced socialism have outperformed every bourgeois nation, except for religious fanaticism that teeters on the verge of fascist terrorism and grandiose social mismanagement. My comment may seem tedious and arbitrary to the so-called liberals, but I hope that those who are not blinded by imprudence and prejudice will grasp the crux of my statement. May we all be illuminated by scientific socialism, as delineated by Marx, Engels, Lenin and Ho Chi Minh.