chapotraphouse

13447 readers

876 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here

Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Stop trying to make "The crusades is imperialism!" or "the crusades were settler colonies!" A thing. (hexbear.net)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

103 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I have complained about it before but I heard on of the guests from guerrilla history on the deprogram make this argument and it made me want to gouge my eyes out. This kind of trans historical argumentation is both stupid and unmarxist, just stop! Sorry I felt the need to vent.

These states were not imperialist and they weren't settler colonies. This framing doesn't make any fucking sense when transfered to a medieval context. Like the best you could say is that the Italian city states represented an early firm of merchant capital, but even then that is an incredibly complex phenomenon that has only a tenuous connection to modern capitalism. Calling these city states early capitalism is just a fancy way of saying "lol u hate capitalism yet you exchange good or service! Curious!"

Seriously just stop. I don't know why this set me off but it was like a week ago and I am still mad about it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So is it just in relation to medieval Italian city states? Idk about that history.

You said they're not capitalist, they're like proto-semi-merchantile (yeah I would agree) but that's the only reason you cite that they weren't imperialist. Hence my confusion. Or Shoot me a link, I'm a reader

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago (1 children)

the territories in the outremer weren't imperial because they weren't part of the european 'states' which had no realistic capacity to extract resources or protect them. the italians didn't rule the crusader states, just had trade concessions in them, which is the most-like imperial bit of the affair, but because the italian presence was just quarters of some cities it's not a good characterization for the entire group of states. they were primarily an imported nobility ruling a medieval territory in the normal way.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

Thanks for the explainer, funny how people confuse bog-standard military-political maneuvering with imperialism, def something to look out for then.