Moribund Society and Anarchy · Chapter
Colonization explained
This chapter critiques colonization as a hybrid of patriotism and mercantilism, arguing that it is state-sanctioned brigandage for the benefit of the ruling classes.
What happens
This chapter critiques colonization as a hybrid of patriotism and mercantilism, arguing that it is state-sanctioned brigandage for the benefit of the ruling classes. It contrasts the condemnation of private theft with the glorification of government-led exploitation and massacre abroad, and condemns workers who support such enterprises. The author exposes the hypocrisy of 'civilizing' missions, the brutalization of soldiers, and the economic motives behind colonial expansion, warning that such exploitation will ultimately lead to the decay of civilization itself.
Themes in this chapter
Militarism and the State
The chapter exposes how the state uses military force to colonize, maintain armies, and brutalize soldiers, all in service of the ruling class.
Critique of Private Property
Colonization is portrayed as state-sponsored theft and exploitation, contrasting private theft (condemned) with government seizure (glorified).
Propaganda by Deed
The chapter implicitly advocates for resistance against colonial oppression, praising natives who revolt and kill their oppressors.
Characters to notice
- Unknown Narrator
The narrator presents a scathing critique of colonization, using personal experience in the naval service to illustrate the brutality and hypocrisy of colonial practices.
- The Workman
The workman is referenced as being brutalized by military discipline and unknowingly serving as an instrument of despotism, approving of colonial infamies.
- Their Masters
The ruling classes are depicted as the beneficiaries of colonization, using it to secure markets, exploit peoples, and maintain armies.
- The Anarchists
Implied as the perspective from which the critique is launched, opposing the state and capitalist exploitation inherent in colonization.
Key passages
“A private individual goes into his neighbor’s house, breaks everything he lays his hands on, seizes everything he finds convenient for his own use: he is a criminal; society condemns him. But if a government find itself driven to a standstill by an internal situation which necessitates some external 'diversion;' ... let this government declare war against remote peoples ... take possession of their country, subject them to an entire system of exploitation ... oh, then, this is moral!”
Private theft is condemned, but when a government invades and exploits foreign lands for its own benefit, it is praised as moral.
Highlights the hypocrisy in how society judges theft versus state-sanctioned colonization.
“They have revolted; they have killed our men! ... What were we doing in their country? Why did we not let them alone? ... They have revolted; they have done well.”
The narrator rejects the justification that colonized peoples' resistance justifies further violence, instead affirming their right to revolt.
Expresses solidarity with colonized peoples' resistance against invaders.
“As you have undertaken to destroy these races ... you tend in like manner to destroy the working class, which you also qualify as inferior.”
The same exploitative logic used against colonized peoples is applied to the working class at home, leading to their destruction.
Connects colonial exploitation to the oppression of the working class.