Marx, India, Colonialism, and Imperialism

              Let me say a few things before I start. What I’m going to discuss today is based on Marx’s journalistic writings he took in the early 1850’s to make a living. Marx was hired to write for the New York Daily Tribune in 1852 partly to attract the increasing number of potential German refugee readers in America. In these dispatches, Marx wrote about the crucial questions, debates, and events happening at the time such as the changing political landscape in England between the Tories and Whigs, America and the Slave Trade, The Greek Insurrection etc. More importantly, and what we’re going to use as our base case today that is most relevant to what is happening in Gaza and its necessary relation to violence (DO YOU CONDEMN HAMAS?) is the dispatches he wrote on the British colonial and imperial rule in India. India represented a fascinating laboratory for Marx’s theories. There existed no purer example of a society dominated by imperialism in the mid-19^th century. The British East India Company’s total monopoly on British trade with the colony, which existed for nearly two centuries until 1813, had, in his view, completely transformed not only the Indian economy but its very structure. The English East India Company, like the Dutch East India Company, is a company, a corporation (like Apple or Microsoft today) owned by private investors and granted a royal charter by the monarchy. This charter gave it the function of a sovereign power on behalf of the British crown. The company gained control of large parts of the Indian subcontinent and colonized parts of Southeast Asia and Hong Kong. At its peak, the company was the largest corporation in the world and had its own armed forces in the form of the company’s three presidency armies, totaling about 260,000 soldiers, twice the size of the British army at the time. The company’s ships, factories, army, navy, and civilian administrators destroyed traditional methods of production and distribution, turning most Indian citizens into virtual slaves. Following the Indian Rebellion of 1857 (DO YOU CONDEMN THE INDIAN REVOLT?), that Marx saw as “the prologue of a most terrible tragedy that will HAVE to be enacted”, and the Government of India Act 1858 led to the British Crown assuming direct control of India in the form of the new British Raj. The company was dissolved in 1874 and thus became defunct.

It’s important to note that Marx’s analysis of India was neither rigidly and dogmatically economic nor without hope. As deeply as he denounced the British colonization of India, he did not hold a romantic notion that a nation’s Golden Age had been destroyed. On the contrary, he believed that Hinduism had produced an “undignified, stagnatory, and vegetative life … that rendered murder itself a religious rite”. Marx’s belief in dialectical progress predicted and hoped that the Indians would eventually use the productive forces the British introduced – including railroads and irrigation – to emancipate themselves. Thus, the cracks in Britian’s Indian rule that presented themselves throughout the mid-19^th century were for Marx forerunners of Indian independence or emancipation.

Marx, as a philosopher/thinker, did not view the English rule in India as all doom and gloom. In assessing all possible outcomes, he thought that there is a real possibility for the old precolonial Indian society, who he viewed as stagnating and highly religious (alluding for example to their caste system) to transform itself through the new material reality (infrastructure such as irrigation systems and transportation) by using this new material reality to eventually emancipate itself. Thus, Marx thought that the British rule will on the one hand destroy the negative aspects of the old Asiatic society, and by doing so open the possibility of a regeneration (social evolution) of Indian society that will ultimately lead to its emancipation (In theory, ofcourse).

The reading of Marx that he visualized the transplantation or extension of capitalism into the colony is further strengthened by an examination of his discussion of the negative aspects of the impact of colonialism on India or other colonies. He visualized these negative aspects as being of the same type or character as the negative aspects of capitalism in the main capitalist and colonizing country.  Thus in “The Future Results of the British Rule in India” after pointing out that apart from laying down the material premises for the development of India’s productive powers and their appropriation by the people, he says “all the English bourgeoisie may be forced to do will neither emancipate nor materially mend the social conditions of the mass of the people. Has the bourgeoisie ever done more? Has it ever effected a progress without dragging individuals and peoples through blood and dirt, through misery and degradation?” Marx clearly and distinctly remarked that even the limited aspects of regeneration discussed in most cases was his expectations of what would or might happen in the future. They are statements of the potential and the possible and not of the existing and the real. Marx is constantly using the words “will”, “might”, and “must” before the words “result” or “happen” or the intentions of the colonial policy makers.

We must take further note of the fact that, even while discussing the objectively possible positive role of British rule in India, Marx was most sensitive to the misery, destruction, and degradation colonialism brought in its wake. He took full note of the basically oppressive character of the British rule and of the antidevelopment policy followed in practice by the colonial administration.

Let me give a quote by Marx that truly resonates and still applies to the contradictions and hypocrisy evident in our current Global System after 400 years of enjoying enlightenment values:

“The profound hypocrisy and inherent barbarism of bourgeois civilization lies unveiled before our eyes, turning from its home, where it assumes respectable forms, to the colonies, where it goes naked. They are the defenders of property, but did any revolutionary party ever originate agrarian revolutions like those in Bengal, in Madras, and in Bombay? Did they not, in India, to borrow an expression of that great robber, Lord Clive himself, resort to atrocious extortion, when simple corruption could not keep pace with their rapacity? While they prated in Europe about the sacred sanctity of the national debt, did they not confiscate in India the dividends of the rajahs, who had invested their private savings in the Company’s own funds? While they combatted the French revolution under the pretext of defending ‘our holy religion’ did they not forbid, at the same time, Christianity to be propagated in India, and did they not, in order to make money out of the pilgrims streaming to the temples of Orissa and Bengal, take up the trade in the murder and prostitution perpetrated in the temple of Juggernaut? These are the men of ‘Property, Order, Family, and Religion.

The timelessness of this quote is brilliant. Is not the landscape of today’s Europe, or the Western hemisphere at large, still living in the same hypocritical contradictions? Surely, with changes here and there, but don’t we get schooled day in and day out, about property rights and the right to self-determination, while experiencing foreign policy campaign after foreign policy campaign that obviously contradict those very same rights? Or even better, using those very same rights to push for their campaigns for the ultimate purpose of expanding their private industry and making sure it keeps what it takes/seizes from this expansion. Thus, and standing on the concept that one is what one does rather than what one says, it seems like the biggest change that happened since British rule of India is how human beings representing these power structure dress and speak. This persistence of contradiction and hypocrisy is not by chance or naivety, but a necessary consequence of dogmatically basing the architecture of the global system on capitalism. Countries still value industry at any cost, and any other country that starts to push for reform to achieve economic sovereignty and ultimately true sovereignty, will get punished, because it threatens the loss of capital and hence domination of the prevailing super-powers.

Palestinian Marxist Figures: Contributions to the Resistance Movement and Critical Perspectives on Marxist Theory:

Part 1: small transition between the theoretical and the importance of Marxism regarding the Palestinian situation.

After presenting a description of colonialism and imperialism according to our understanding of Marx’s primary writings, and looking at the historical instances presented by Kassem, it seems theoretically easy to replace the nation that was given as an example (INDIA)  suffering from colonial settlement, violence, oppression, alienation and maybe genocides to Palestine and the Palestinian history, at least from the ottoman empire up to the most recent occupation of the Palestinian land by the non-native Zionists.

The Marxist perspective was not only present to back the Palestinian cause in academia, in reality starting from 1948 up to this moment Marxism and Marxist thought were among the most influential motives for resistance. And at some point, in history as we will see, it was the most dominant/ effective and influential thought among the Palestinians.

Part 2: ANM

Interestingly, The American university of Beirut was one of the starting points for the link between Marxism and Palestine resistance.

One of the most important movements in its influence on later resistance groups was the Arab nationalist movement 1951 (you may know it as harakat al qawmiyoun el arab) that had its origin in an Aub club, which was called el 3urwa el thakafiya. The founders of this movement were all Aub students: starting by the most important Marxist figure in the history of Palestine George habash, hamed el Jabouri, wadii haddad, ahmad el khatib, thabet mehaini, hani el hendi, and Mansour el armali.

At first this movement was not particularly influenced in Marxist theory, and its main focus was on the Arab unity and the opposition of western imperialism. However, starting from early 1960’s this movement started to acknowledge the importance of Marxism as a universal thought and to recognize the flaws present in a nationalist perspective regarding Palestine especially after the Arab defeat in the six-day-war against Israel.

From that point, the importance of the implementation of Marxism in the resistance started to be recognized by most of Palestinian/ Arab resistors, since the authentic Palestinian resistors at that time found that the unity among all the Arab classes was one of the major absurdities that has driven the Palestinian cause to its terrible situation in 1967.  A more pragmatic and universal perspective needed to be there to elevate this desperate situation, and reevaluate the path towards the liberation of Palestine, and the Arabs from western colonialism and imperialism

Part 3: the pflp

And this is where we are going to move towards a stronger and more unified Arab/Palestinian/ universal response, which was the popular front for the liberation of Palestine(pflp). The pflp was founded in 11.12.1967 by George habash and wadi3 haddad, who were the founders of ANM, as we saw previously. Even though the pflp and the ANM are better seen as a continuum, what distinguishes them is mainly three things: first the pflp acknowledges the importance of universalism, second it adopts Marxism as a framework, third it provides a critical assessment of the arab regimes and classes.

In order to continue our discussion regarding the pflp and the link between Marxism and Palestine let us examine a biography that will cover 3 of the most important figures in the history of Palestine that attended AUB:

Part 4: Biography:

George Habash

George Habash was born in Lydda in Palestine, to an Arab Christian Orthodox family.In 1944 Habash was admitted to the medical school of the American University of Beirut. He divided his university years between his study and political activities. The latter assumed growing importance especially in light of events in Palestine. The dominant influence on his thought and nationalist identity came from contact with the thought and teachings of the renowned Arab history professor Constantine Zurayk. Habash stopped his education for a while and went back to Lydda but the real turning point in Habash’s life was the Nakba of 1948, as he and his family witnessed the genocides and atrocities committed by the settlers at that time. He had to return back to Aub and he graduated from medical school in 1951. What totally dominated his interests prior to and after graduating from the medical school was political thought. He explicitly wrote in the first published strategy of the pflp a section called the importance of political thought. His vision was capturing the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories as an imperialist and colonialist project. He stated in this section that capitalism and imperialism are the root causes of Palestinian oppression and he argued that only a socialist revolution is the solution for the liberation of Palestine, and not just a national liberation from Israeli occupation. He advocated in that piece for the dismantling of the Israeli state, rejecting a two-state solution in favor of a single democratic Palestinian state with equal rights. Habash founded the Arab Nationalist Movement (ANM) as we saw. What is remarkable about the ANM is that it emphasized the distinction between Judaism and Zionism. The most decisive turning point in Habash’s thought was the defeat of June 1967 this drove him to reexamine the ideology of the ANM and to move in the direction of Marxist-Leninism. Thus, in December 1967, he founded a new organization to replace the ANM, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), whose aim was the liberation of Palestine through armed struggle. Habash saw no contradiction between this thought shift and his national identity. In this regard, he considered there was a perfect harmony between “my Arab nationalism, my being Christian, my Islamic culture and my progressive Marxism … I am a Marxist, leftist by culture, the Islamic heritage is an essential part of my thought structure and arab nationalism is an essential of my being”. During his 33 years as a general secretary of the pflp, George Habash focused on the importance of political philosophy and political thought, uniting most of the arab regimes as part of the Palestinian revolutionaries’ enemies,  while 1) Filtering the classes present in Palestine 2) holding the bourgeoisie and the petit bourgeoisie as part of the enemies of the Palestinian revolution, 3)Focusing on the universality of the Palestinian cause 4) Discussing a strategy regarding facing the imperialist technology and finally highlighting The importance of self-criticism which made him very devoted to his Marxist and Palestinian objectives. It is worth noting that he rejected any peace talk with the Zionists and imperialist powers (the first to reject OSLO), while focusing on the unity among the Palestinian resistance, and on the consistency of the pflp’s  project in contrast to the renovations done by their contemporary the PLO (Palestinian liberation organization).

Wadi Haddad:

Wadii Haddad was a Palestinian Marxist revolutionary who was a leading figure in (PFLP) in the 1960s and 1970s.  Haddad was born in 1927 in Safad, to an Orthodox Christian family. His political consciousness emerged at a very young age witnessing the displacement and dispossession of Palestinians during the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, known as the Nakba. In the 1950s, Haddad pursued higher education in the American university Beirut and he where got accepted in its medical school. There he was exposed to leftist and Marxist ideologies through Costantine Zreik. As we saw, he was one of the founders of the ANM and he helped forming the Marxist and secular pflp in 1967, which viewed the struggle against Israel as one part of a broader fight against Western imperialism in the Middle East. What really distinguishes Haddad from others is his military tactics that were ingenious. More than that, he took the Palestinian resistance to a whole new universal level, by targeting not only the Zionists, but also anyone involved in a colonialist intervention in the middle east. He was very independent, and in various ways he was far more radical than the pflp’s discussed strategy which ended up creating a minor problem between the pflp and the USSR back then as the USSR disapproved of his international operations while he was very critical of their position. Haddad cultivated ties with other revolutionary groups across the Middle East, Asia and Europe – including the Japanese Red Army. This increased the PFLP’s global reach. A lot of these groups united with the pflp and Haddad in order to resist against global colonialism generally and Zionism specifically. It is worth noting that the slogan “behind the enemy everywhere” that you see trendy nowadays especially in yemen was put into practice in the first time during the Palestinian history with Wadii haddad. Unfortunately, in 1978 Haddad died after being terribly sick for 3 months. And in 2006, aaron clyne , an Israeli journalist published a book called striking back relying on a testimony for a mossad agent where he mentioned that haddad didn’t die naturally and in fact  was biologically poisoned through a box of Belgian chocolate that he received as a gift.

Leila Khaled:

A very promising student of Wadii Haddad and George Habash, Leila Khaled who was born in Heifa 1944, was the first woman to engage in hijacking planes. Like our other figures, Leila moved to Lebanon in 1948 after the nakba and lived in the Palestinian camps in Saida. She was a member of the ANM. Leila went to the American University of Beirut for one year, and she had drop out due to her financial situation. However, she discovered her political responsibilities there after being influenced by the teachings of the ANM and particularly wadii Haddad. After switching the ANM to the pflp, Leila joined the pflp. Similar to other figures, Leila rejected class collaboration and reformism, 2) participated in a lot of operations in order to regain the attention toward Palestinians as well as moving the conflict with Israel towards an international platform as part of the pflp vision of the Palestinian cause. After these, Leila remained a very active member of the pflp and its spokesperson after the death of Ghassan Kanafani promoting an international solidarity with the Palestinian cause. Leila was an interesting figure that linked between women’s liberation/ feminism, national liberation and Marxism. She is the prominent figure and the inspiration of a lot of Marxist feminists in the third world countries. By linking feminism and anticolonialism, Khaled highlighted connections between gender equality and broader social justice movements. Her activism encouraged analysis of how factors like race, class, and nationality intersect with gender oppression. Khaled showed that feminist liberatory philosophies must be inclusive of diverse social, cultural and political contexts beyond just western societies. Her acts inserted Palestinian struggles into international feminist consciousness. Later in life, Khaled continued advocating for women’s involvement in political organizations and armed resistance. She remains an iconic figure of feminist defiance and resistance against interlocking systems of oppression for many scholars and activists.

Part 7: The importance of Marxism nowadays:

After witnessing how Marxism was introduced in practice among the Palestinian resistors (one way of them being through AUB) and how much influential it was historically, keeping in mind that Marxist thought had the role of the savior for the Palestinian cause in 1967, it will be understandable to look at the historic and current situation in Palestine through Marxist lenses. Most importantly, Marxism will draw an importance on the real enemies of the Palestinian revolutionary forces, in which the blame is not only targeted toward the Zionist state, but moreover towards other colonial and imperialist nations. And most radically and profoundly against an economic cycle and system whose core survival relies on the exploitation of crises, emergencies, and wars in order to secure the so called “profit” economic cycle.

General Introduction
Since October 7, we have witnessed a catastrophic escalation of violence, marking one of the most devastating periods in recent history. The latest reports account for 30,645 Palestinian lives lost and about 1,139 people killed in Israel. Among the Palestinian martyrs are at least 12,300 children, underscoring a tragedy of unspeakable proportions.

This resistance is not an isolated phenomenon but a chapter in the long narrative of colonial and post-colonial struggles that have defined much of modern history. It is a fight against the systematic marginalization and displacement perpetrated by an occupying force, seeking not just political sovereignty but the very right to a dignified existence.

The blockade of Gaza, now spanning over 16 years, has transformed one of the most densely populated areas on earth into an open-air prison, restricting the movement of goods and people, and suffocating any semblance of a normal life. This blockade, coupled with relentless military assaults, has led to the destruction or damage of more than half of Gaza’s homes. Hospitals, schools, and places of worship have not been spared, as Israel continues to disregard all ethics of warfare.

This struggle should be read as a manifestation of a global struggle against imperialism and colonialism. It is within this broader framework that the Palestinian resistance acquires its full meaning, echoing the unyielded fights for liberation that have marked human history. The significance of these numbers extends beyond the immediate humanitarian crisis; they represent resistance as a commitment to the principles of autonomy, justice and self-determination.

Marxist Analysis of Oppression and Resistance

From a Marxist lens, the Palestinian struggle epitomizes the fight against a form of imperialism and colonialism that seeks not only territorial dominion but also the systematic exploitation and subjugation of an entire people.

The numbers we’ve outlined are a reflection of a deeply entrenched system of economic and social disempowerment. The targeting of essential infrastructure serve not just as tactics of war but as strategies to perpetuate dependency, disrupt social cohesion, and prevent any form of self-sufficiency or resistance. This systematic destruction, coupled with the blockade, mirrors the colonial tactic of “scorched earth,” aimed at erasing the possibility of a livable existence for Palestinians, thereby maintaining a population perpetually on the brink of survival.

In this context, the Marxist principle that liberation from oppression must be forged through the struggle of the oppressed themselves gains poignant relevance. The PFLP is a manifestation of this principle.

The staggering toll of lives lost underscores not only the asymmetry of the situation but also the moral bankruptcy of an occupying force that claims self-defense while perpetrating acts of genocide.

Frantz Fanon – The Wretched of the Earth

A more practical manifestation of Marxist theory can be seen in Fanon’s work in The Wretched of the Earth where he elucidates the mechanics elucidates the mechanics of colonial oppression. His analysis rests on the premise that the colonial world is a Manichean world [mane´kiyan], sharply divided between the colonizer and the colonized, where the latter is objectified and dehumanized. This objectification is not a mere metaphor but a literal condition of existence under colonial rule, where the colonized are systematically reduced to less than human, to justify their subjugation and exploitation. In Palestine, this objectification is evident in both the physical violence inflicted upon the population and the pervasive rhetoric that seeks to deny Palestinian humanity.

Israel’s Minister of Defense put things clearly when he said: “We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”

This language is well-known to us. It is common practice of the imperialists to justify slaughter by dehumanizing the enemy. If we accept that our enemies are not humans like ourselves, but merely animals, we feel entitled to suspend all ethical frameworks.

Fanon’s discourse on violence is particularly significant. He argues that colonial violence is not a deviation but a fundamental characteristic of the colonial project, necessitating a counter-violence by the colonized in their quest for liberation. This is not violence for violence’s sake but a cathartic and necessary process for the reclamation of self and identity.

Fanon also emphasizes the psychological dimension of colonialism, detailing how it instills a sense of inferiority in the colonized and disrupts their cultural and social cohesion. The Israeli policies of fragmentation—geographically, socially, and politically—serve to disintegrate Palestinian society, reminiscent of Fanon’s analysis of the colonial strategy to “divide and rule.” Resistance, therefore, also entails a psychological liberation, reclaiming the narratives, history, and culture.

The international community’s discourse on peace frequently falls into the trap of false equivalence, portraying the Palestinian struggle and Israeli military actions as two sides of the same coin. Fanon, in his dissection of colonial dynamics, underscores that peace in a colonial context is often a euphemism for the maintenance of the status quo, where the colonizer’s peace is predicated on the continued subjugation and pacification of the colonized.

Fanon provocatively challenges us to redefine peace not as the absence of war but as the absence of imperialism and the presence of justice and self-determination for all peoples. His insistence on the right to resist oppression with arms is rooted in a broader critique of colonial and neo-colonial structures. He posits that when peaceful means of resolution are exhausted or systematically blocked, and when the oppressor demonstrates a persistent disregard for human life and dignity, the oppressed are left with no choice but to take up arms to reclaim their rights and their land. In the context of Palestine, genuine peace cannot be achieved through mere cessation of hostilities without addressing the underlying issues of displacement, occupation, and the right of return. True peace is not the absence of violence, true peace requires justice – a radical restructuring of relations, ensuring that Palestinians enjoy the same rights and dignities readily granted to Israelis.

Parallel to other anti-colonial movements and just as the Algerian War of Independence, the Vietnam War, and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa showcased the colonized peoples’ determination to reclaim their land and rights, the Palestinian fight for liberation shares universal themes of resistance against oppression, the struggle for national identity, and the quest for self-determination.

The Palestinian people’s use of weapons in the fight for liberation is not an initiation of violence but a response to the violent conditions imposed upon them by the occupying force. This perspective challenges the dominant narrative that often criminalizes their resistance.

The use of armed resistance is a response to decades of dispossession, state violence, and the failure of international mechanisms to deliver justice. The significant loss of Palestinian lives, the demolition of homes, and the severe restrictions on movement and economic development underscore the brutal reality of the occupation. In this light, armed resistance emerges not only as a legitimate right but as a necessary path to liberation.

And armed resistance certainly did emerge in Gaza.

The Right to Resistance

The lightning attack, launched by Hamas on October 7^th, caused shockwaves throughout the world. It was met immediately by a loud chorus of condemnation from Western governments.

The attack was instantly presented in the most harrowing terms by the media. Western public opinion was thoroughly prepared by what is comically described as the “free press” to take sides in the conflict, which, as usual, is depicted as the Forces of Good versus the Forces of Evil.

In this horrific comedy of errors, the roles are conveniently reversed. The victims become the aggressors, and the aggressors become the victims. This lie is backed up by a constant stream of moral condemnations of violence and terrorism.

According to the New York Times, President Biden “bristled with anger” as he characterised the acts as “pure unadulterated evil” and vowed unequivocally to stand with Israel against terrorism.

The president of the wealthiest and most powerful state in the world lost no time in announcing that the USA will accelerate the delivery of additional equipment, resources and munitions to Israel, as well as sending its newest and most advanced aircraft carrier, along with a full carrier strike group, to the Eastern Mediterranean.

The imperialists who pretend to be shocked by violence have repeatedly launched vicious wars of aggression. They did not hesitate in unleashing bloody wars against Iraq and Afghanistan lasting two decades, in which hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed. They bombed Libya, Syria, Sudan, Serbia, Yemen, without any regard for civilians.

But where were the condemnations of this barbarity? Where were the giant headlines shouting about “terrorism”?
They were silent, because that same imperialist camp was actively involved in these wars.

They have no right to complain of violence, or to accuse anyone of “terrorism”. That is merely a cynical phrase, a convenient fig leaf, which is nowadays used by aggressors to justify their aggression before public opinion.

The whole imperialist camp stands behind Israel as it moves to massacre the Palestinians. And in case the bombs, artillery shells and missiles do not kill a sufficiently large number of Palestinians, the European Union planned to eliminate a few more by starvation.

No one can really be surprised that the Palestinians are fighting back. Oppressed people have the right to resist.

The significant numbers of journalists killed in the conflict highlight another dimension of this resistance: the battle for narrative. In an age where information is as crucial as physical territory, the attempt to silence voices and control the narrative is a form of violence that seeks to dehumanize and erase the suffering of an entire people. Resistance, therefore, also takes the form of speaking truth to power, of ensuring that the world bears witness to the injustices perpetrated.

Today we have been witnessing over the last 5 months the first first-hand documented genocide in human history. You would think that this documentation would surely mean that governments and the United Nations would take urgent measures to stop the genocide.
And they did! Yesterday, Biden and Harris called for an urgent 6-week ceasefire, last week the US airdropped humanitarian aid – 38,000 ready-to-eat meals to be exact – after more than 50,000 bombs have been also dropped by the US since October, and after veto-ing every single ceasefire resolution.

In this context, the work of Fanon and the principles of Marxism provide a lens through which we can understand the dynamics at play and reaffirm the legitimacy of armed resistance as a necessary response to existential threats. This perspective not only demands a more honest engagement with the realities of colonial violence but also a more honest engagement with the reality of the so-labeled “terrorist” groups who are defending their people and their land against a real terrorist imperialist colonial power that continues to alienate, dehumanize, and murder the colonized.

Do we, then, condemn armed resistance against the occupier?

The answer is, unquestionably, no.