Marx’s colonial writings were conjectural speculation, not worked-out theory

Evidence

In context, any attempt to portray Marx as an enthusiast of colonialism would logically have to portray him as an admirer of capitalism as well, which is what he wanted Germany to achieve, as quickly as possible. … In other words, from the historical point of view, the status of Marx’s writings on the possible consequences of British colonialism in India is not theoretical but conjectural and speculative. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 438

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to earlier Ahmad passages on Said’s Orientalism and the Marx debate; also resonates with postcolonial critiques of Marx’s India journalism generally. — connects to: Marx’s dispatches on India require contextual scholarship, not summary dismissal — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 1036; Marx’s Indian writings were conjectural, not theoretical

Related

• Marx’s Indian writings were conjectural, not theoretical (similarity 0.94)
• Marx’s dispatches on India require contextual scholarship, not summary dismissal (similarity 0.88)
• Marx’s picture of pre-colonial India rested on largely fanciful claims about its economy. (similarity 0.82)
• Marx’s pro-colonial remarks were of a piece with pro-capitalist progressivism. (similarity 0.81)
• Said distorted Marx’s writings in Orientalism (similarity 0.80)
• Marxist historians made theoretical Indian history possible beyond rulers and religions (similarity 0.79)
• Anti-imperialist historians of India contradict the portrayal of Marx as an Orientalist (similarity 0.79)
• Anti-Marx poststructuralist critique ignores how Indian historians read Marx (similarity 0.79)
• Classical Marxism treated capitalist colonialism as historically necessary for non-Western development (similarity 0.78)