Perspective of Colonialism
Perspective of Colonialism
Perspective of Colonialism
COLONIALISM :
MARXIST
READING- 1
COLONIALISM:
BASIC ASPECTS (ESSAYS ON COLONIALISM)
- BIPAN CHANDRA
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION:
II. Owen Latimore, Keith Michell, Joseph Barnes – in journals Far eastern Quarterly, Amerasia, and associated with
the Inst. Of Pacific Affairs in New York
III. Leland Jenks at Yale promoted the study of American Imperialism in Latin America
IV. Leonard Wolfe- important insights into the study of African colonialism
VII. K.T. Shah, C.N. Vakil, Bal Krishna, Wadia, and Merchant (National economists in India) – provided empirical and
theoretical support to the early nationalist approach
VIII. R. Palme Dutt (in India Today) and A.R. Desai (in Social Background of Indian Nationalism) provided- Most
significant and structured contribution.
DEVELOPMENTS ● A surprising omission: the complete ignorance, neglect, and suppression of the
subject of colonialism in the universities of France and Britain and a defense of
IN THE STUDY OF the same (colonial record).
● Academics outside the socialist countries were largely quiet on the subject during
COLONIALISM the first two decades after 1945.
● Lone exceptions: B.N. Ganguly and G. Balandier (plus, Md Hussain’s work on
Egypt).
● Early dependency theorists: Raul Prebisch provided tangential elaborations of
different aspects of colonialism.
● In the USA, McCarthy’s witch-hunting campaign prevented the development of
the American study of colonialism and he used “colonialism” as a litmus test to
evict communist intellectuals in the universities and research institutes.
● The results were - driving the likes of Owen Lattimore, Daniel Thorner, and
Lawrence Rosinger out of their jobs, and the virtual closing down of the IPA.
● Cuban Revolution, Vietnamese national liberation wars, and powerful stirrings in
Latin America led to an explosion of well-researched articles of colonialism post-
1965.
● A. Gunder Frank – was the first to make a massive breakthrough, followed by C.
Furtado, and Theodore Santos (centrist, left-wing dependency economists from
Latin America) and later by Samir Amin and other world system analysts led by
ANDRE GUNDER FRANK
Wallenstein (important mention: Hamza Alavi).
·
DIFFERENT VIEWS ON COLONIAL SOCIETIES:
The deficiencies manifested in the capitalist development were then ascribed to initial
poverty and to the density of geographical, social, economic, demographic, and cultural
conditions in the colonies which colonialism found difficult to penetrate and overcome.
It was believed by Marxists (Marx and Engels) and classical economists like Raja Ram
Mohan Roy that the colonizing capitalist society would reproduce its capitalist character in
the colony. As put in the Communist Manifesto, capitalism is a world system that compels
all nations to adopt the elitist or bourgeois method of production even in the pain of
extinction, in short, to become bourgeois themselves. It strives to create a world after its
image, forcefully and otherwise.
· 1. Marx mentioned the universal characteristics of capitalism and how it could never be confined to only one nation or area; it will
encapsulate, transform and penetrate the world to establish itself as a world system.
· 2. But what Marx essentially didn’t mention was the fact that colonies do not become capitalist in the same way metropoles do.
· 3. Marx observes that it’s not true that imperialism makes no effort to transform and develop colonies in a capitalist direction, but
because it does so under colonial conditions, these regions became underdeveloped (not conducive to development but rather regressive) and
got transformed into colonial societies; instead of splitting images of the colonial metropolises.
· 4. . What imperialism does is introduce capitalism, capitalist forms of production, and property relations but not capitalist development.
· 5. The colonies were integrated into the world capitalist system without being able to enjoy its basic benefits like the accumulation of
profits in the hands of the natives and undergoing the industrial revolution.
· 6. Capitalism whose superiority lay in its capacity to transform the productive forces wasn’t implemented in its truer sense in the
colonies because these societies didn’t see any constant revolutionizing of their productive forces and any breakthroughs in industry and
agriculture.
· 7. . Colonial societies were marked by the constant growth of semi-feudalism and stagnation in productivity.
Thus, colonialism was not an advanced stage of social development; rather it was its opposite, negative, and underdeveloped side.
IS COLONIALISM A DISTINCT MODE OF PRODUCTION?
Whether colonialism represents a distinct mode of production is highly debated. One powerful case for
seeing colonialism as a distinct mode of production has been made by Hamza Alavi.
• He describes colonialism as Colonial Capitalism that is, “a capitalist mode of production that has a
specifically colonial structure.”
• The two specific features according to him are: “the internal disarticulation and external integration of
the rural economy,” and the realization or the accumulation of the “extended reproduction of capital”
not in the colony but “in the imperialist metropolis.”
In the view of Bipan Chandra however, colonialism doesn’t represent or constitute a mode of production;
it’s a social formation in which several modes of production, relations of production, and forms of
exploitation, including the capitalist mode of production coexist. And this coexistence is not necessarily
marked by peaceful or non-antagonistic character, but by feudalism, semi-feudalism, bondage, slavery,
etc. And all these different modes are subordinated to the metropolitan capital.
• Its basic feature is the appropriation of social surplus produced in the colony by varied modes of
production.
IMPORTANT FEATURES OF COLONIALISM
The articulation of its disarticulated parts through the world market and
In a subservient or subordinate position
imperialist hegemony, with the metropolitan economy.
This aspect was the heart of the early Indian nationalists’ This was given a full place in their analysis by the Marxists;
critique of colonialism and their explanation of while the 19th-century Indian nationalists recognized only after
underdevelopment and poverty in India. the most bitter political experience.
IMPERIALISM AND
COLONIALISM:
TOWARDS A POSTCOLONIAL UNDERSTANDING
- SOBHANLAL DATTA
GUPTA
IMPERIALISM AND COLONIALISM
◦Even though, it is customary to trace the theoretical criticisms of colonialism to the Marxist tradition, before the rise of
Marxism there were two other currents – humanitarian and economic, which also provided their limitations,
notwithstanding their criticisms of colonialism.
The most influential theoretic criticism of colonialism is found in the Marxist tradition which has been characterized
by multiple trends:
The Mainstream- Marx followed by Lenin, and the most orthodox theorization of the colonial question was provided
by the Communist Int. (Comintern).
The Second trend- is associated with the viewpoint of Second International (early years of the 20 th century during the
first World War).
The Third trend- although inspired by Marxism, it was somewhat disparate and witnessed local variations of
radicalism in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, which were not always guided by the established Marxist orthodoxy.
An overview of these perspectives would indicate the impact of Marxism on the understanding of the colonial question
for a very long time.
• Most orthodox theorization of the colonial question.
MAINSTREA • Marx and Lenin.
M
SECTION: A