PERSPECTIVES ON

COLONIALISM :
MARXIST
READING- 1

COLONIALISM:
BASIC ASPECTS (ESSAYS ON COLONIALISM)

- BIPAN CHANDRA
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION:

1. INTRODUCTION TO COLONIALISM: MEANING AND

DEFINITION
2. IMPORTANT WORKS ON COLONIALISM IN THE INTER-
WAR PERIOD
3. DIFFERENT VIEWS ON COLONIAL SOCIETIES BASED ON
4. DIFFERENCES MANIFESTED IN BIPAN CHANDRA’S
COMPARISON OF COLONIAL AND CAPITALIST
SOCIETIES.
PART 1: STUDY OF COLONIALISM
Colonialism
Meaning and definition:
● Colonialism is a holistic system of societal domination. Its modern category became widely
popularized by the resolutions of Communist International and their propaganda and
agitations. They widely reflected a Marxist analysis of the concept and reality of
Colonialism.
● Marx and Engels were the first to see the character and impact of colonialism on the
colonized society while studying Ireland under British domination.
● First detailed and coherent critique of colonialism: early Indian nationalists during the period
of 1870-1905.
IMPORTANT WORKS ON COLONIALISM IN THE
INTER-WAR PERIOD:

I. Comintern and its Journals

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

V. J.S. Furnivall provided- a major non-Marxist approach

VI. Kumar Ghoshal

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:
1st view
: a traditional society that,
by and large, retained the old
relations and modes of
production
2nd View
: a transitional society that
would have, on its own,
gradually developed into a
modern capitalist society
3rd View
: a society, dualistic in nature, in
which the modern capitalistic sector
co-existed with the traditional pre-
capitalist sector in a relatively static
balance because a) the modern
impulse was way too weak to
transform traditional ways in any
fundamental manner but at the same
time traditional forces were not that
strong to overthrow the significance
of modernity which was again also
backed by the ruling colonial
powers.
4th View
: a more anti-colonial duality
model (partial modernity/
arrested growth model)
which views colonial society
to be partially modernized.
The restrictive feudal and
semi-feudal features were not
uprooted but rather,
‘preserved,’ in the interest of
the colonial metropolitan,
which ultimately deformed
Indian Feudalism and its
evolvement.
● Colonialism didn’t preserve the pre-existing,
traditional pre-capitalist modes of production and
relations but rather transformed, restructured, and This effort to
rendered them integral parts of a new colonial change pre-
structure that ceased to become neither capitalist
(like Britain) nor precapitalist. colonial agriculture
● E.g.- the semi-feudal structure of agrarian to capitalist
relations was not a carryover from the Mughal
period but rather a result of massive colonial
agriculture and the
efforts to transform pre-colonial agriculture into different agrarian
●
capitalist agriculture.
The result was semi-feudal, semi-colonial
structure resulting
agriculture dominated by the colonial state, world due was perceived
capitalist market, landlords, moneylenders, etc.,
exhibiting many capitalist features such as
early by Karl Marx
bourgeois property relations, commercialization, in Das Kapital,
and others of capitalist agriculture in nature. vol3.
Colonialism ultimately transformed colonial societies to become more structured and
also integral to the world economic order, without subsequently leading to the
development of a capitalist economy and structure.

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

1. Complete but complex integration

2. Twin notions of unequal exchange
enmeshing of the colony with the world
and internal disarticulation
capitalist system

The articulation of its disarticulated parts through the world market and
In a subservient or subordinate position
imperialist hegemony, with the metropolitan economy.

The industrial products of the metropolitan economy are imported into

Not mere linkage or integration with global capitalism or the world
the colony and sold in the rural market thus closing the circuit of
market.
commodity circulation.

Fundamental aspects of a colony’s economy and society are determined

The colony thus experiences “a disarticulated generalized commodity
by the needs and interests of the metropolitan economy or capitalist
production.”
class
3. Drain of wealth or unilateral transfer of 4. Foreign political domination or the existence
social surplus to the metropolis through and role of the colonial state; which plays a
unrequited exports. crucial role in the colonial structure.

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.

Max’s rethinking of the role of colonialism in India was also

strongly influenced by this aspect.

Rephrased as the pattern of capital accumulation on a world

scale so that while the surplus is produced in the colony, it is
accumulated abroad.
READING: 4

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

• The conception of the colonial question was marked by sharp

divisions among leaders.
SECOND • The Second International (Stuttgart Congress).
TREND

• although inspired by Marxism, it was somewhat disparate and

witnessed local variations of radicalism.
THIRD TREND • The colonies of the Third world countries.
 THE MAINSTREAM TREND:
 Marx considered colonialism to be a result of capitalism’s expansionary thrust and which led to the destruction and ‘regeneration’ of the
decaying structures of the colonial structure by forcibly trying to link them with the capitalist market economy.
 He looked positively towards the armed struggles in the colonies arguing they’d play a crucial role in the context of the world revolution.
 Lenin’s understanding of imperialism together with his analysis of the colonial question in the Comintern in the 1920s was regarded as the
guiding principle for mainstream Marxism for several decades.
 According to him, the central question concerning the struggle of the colonial people was to place the question of bourgeois nationalism on
the same table as opposed to imperialism and class struggle in the colonies.
 Lenin adopted a relatively more positive attitude towards the movements launched by the bourgeois nationalists but at the same cautioned
the other oppressed masses who were lending their support to also maintain and strengthen their own class positions (guiding principle).
 M.N. Roy was of the contrasting opinion; he viewed nationalism through a highly negative lens and considered class struggle as the main
weapon for the consolidation of power in the colonies.
 After Lenin’s death, there was a sharp turn towards left extremism in the Comintern leading to the formulation that bourgeois nationalism
has lost its relevance and that the moment of socialist revolution to be accomplished through class struggle had arrived.
 But again after 1935, confronted with the dangers of the rise of fascism in Europe, the Comintern switched back to their initial position
commonly known as the UNITED FRONT STRATEGY.
 This trend was marked by an element of consistency.
 THE SECOND TREND:
 Second International’s perception of the colonial question was characterized by sharp divisions among the
leaders.
 The Stuttgart Congress of 1907 highlighted serious differences between Karl Kautsky and other German and
Dutch Social Democratic leaders like Eduard David, Eduard Bernstein, and Van Kol.
 David and the others argued that socialism had no contradiction with colonialism and rather unlike
colonialism it was socialism that was on a true civilizing mission, in regard to the upgradation and
improvement of the colonies.
 Lenin and Kautsky who were part of the Stuttgart congress vehemently opposed this idea of justifying
colonialism in the name of socialism.
 With the outbreak of WWI, the Second Int. dominated by a spirit of Eurocentrism, voted for war credits-
Lenin, Rosa, and James Conolly being the only exceptions who were uncompromising on their stand of
considering war as nothing but a product of imperialist rivalry and contradiction, costing lives of people of
all countries.
 THE THIRD TREND:
 The theoretical critiques of colonialism assumed another form in the Third world countries after the end
of World War II.
 Though all these notions of anti-colonialism have been broadly influenced by Marxism, a nationalist,
local or regional angularity is evident and has been manifested in the underlying ideologies of national
liberation movements in a number of countries.
 For example- the Maoist notion of anti-imperialist struggle (in the forms of the united front and the
mobilization of the peasant masses), Che Guevara’s “New Man” (focused on guerilla warfare) in Latin
America, African Socialism, the notion of “negritude” which expresses under the Marxist influence an
‘African Identity’, etc. to name a few.
 While drawing inspiration from the Marxists, in their exposure and critique of colonialism, these
examples highlighted how the culture of violence became an instrument of colonial power and control.
 CONCLUSION
◦  Marxism sees colonialism as a form of capitalism, imposing exploitation and social variation. Marx
believed that working within the capitalist world system, the uneven development of colonialism is
closely related.
◦ Karl Marx saw colonialism as a way of capturing the raw materials of the colony.
◦ He views colonialism as a major moment in the historical process of primitive accumulation and
therefore as a precondition for the domination of the capitalist mode of production.
◦ Karl Marx influenced colonialism both post-colonialism and anti-colonialism.
◦ Thus, colonialism is an intricate and extremely complex process that still needs a lot of research and
study into its nature and impact on the entire world as a whole. I hope this presentation and discussion
today was concise, articulated, and helped in the better understanding of the Marxist conception of
colonialism.
THANKS FOR
WATCHING
PRESENTATION BY- MISS
DEBANCHITA KASHYAP

ROLL NO: 2022/271

COURSE: POLITICAL SCIENCE

(BA HONS)

SECTION: A

CORE PAPER: COLONIALISM

AND NATIONALISM IN INDIA.