The Modern Theory of Colonization

If desire is immanent to capitalism and capitalism is immanent to colonialism, it follows that desire is immanent to colonialism as well. If we consider what some of the basic drivers were for European colonialism, they come down to very basic and rudimentary things such as the desire for commodities and goods such as coffee, salt, spices, tea, as well as exotic women and getting away from one’s wife. Europeans first and foremost underwent the basic psychological impetus or the libidinal impetus to open up markets around the world and to access commodities, goods, and people. For instance, the infamous “Opium Wars” in China waged by the British were first and foremost aimed at opening the Chinese market after the Chinese were refusing to trade with the British. In Jamaica for instance, a case which we have documented in this blog, British plantation owners all kept at least one African woman alongside their British wives. Korean “Comfort Women” also come to mind when assessing why the Japanese pursued such a ruthless campaign of expansion in East Asia during the early 20^th century.

Marx also had an interesting way of defining the term “capital.” What Marx inferred was that capital “is not a thing, but a social relation between persons which is mediated through things.” There is control over “the means of production and subsistence” on one hand, and there is the worker on the other hand. In turn, the relations or the relationship between the two produces capital. And the relations or the relationship between the two are based first and foremost on the “exploitation of, and domination over, the worker.” That is essentially how capital is produced, namely, through social relations or a social relationship of this kind. And over the course of time, these social relations solidified themselves to the point where “the mass of mankind expropriated itself in honor of the ‘accumulation of capital.’” From this point forward, all social relations would be based on capital on one hand, and wage labor on the other hand. 

And in order for the exploitation and domination over the worker to persist, what happens is that “the social dependence of the worker on the capitalist, which is indispensable, is secured.” Hence, when we come to the issue of colonization, we come to the issue of “Dependence Theory.” Colonization occurs either because colonized peoples are inherently backward and are thus vulnerable to domination and exploitation through some fault of their own, or because the colonizer establishes social relations based on dependence through all the means which are at their disposal. Independence of the colonies or independence of the wage laborer is the worst thing that can happen to capital, given that through the assertion of independence, what is revealed is the true character and nature of the social relations between capital and labor, namely, the dependence of the capital on the colonies and on labor. To borrow from Marx: “Horror of horrors! The excellent capitalist has imported bodily from Europe, with his own good money, his own competitors! The end of the world has come!”

And while the wage worker in Europe “is by a law of nature dependent on the capitalist” to borrow from Marx, in the colonies, a sense of dependence on the European capitalist “must be created by artificial means.” While labor is always in excess in the West itself because of immigration, the same does not hold in the colonies themselves. The solution? Bring labor from Europe itself into the colonies. Have Europeans expand into the colonies even further. To borrow from Marx: “This is the great secret of ‘systematic colonization.’” In a sense, the wage worker in the colonies is setting the grounds for his or her own “substitute” to borrow from Marx, while in Europe itself as a result of immigration, labor is always replaceable. The balance between supply and demand of labor can always be “corrected” in both Europe and the colonies by the capitalist. Hence, the exploitative and domineering nature of the social relations between capital and labor and in essence, the “expropriation of the worker” at the hands of capital.