Gaza 2012. Photo by Magne Hagesæter, used under CC license 2.0.

Debate on settler colonialism: Part 4

In another contribution to a debate on how we think about settler colonialism, Steve Leigh offers a review of Sai Englert’s book on the topic. 

This was first published on Leigh’s blog, ‘A Marxist View of Current Events.’

“Capitalism, racism and dispossession…, emerged within, through and/or in relation to settler colonial expansion and domination.”

Settler Colonialism has been widely debated on the Left. One interpretation of it sees all the “settlers” in any country founded on settler-colonialism as a continuing reactionary bloc with an interest in maintaining the oppressive society. On the other hand, dogmatic Marxists reject it altogether, claiming instead to stick to original Marxism which stresses proletarian agency with little regard to the concrete economic and social structure. This debate was carried out by rs21 in Britain. [See the 2-part interview with Englert, a critique by Jordan Humphreys, and a response by Englert.]

Sai Englert in this useful introduction comes out on the former side. The author takes a broad view of his topic. He includes states that replaced the native societies with European settlement and massively reduced or eliminated the proportion of the native population such as the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, and Canada. He also includes colonial states with native majorities or near majorities, such as South Africa, Rhodesia and Algeria. The former states rely on expulsion and replacement of the natives with new settlers. They aim at land theft. The latter engage in land theft, but also rely on keeping the natives as an exploitable labor force. While leaning to either elimination of natives on one hand or exploitation of them on the other there is usually a combination between the two. Often a project that started with exploitation ends up with elimination.

Franchise Colonialism vs. Settler Colonialism

In franchise colonialism, officials rotate in and out and maintain their connection to the mother country. In settler colonialism, the settlers form their own society.

The author distinguishes settler colonialism from ‘franchise colonialism’ which does not aim at creating an ongoing European settler society in the colony. In franchise colonialism, officials rotate in and out and maintain their connection to the mother country. In settler colonialism, the settlers form their own society. They develop interests that may conflict with the mother country. In that case, rebellions reinforce reactionary, oppressive colonial structures. (Pg.74) (Pg.76) For example, the U.S. War of Independence was fought in part over the British restriction on Americans seizing more Native land. The conflict between settlers and natives is the main conflict:

the primary, structuring conflict of any settler colonial formation is not with the colonial power, but with the Indigenous people who settlers (aim to) dispossess, exploit and or eliminate.(p7)

Englert stresses, as Marx did, the importance of colonialism in laying the basis for capitalism. He says settler colonialism is :

Not a discrete, self-contained structure of domination, but one that interacts with- and is co-constituent of-key processes of domination that continue to define the present moment, both in and beyond settle colonial regimes. Capitalism, racism and dispossession…, emerged within, through and/or in relation to settler colonial expansion and domination. (p4)

settlement was a key element in the transition to capitalism (p28)

European colonialism was unique

Europe destroyed previous modes of production. By doing so, they laid the basis for capitalism.

Englert explains the difference between European colonialism and previous forms:

If previous empires had built their wealth and power on the extraction of taxes from newly conquered peoples, often dependent on existing ruling classes, European colonialism demarcated itself in this period by the large-scale plunder of Indigenous wealth and resources, the mass enslavement of both Indigenous and African labor, and the genocide they unleashed on the Indigenous population of the Americas — all for the enrichment of the metropole and the settler societies. (p34)

Instead of exploiting the previous modes of production, the merchant capitalists and merchant capitalist influenced Feudalists of Europe destroyed previous modes of production. By doing so, they laid the basis for capitalism. As Marx put it in Capital:

…the discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalized the rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production.

The author notes that territorial colonies in the New World laid the basis for the model of the territorial capitalist nation state in Europe (p40).

The Colonists tried to enslave and exploit the native populations. The success of this attempt varied from place to place. In North America, Native people were able to escape. This led to the imposition of African slave labor as the basis of the Southern colonial and then U.S. economy.

There is another direct connection of colonial settlement and the creation of capitalism in Europe. Marx’s “so-called primitive accumulation” that was the basis of capitalism relied on the expulsion of peasants from their land in Europe. They became the basis of the new working class. Those that could not be accommodated as workers in the growing capitalist industries could become settlers in European colonies:

Deporting the poor (and the rebellious) to the colonies would serve the double purpose: lessen social tensions at home and strengthen settlement abroad. (p52)

Colonial empires were the basis of European empires across the world:

The accumulation of wealth in the Americas, based on the murder, enslavement and dispossession of Indigenous and African peoples, kick-started the rise of European empires on a world stage. (p51)

Racism as the product of colonialism

Too often anti-racists in the U.S. focus almost exclusively on racism as a justification for slavery in the U.S. 

Englert also attributes the rise of racism internationally to the colonial project:

…racism is best understood as the ideological justification for the global process of accumulation, based on the dispossession of the colonized land across the (settler) colonial world and the exploitation, enslavement and/or elimination of the colonized. (p119)

The author’s stress on the international development of racism is important. Too often anti-racists in the U.S. focus almost exclusively on racism as a justification for slavery in the U.S.

He calls for liberation from racist settler-colonialism rather than “anti-racist” inclusion of racially oppressed people in the colonial structure:

“the language of anti-racism in isolation from a broader acknowledgement of the colonial relationship between settlers and Indigenous peoples, risks normalizing the settler-colonial state, by demanding their greater inclusion of Indigenous people within it –instead of highlighting their continued struggle for liberation from it” (pg. 123)

Sai Englert makes a fascinating case for understanding the deep connection of capitalism and colonialism, especially settler colonialism. He argues clearly for the incorporation of Indigenous struggles in the struggle against capitalism. His detailed critique of Israel and South Africa as colonial settler states is also important.

His presentation is a good corrective to an account of the transition of Feudalism to Capitalism which only focuses on class relations in the English countryside. This account is known as Political Marxism.

Beyond this, the author brings in a wide range of issues that are important to consider. He critiques different analyses by different authors of settler-colonialism which is quite useful. (Pg.16)

He acknowledges differences in the balance of exploitation and expulsion/extermination between different settler colonial states. He notes differences in the stability of various regimes.

Problems with Englert’s analysis

A major problem with the author’s analysis is that he lumps all societies that started as settler colonial entities together as one reactionary bloc with “settlers” maintaining their historically oppressive role.

“ ..the material benefits available to settler workers –crucially Indigenous land –have tended ..to be too great to make progressive challenges effective.” ( Pg 174)

He gives examples across history that imply that the fundamental structure of colonial settler states remains the same from formation to the present. He implies that in all cases the major dynamic in these states remains settler oppression and exploitation/expulsion of the Indigenous.

What can bring liberation?

“The working classes in these countries have the potential power and an economic interest in overthrowing the capitalist system which lives off their labor.”

This leads to his prescription for liberation. For Englert, the only basis of liberation of all these states must be the struggle of Indigenous people:

“The agency to end colonial rule lies…firmly in the hands of Indigenous people and their liberation movements.” ( Pg.200)

In fact, many of these countries have become modern capitalist states. The U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand for example are capitalist societies with capital accumulation based on the exploitation of the multi-racial/multi-ethnic/multi-gendered working class. Capital accumulation now comes from extracting surplus value from the working class, not primarily from continued land theft from the Indigenous. The working classes in these countries have the potential power and an economic interest in overthrowing the capitalist system which lives off their labor.

Of course, the oppression of Indigenous people is a disgusting ongoing issue in all these countries. The working class can only unite enough to take power from the capitalist class if it fights against the oppression of all oppressed groups including the Indigenous. Lenin laid this out clearly over 100 years ago in What Is To Be Done. One example of this is the need for the revolutionary movement to support Land Back.

However, in all these countries and indeed almost every country in the world, the anti-capitalist transformation will be started by the seizure of power by the working class, not just liberation of the Indigenous, which is impossible without connection to a larger movement. For Indigenous Liberation and working-class revolution to be successful, they must be part of the same process.

Englert’s single-minded focus on settlers vs. the Indigenous was more appropriate for the beginning of capitalism. A large part of primitive accumulation was based on the theft of Indigenous land and the enslavement of Indigenous people.

The early settler colonial societies were an offshoot of merchant capitalism. The mother country did not implant a modern capitalist society in the colonies. In the pre-U.S. colonies in 1776 for example most people in the North were small scale subsistence or commercial farmers. Many of the workers in the cities were independent artisans not wage workers. An industrial working class was in formation, but not fully formed.

The settlers who committed genocide against Native Americans were not primarily members of the proletariat. To tar the modern working class in the U.S., Australia, Canada and New Zealand as mere reactionary descendants of the original settlers is way off the mark. It ignores historical transformation.

Today, the primary accumulation of the rich no longer comes from land theft of the Indigenous. The majority of the descendants of the original settlers are now an exploited working class with an interest in overthrowing capitalism which would include support for Indigenous Liberation. Many of the Indigenous have also been incorporated into the modern working class.

Though Englert’s current analysis is wrong for most countries, it still applies to Israel and South Africa under Apartheid if not after. Israel is clearly still a colonial settler state in the mold described by the author. The fundamental conflict is still between Zionism and the Palestinians.

The Jewish working-class in Israel benefits from the international subsidies from imperialism and Zionism. Israeli society is engaged in the ongoing expulsion of Palestinians, the seizure of Palestinian land and the exclusion of Palestinians from Palestine, the denial of the Right of Return. The de-Zionization of Israel while world capitalism continues would result in a major decrease in Israeli living standards. This structural reality is the basis of the extreme right-wing politics of Israel.

Throughout the book, Englert inaccurately lumps Israel in with all societies that started out as settler-colonial (Pg.176). He uses the exception to prove the rule. He makes his case against all societies that started as settler-colonial on the basis of one of the few that retains the settler-colonial structure.

Is Indigenous liberation the basis of anti-capitalism?

“Instead of the overthrow of capitalism being based primarily on Indigenous liberation, it needs to based on the class that creates the wealth of capitalism, is exploited by capitalism and has the interest in overthrowing it: the international working-class!”

This inaccuracy lays the basis of his incorrect political strategy of relying on Indigenous liberation as the main lever for the overthrow of capitalism. The author tries to back up this strategy by noting that there are still 350 million Indigenous people in 70 countries in the world (Pg. 211). In fact, this severely undercuts his argument. The Indigenous population of the world is less than 5% of the world population. Further, if only 70 countries have Indigenous populations, what is the source of transformation in the other 100+ countries? This weakness results in Englert’s lack of specificity in political strategy.

Instead of the overthrow of capitalism being based primarily on Indigenous liberation, it needs to based on the class that creates the wealth of capitalism, is exploited by capitalism and has the interest in overthrowing it: the international working-class! The working class is the majority or near majority in nearly every country in the world and has the social and economic power to seize the wealth and use it for the good of humanity. As noted, a part of this this transformation will be Indigenous Liberation, since as Marx said “A people that oppresses another cannot itself be free”.

While Englert’s analysis and strategy about contemporary capitalism is wrong, his stress on the colonialism in the origins of capitalism is very useful. His analysis reinforces Marx’s description of the “rosy dawn” of capitalism even though he inaccurately criticizes Marx (Pg.202) making straw man arguments.

His analysis of settler-colonialism is also a useful corrective against those Marxists who want to impose Marx’s view of 19th century English capitalism on all capitalist societies. In fact, Historical Materialism requires an empirical analysis of societies. Theory is based on generalization from reality, not shoe-horning reality into previously existing rigid theory. Settler colonial theory is still very useful in analyzing Israel today.

Settler colonial theory when accurately used can be a contribution to Marxism. This book is an important basis for assessing that contribution.