Search results

In 'Colonial Capitalism and the Dilemmas of Liberalism', Onar Ulas Ince combines an analysis of political economy with normative political theory to examine the formative impact of colonial economic relations on the historical development of liberal thought in Britain. Focusing on the centrality of liberal economic principles to Britain's self-image as a peaceful commercial society, Ince investigates some of the key historical moments in which these principles were thrown into question by the processes of forcible expropriation and exploitation that typified the British imperial economy as a whole.

The literature on "racial capitalism" exhibits a tension between the term's evocative power and its conceptual imprecision. This article navigates this tension by developing the mid-level concept of "capitalist racialization," which specifies the role of capitalist abstractions in the construction of racial hierarchies. I elaborate this notion around the racialization of Chinese migration in nineteenth-century Southeast Asia. I focalize the figure of the "Chinese colonist" as an index of the capitalist standards by which British observers ordered colonial populations in their reflections on imperial political economy. I argue that the racial stereotype of "the Chinese" as commercial, industrious, and "colonizing" people emerged from the subsumption of colonial land and labor under capital. Their "colonizing" capacity rendered Chinese migrants simultaneously an economic asset to the British Empire and a potential threat to the white world order. "Capitalist racialization" therefore highlights new inroads into the entwined histories of capitalism, racism, and empire.

This article contributes to theorising colonialism and capitalism within the same analytic frame through a critical engagement with the uses of colonial history in new institutional economics (NIE). The 'colonial turn' in NIE holds significant diagnostic value because although it incorporates colonialism into its account of the 'great divergence', it maintains a liberal conception of capitalism predicated on private property, competitive markets, and the rule of law. It is argued that NIE achieves this effect by admitting colonialism into its history of capitalism while excluding it from its theory of capitalism. By filtering colonialism through the dichotomy between 'inclusive' and 'extractive' institutions, NIE upholds the categorical association of capitalist growth with inclusive institutions. Drawing on critical theories of political economy, the article shows the limits of the NIE framework by identifying forms of colonial capitalism that do not resolve into a stylised opposition between inclusion and extraction. Colonial slavery, commercial imperialism, and settler colonialism strain the inclusive/extractive binary by highlighting (1) the interdependence of inclusive and extractive institutions in imperial networks accumulation, and (2) the violent expropriations at the origins of inclusive institutions, above all private property. Proposing to view NIE's critique of colonialism as a 'liberal critique of capitalist unevenness', the article concludes on broader questions about inclusion and exclusion under 'actually existing capitalism'.

Recent literature on racial capitalism has overwhelmingly focused on the Atlantic settler-slave formation, sidelining the history of European imperialism in Asia. This article addresses this blind spot by recovering the aborted project of British settler colonialism in India through the writings of its most prominent advocate, John Crawfurd. It is argued that Crawfurd's vision of a liberal empire in India rejected slavery and indigenous dispossession yet remained deeply racialized in its conception of capital, labor, and value. Crawfurd elaborated a "capital theory of race," which derived racial categories from a civilizational spectrum keyed to the capitalist organization of production. His proposals accordingly revamped the conventional terms of colonization by representing India as overstocked with labor but vacant of capital and skill that only European settlers could provide. The article concludes with the broader implications of a transimperial analytic framework for writing connected histories of racial capitalism and settler colonialism.

Recent scholarship has claimed Adam Smith's frontal attack on the mercantile system as a precocious expression of liberal anti-imperialism. This paper argues that settler colonialism in North America represented an important exception and limit to Smith's anti-imperial commitments. Smith spared agrarian settler colonies from his invective against other imperial practices like chattel slavery and trade monopolies because of the colonies' evidentiary significance for his "system of natural liberty." Smith's embrace of settler colonies involved him in an ideological conundrum insofar as the prosperity of these settlements rested on imperial expansion and seizure of land from the indigenous peoples. Smith navigated this problem by, first, predicating colonial "injustice" on conquest, slavery, and destruction, and second, describing American land as res nullius. Together, these conceptual definitions made it possible to imagine settler colonies as originating in nonviolent acts of "occupation without conquest" and embodying "commerce without empire."

Eighteenth-century Enlightenment thought has recently been reclaimed as arobust, albeit short-lived, cosmopolitan critique of European imperialism. Thisessay complicates this interpretation through a study of David Hume's reflectionson commerce, empire, and slavery. I argue that while Hume condemned thecolonial system of monopoly, war, and conquest, his strictures against empiredid not extend to colonial slavery in the Atlantic. This was because colonialslavery represented a manifestly uncivilinstitution when judged by enlightened metropolitan sensibilities, yet also adecisively commercial institutionpivotal to the eighteenth-century global economy. Confronted by the paradoxical"commercial incivility" of modern slavery, Hume opted for disavowing the linkbetween slavery and commerce, and confined his criticism of slavery to itsancient, feudal, and Asiatic incarnations. I contend that Hume's disavowal ofthe commercial barbarism of the Atlantic economy is part of a broaderideological effort to separate the idea of commerce from its imperial originsand posit it as the liberal antithesis of empire. The implications of analysis,I conclude, go beyond the eighteenth-century debates over commerce and empire,and more generally pertain to the contradictory entwinement of liberalism andcapitalism.

This essay attempts to elaborate a political theory of capital's violence. Recent analyses have adopted Karl Marx's notion of the "primitive accumulation of capital" for investigating the forcible methods by which the conditions of capital accumulation are reproduced in the present. I argue that the current scholarship is limited by a certain functionalism in its theorization of ongoing primitive accumulation. The analytic function accorded to primitive accumulation, I contend, can be better performed by the concepts of "capital-positing violence" and "capital-preserving violence." In coining these new concepts, I first refine the conceptual core of primitive accumulation as the coercive capitalization of social relations of reproduction, which falls into sharpest relief in the violent history of colonial capitalism. I then elucidate this conceptual core with reference to Carl Schmitt's account of European colonial expansion and Walter Benjamin's reflections on law-making and law-preserving violence. The resultant concepts of capital-positing and capital-preserving violence, I conclude, can illuminate both the historical and the quotidian operations of the politico-juridical force that has been constitutive of capitalism down to our present moment.