Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Universityof Birmingham
Summary. - - The article provides a comparative and analytical discussion of the conceptions
about colonialism and "backward" countries elaborated by classical political economists, and
Marx and Engels. It shows that, contrary to the consistently optimistic view of classical political
economy, Marx and Engels changed their position from a positive assessment of colonialism
toward a more pessimistic view after 1860. Their analyses of Latin American nations, however,
follow a different pattern throughout. The reason for that is sought in the influence of the
Hegelian notion of "'peoples without history" and in the presence of a form of "Eurocentrism" in
their thought. The article concludes that, in spite of important differences, Marx and Engels
share some basic premises with the 19th century's mentality present in Hegel and classical
political economy.
1. I N T R O D U C T I O N
This article is both an attempt critically to
ascertain the views of classical political economy
and Marx on the questions of colonialism and
"backward" nations, and an exploration of their
relationship. This entails an elucidation of their
ideas to establish the differences and similarities
which stem from their respective theoretical
views. Although Marx developed his analysis of
the capitalist mode of production as a critique of
classical political economy, he started from many
premises first elaborated within that tradition
(e.g., the labor theory of value). But the relationship between Marx and the classical economists is
more complex than it first appears because after
1858 it was mediated by Marx's rereading of
Hegel's Logic. n In effect, Marx's critique of
political economy used, and was very much
influenced by, Hegelian categories and distinctions (e.g., the distinction between phenomenal
forms and inner relations which Marx transposed
into the spheres of the market and of production
respectively).
I argue that in the more specific analyses of
colonialism and "backward nations," there are
similar complexities, continuities and discontinuities between the two traditions, which are
necessary to elucidate. This is a much less
explored, and yet highly relevant area of the
relationships between Marx and the political
economists. It will be shown that here, too,
Hegel plays an important, if often unacknowledged, role. The discussion focuses first on
classical political economy and Marx's theoretical
views on colonialism in order to show that,
contrary to the consistently optimistic view of the
former which emphasizes the civilizing mission of
capitalist expansion and colonialism throughout
the world, Marx and Engels changed their
position after 1860. They moved from a positive
assessment of colonialism (for instance, in the
case of India) toward a more pessimistic and
critical view (for instance, their views on Ireland).
This crucial change of perspective, however, is
further discussed in the context of Marx and
Engels's references to Latin American nations
which seem to follow a different pattern. Marx
and Engels did not extend to Latin America the
new thoughts they developed on Ireland and
Asia after 1860, and abstained from any class
analysis of its social and political processes. The
reason for this is discovered not so much in the
inspiration coming from classical political economy as in the influence of the Hegelian notion
of "peoples without history." There are, however, alternative analyses of this influence which
*I wish to thank the reviewers of the first version of this
article for their detailed and helpful comments. They
have certainly contributed to making this final version
an altogether better piece, although ! suspect they may
still disagree with its conclusions.
225
226
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
227
228
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
229
3. MARX A N D ENGELS ON
COLONIALISM
2~
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
231
232
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
233
division of labour, a division suited to the requirements of the chief centres of modern industry
springs up, and converts one part of the globe into a
chiefly agricultural field of production, for supplying the other part which remains a chiefly
industrial field.57
By coupling the results of this new international
division of labor to the operation of the law of
value Marx is able to postulate the possibility of
unequal exchange among nations and, more
specifically, the exploitation of agricultural
nations. In principle, because profit and surplus
value are not necessarily identical, it follows that
individual capitalists as well as nations may trade
with each other, even on an expanding scale,
without necessarily gaining in equal degrees. This
means that "one of the nations may continually
appropriate for itself a part of the surplus labour
of the other, ''58 When this is the result of
international differences in the technological
base and the productivity of labor, Marx goes so
far as to treat this process of unequal exchange as
a form of exploitation:
The relationship between labour days of different
countries may be similar to that existing between
skilled, complex labour and unskilled, simple
labour within a country, in this case the richer
country exploits the poorer one, even where the
latter gains by the exchange . . .59
Agricultural countries tend to be exploited in this
way because in international exchange they are
forced "to sell their product below its value."
Whereas with respect to industrial goods, the
developed nation produces greater value than the
backward nation, despite the fact that individual
commodities are cheaper, the contrary happens
with agricultural products. "The product of the
more backward nation is cheaper than that of the
capitalistically developed n a t i o n . . , and yet the
product of the developed nation appears to be
produced by much less (annual) labour than that
of the backward one. ''e~ Insofar as the modern
theories of unequal exchange share the view that
unequal exchange entails a transfer of value from
underdeveloped countries which sell their products below their value to developed countries
which sell their products above their value - - and
I believe that in spite of their many differences
and use of different theoretical paradigms the
Economic Commission for Latin America and
Marxist authors like Emmanuel and Amin agree
on that - - they are indebted to Marx's work. An
important difference between all of them and
Marx, however, is that his analysis did not
necessarily entail the permanent underdevelopment of the backward nations.
Both Scaron and Mori suggest that Marx's
234
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
LATIN A M E R I C A
A review of Marx and Engels's writings on
Latin America immediately shows the striking
absence of any consideration of its possible
industrial future and of any class analysis which
goes beyond some isolated remarks. The newly
independent Latin American nations are not
treated as specific entities, worth investigating in
themselves. The bulk of the writings on Latin
5. THE I N F L U E N C E O F C L A S S I C A L
POLITICAL ECONOMY AND HEGEL
Given the importance which Marx and Engels
conceded to the work of classical political economists, it is obviously very interesting to compare the way in which these political economists
dealt with "backward" nations. Let us first
consider the similarities. At different points in
time there are similarities between Marx and
Engels and the classical political economists in
their belief that capitalism is a necessary stage for
all countries, their dislike of protectionism, and
their positive evaluation of the civilizing mission
of colonialism. There are also many disquieting
points of contact between Marx and Engels's
abusive remarks and the prejudices of the classical political economists: Ricardo's comments on
the lazy Irish are matched by Engels's remark
about the lazy Mexicans, whom Marx, in his
turn, labels as "the last of men." James Mill's
description of the moral character of Indians and
Chinese as tainted with the vices of falsity and
235
2~
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
considered to be "obviously unintelligent individuals with little capacity for education." "Their
inferiority in all respects, even in stature, can be
seen in every particular," so that, for instance, in
Paraguay "a clergyman used to ring a bell at
midnight to remind them to perform their matrimonial duties, for it would otherwise never have
occurred to them to do so." The natives are
compared to "unenlightened children, living
from one day to the next, and untouched by
higher thoughts or aspirations"; they inhabit a
world where events "are but an echo of the Old
World and the expression of an alien life. ''69
The Latin American Creoles descended from
the Spanish conquerors did not fare any better in
Hegel's description. Their character was linked
to that of the Spanish:
Living far away from the mother country on which
they depended, they had more scope to indulge
their arbitrary inclinations . . . The noble and
magnanimous aspects of the Spanish character did
not accompany them to America. The Creoles, who
are descended from the Spanish immigrants, lived
on in the presumptuous ways they had inherited,
and behaved in an arrogant manner towards the
natives.7o
Marx seemed to have closely followed these
Hegelian views when comparing the Mexicans
with the Spaniards:
the Spaniards are completely degenerated. But in
the presence of a Mexican. a degenerated Spaniard
constitutes an ideal. They have all the vices,
arrogance, thuggery and quixotism of the Spaniards
to the third degree, but by no means all the solid
things that they possess.7~
Just as in the case of classical political economy,
however, these abusive remarks do not seem to
be the central issue, and in any case, as 1 said
above, Marx and Engels adopted more cautious
language after 1860. Still, the issues involved in
Hegel's description of South America are much
more complex than the appearances suggest.
What for classical political economists was a
mere pragmatic argument about the flaws of
character and the necessary dependence of nonEuropean nations, in Hegel became an important
distinction which underpinned his philosophy of
history. This is the other aspect of his thought
which is relevant in our discussion.
In his Lectures on the Philosophy of World
History, Hegel distinguished between worldhistorical peoples, which were culturally developed, capable of building a strong state and thus
of contributing to the progress of world history,
and peoples without history, which were spiritually weak, unable to build a strong state, and
thus having no civilizing mission to carry out in
237
238
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
7. CONCLUSION
Is there a common thread between the positions of classical political economy, Marx and
Hegel? I certainly do not want to collapse the
thought of these authors into a single view on
progress, colonialism and backward societies. I
have already marked some important differences
239
240
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
societies. The historical process could be synthesized to an antagonism between historical reason
and "backwardness." Backward countries or
nations have, of course, the prospect of development and progress, but only through the agency
of, following the path of, and insofar as they do
not interfere with, the main E u r o p e a n historical
agents and their needs.
True, none of the political economists or Hegel
showed the degree of awareness of colonialism,
nor c o n d e m n e d its cruelty and arbitrariness as
forcefully as did Marx and Engels, nor did they
have any inkling of the possibility that colonialism might hinder the development of colonies, an
idea which Marx and Engels developed after
1860. But on the whole, even when Marx and
Engels advocated the independence and selfg o v e r n m e n t of some colonies, their point of
NOTES
1. The importance of the Hegelian influence was
acknowledged by Marx himself in a letter to Engels:
"For instance, I have overthrown the whole doctrine of
profit as it has existed up to now. The fact that by mere
accident I again glanced through Hegel's Logic... has
been a great service to me as regards the method of
dealing with the material." (Marx, 1975g). The influence of Hegel during the period of Marx's intellectual
development starting in 1858 has been well established
by Schmidt (1971), Lefevbre (1974) and Echeverria
(1978).
2. See Platteau (1978). Although I disagree with his
general conclusion that there is a theory of underdevelopment in classical political economy, his detailed
analysis and compilation of references to backward
societies by classical economists is immensely useful
and constitutes a definitive work.
3.
15.
16.
17.
18.
22.
6.
23.
7.
8.
25.
241
26.
57.
27.
58.
28.
59.
29.
Larrain (1986).
60.
61.
62.
63.
32,
64.
33.
65.
34.
66.
35.
67.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
Warren (1980).
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
242
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
REFERENCES
243