@eva_rajzman said in Colonialist capitalism or capitalist colonialism:
“The fruit of our labour was used to build your nation”
This discussion provides a compelling analysis of how capitalist and colonial systems intertwined to exploit Asian labor for Britain’s economic gain while simultaneously marginalizing and abandoning those same workers. Your connection to the Asian Dub Foundation’s Debris and its lyrics, “The fruit of our labour was used to build your nation,” captures the extractive relationship between Britain and its colonies. The exploitation of Ayahs and Lascars, as detailed in Visram and Gilliat-Ray & Mellor’s writings, exemplifies how colonialism’s logic extended beyond land acquisition to the systemic commodification of human labor. Ayahs and Lascars were treated not as people but as disposable commodities, useful only as long as they served Britain’s economic interests, and then left destitute and excluded from society.
Your point about how colonialism and capitalism are deeply intertwined is particularly striking. The idea that “capitalist hunger” drives colonial practices offers a critical perspective on imperialism. Often understood primarily as military conquest, imperialism also represents the highest form of economic domination, using cheap labor and resource extraction to fuel capitalist expansion. The East India Company’s reliance on cheap local labor to maximize profit is a clear example of this, showing how the British colonial apparatus commodified both land and people. This reinforces your observation that colonialist and racist ideas were not separate but integral to this process—without the dehumanization of Asians as “cheap labor,” such systems could not have functioned.
The paradox you highlight between the exploitation of labor and racism is also well-illustrated. The lyrics “we’re only here ‘cos you were there” resonate strongly with Visram’s depiction of British families importing servants for their convenience and then abandoning them when they were no longer useful. This contradiction continues today, as seen in the gentrification of formerly working-class or immigrant neighborhoods like Cardiff’s Muslim area. The commodification of multiculturalism as a “charm” for outsiders, while displacing the very communities that created it, mirrors colonial logics of extraction and erasure. Your comparison to gentrification in other cities adds a contemporary lens to this discussion, showing how colonial and capitalist dynamics persist in modern urban contexts.
An additional layer to consider is the cultural and psychological legacy of this economic imperialism. The abandonment of Ayahs and Lascars not only left them destitute but also alienated from both the societies they served and their homelands. Similarly, modern gentrification reproduces cycles of displacement and alienation for marginalized communities, reinforcing a sense of cultural erasure. This invites a broader reflection on how imperialism, in its economic form, continues to shape global and local dynamics, embedding structural inequities that persist long after military conquest has ended. By framing imperialism as economic domination rather than merely military conquest, we can better understand its enduring and systemic impact.