I've often heard some anti-capitalist equate capitalism with imperialism/colonialism as if colonialism is a part of capitalism. But according to this info,Adam Smith the father of capitalism,had various reasons for being against colonialism. For those familiar with Smith's teachings how accurate is this info? " The only time, Smith uses the term "invisible hand" in the Wealth of Nations is in his discussion of why businessmen will prefer domestic investment to foreign investment. The "invisible hand" is insecurity of foreign investment. There would have been no imperialism or colonialism or neo-colonialism if his advice had been heeded. But he was skeptical about his advice being followed because he figured that the monopolists and mercantilists would fool the public into following colonialist ventures. Was he ever right. Furthermore, in Smith's benefit/cost analysis, military expenditures to maintain colonialism and neo-colonialism place a tax burden on the people of the metropolis who don't happen to benefit from such state expenditures... " LINK
An interesting read: " You read it right. Adam Smith was one of the most outspoken, clear-thinking, and well-reasoning spokesman against imperialism in the 18th century..." http://www.antiwar.com/henderson/?articleid=8159
the term invisible hand actually meant some sort of measure of profit. the profit that the division of labour facilitated, and the wealth and produce that increased rapidly, opened a brand new market that just thrived. the term invisible hand describes the forces that were driving this market. sure thing Smith speculated there will be more profit if we "keep the business at home", but im pretty sure he would not be opposed to such a thing as international market.
"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. they say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people." - Adam Smith, from Wealth of Nations, Chapter IX, "Of the Profits of Stock"
Vladimir Lenin was the Marxist who connected capitalism and imperialism in his book, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism . Actually, imperialism existed before the development of modern capitalism. With the Soviet Union, and the conquest by Communist China of Tibet it continued without capitalism. In the ancient world, imperialism was fairly simple. Strong nations conquered weaker nations, looted them, and forced them to pay tribute. Beginning, perhaps with the Persian Empire imperialist nations felt the obligation to benefit the nations they conquered. It was only after the Second World War that the conquered nations were allowed to leave the empires peacefully. After defeating the Axis powers Great Britain and the United States granted independence to colonies that wanted it. France had to lose colonial wars in Indochina and Algeria. Then she granted independence to other African countries.
http://www.umich.edu/~ece/student_projects/slavery2/adamsmith.html Smith also had some interesting views on slavery. He was anti-slavery.
Slavery is disfunctional in factory work, or anything that requires intelligence and knowledge. Neverthless, I have read that in the anti-bellum South slavery was never as profitable as it was from 1850-60. Apparently, it was a good system for producing cotton. That, of course, does not justify slavery. What it means is that the Civil War was necessary to free the slaves. The Southerners would not have freed them on their own for many decades, at least. They may have freed the slaves after the invention of agricultural machinery. Even then, the free slaves would have been reduced to a second class citizenship that would have been more oppressive than Jim Crow. Any civil rights movement would have been crushed with mass imprisonments and executions. It is impossible to imagine Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. giving his "I have a dream" speech on the steps of the Jefferson Davis Memorial in Richmond, Virginia. The Southerners would not have invented agricultural machinery. Among the whites, negro slavery bred laziness and lack of enterprise.
I have not read enough of Smith but is he anti colonialist for the same reasons he is interested in limiting the activities of the state to conform to a his normative model of how capitalism should work. By modern standards the British State was natoriously corrupt at the time so his position would be a natural one seeing that he was also a well know Scottish enlightenment thinker. In any case I do not know how you can separate the development of British capitalism from the British empire/state. Colonization and trade providing the investable surplus's and inter European competition and conflict stimulateing organisational, technological and cultural innovation. On another point I would think that there are hybrids of capitalism with the British one having the advantage of being first. Naturally therefore British firms had a competitive advantage that could only be advanced be a program of free trade.
nope, opposed usury, supported some kind of welfare state, im pretty sure government administration of currency, if not a central bank. many other forms of regulation as well. i just dont remember what kinds, so i dont want to risk naming the wrong ones.
