A Few Quick Remarks on How Europe Underdeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney

The following are some general things I learned from this book as well as some of my own observations.

Every human society, left uncontested, passes through the following stages of development: communalism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism and socialism. These epochs develop unevenly across continents and within them. Asia entered the Feudal epoch well before Europe. Europe went capitalist before Asia. Africa became feudalist much later than Europe and Asia. Generally speaking of course. Each epoch was unique to the continent or region it was born. European feudalism was not the same as Asian feudalism. African feudalism was not the same as Asian feudalism, and so on and so forth.

The nucleus of the communal society was the family, and social groups organized around the idea of kinship. This eventually developed into slavery “caused by the extension of domineering elements within the family and by some groups being physically overwhelmed by others.” Human societies always advance for what amount to economic reasons, marked by an increase in productive capacity. A crucial point, central to understanding history and first observed by Marx, is that quantitative changes in production lead to a qualitative change in society. The qualitative change always occurs because “the social relations in the society [are] no longer effective in promoting advance.” Slavery became outmoded because slaves were used solely for growing food or extracting minerals. They were intentionally not educated to operate new technology, and so slavery actually hindered the evolution of production. Slaves were granted legal freedom, but landowners made sure free serfs continued to be exploited “by insuring they had no other lands to plow other than those of the landlords.” Likewise, the feudal relations became outmoded once machines and factories replaced land as the means of production, thus giving rise to capitalism.

I think it’s important to view historical epochs not in terms of good and bad, but a set of defined features with a series of consequences and outcomes. Yes, I am a 21st century anticapitalist, but I can see that capitalism was a revolutionary force in the 17th and 18th century, and that it represented a step forward for civilization and expanded human rights at the time. I also think 15th century feudalism was a touch better than slavery! That is not to say feudalism and capitalism were permanent revolutions. After some time, both systems became reactionary.

In Marxism, we learn that every thing in this world is a walking contradiction. Contradiction, in fact, is what drives the development of a thing. An object achieves an identity only by its opposite. Think of the Yin and the Yang. Each aspect contains potential to become the other. It’s what is known as the “unity of opposites”. The subordinate revolutionary class of capitalists overthrew the feudalists and then became the dominant reactionary class, a position previously occupied by the feudalists. At a certain point in the 17th/18th century, the class antagonism between landlords and merchants, faced with a new prevailing mode of production, reached such a height that violence broke out. That contradiction between landlords and merchants propelled society forward into a new epoch.It’s important to note that the working class or proletariat today have replaced the capitalists as the subordinate revolutionary class.

Every action contains two contradictory outcomes. You cannot expropriate without dispossessing. In order to win, someone has to lose. You cannot overdevelop a society without underdeveloping one. The concept of underdevelopment is essentially a comparative one. In the case of Africa, its underdevelopment is tied to Europe’s development. I find underdeveloped to be a heavily sanitized word. A better one would be exploited. Africa was exploited by Europe and subsequently, the United States. Today we often hear: “America is the land of opportunity and the greatest country on earth!” but the true reasons why that might be are generally not discussed. It makes perfect sense to me why that would be. The U.S. is the wealthiest country because it is the world’s biggest thief! And when your culture champions human equality and democracy, it’s best not to own up to your imperial handiwork. Or perhaps, as was the case for western capitalist countries defending their colonization of the African continent, you might invent racist reasons. The people of Africa were savages needing to be civilized. Europe helped bring Africa into the 20th century. One interesting point I learned from the book is that capitalism created racism. If capitalism is the base, racism is its superstructure. Oppressing and exploiting people always begins for purely economic reasons. Only later does it develop to racial prejudice. As Rodney noted, when you oppress people for centuries, you start thinking you’re better than them.

There were many reasons why Europe was able to so thoroughly underdevelop Africa beginning in the 15th century, when Europe first came into contact with Africa. One main reason is that Europe had entered into the feudal era, whereas Africa was still largely communal, although there were elements of feudalism in Africa. The feudal relations of European society aided the development of a state with a ruling class and a national identity. This stratification made the Europeans better suited for imperialism. Generally speaking, the contradiction between feudal Europe and communal Africa made it easier for the Europeans to divide and conquer Africans. Perhaps the biggest reason Europe so thoroughly dismantled the African continent was because they controlled the sea and monopolized international trade. Because a country like England controlled the sea lanes, the law of the sea was in fact English law. England dictated the market, set the price of goods and determined what would be considered imports and exports. Eventually, it was determined that all the English needed to export from Africa were slaves. The commodity of human labor was a capitalist invention. Capitalism didn’t invent slavery but it did invent the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. The dark triangle went like this:

EUROPE ——> (manufactured goods) ——> AFRICA ——>(slaves) ——>

——>AMERICA ——> (raw materials)——> EUROPE

Capitalism’s incessant drive for profits against all odds eventually meant that once they conquered their national territory, the monopolists would inevitably seek out new lands to exploit and plunder abroad. Essentially, Western Europe bombarded the American shores with African slaves to gut the lands of its minerals and resources. Those raw materials were shipped back to Europe where “skilled laborers” manufactured them into commodities. Important to note that these European countries were not equipped to colonize the Americas all by themselves. They simply did not have the manpower or resources. They absolutely needed African labor to get it done. The advancement of European society in virtually all facets one can think of are directly and indirectly tied to Africa’s underdevelopment and the surplus that was stolen from Africa. “Africa helped to develop Western Europe in the same proportion as Western Europe helped to underdevelop Africa.” The African slave trade stole workers from their communities to toil on American land for European capitalists. This further enriched Europe and further corroded African society. In some cases, it lead to famine in regions where the African working class was depleted. Indeed, the consequences of the slave trade on both Africa and Europe are almost too much to fathom…

Thanks for reading. If you like this topic and want me to release part 2, let me know in the comments!