Political economy confuses on principle two very
 different kinds of private property, of which one rests on the producers’
 own labour, the other on the employment of the labour of others. It forgets
 that the latter not only is the direct antithesis of the former, but absolutely
 grows on its tomb only. In Western Europe, the home of Political Economy,
 the process of primitive accumulation is more of less accomplished. Here
 the capitalist regime has either directly conquered the whole domain of
 national production, or, where economic conditions are less developed,
 it, at least, indirectly controls those strata of society which, though
 belonging to the antiquated mode of production, continue to exist side
 by side with it in gradual decay. To this ready-made world of capital,
 the political economist applies the notions of law and of property inherited
 from a pre-capitalistic world with all the more anxious zeal and all the
 greater unction, the more loudly the facts cry out in the face of his ideology.
 It is otherwise in the colonies. There the capitalist regime everywhere
 comes into collision with the resistance of the producer, who, as owner
 of his own conditions of labour, employs that labour to enrich himself, instead
 of the capitalist. The contradiction of these two diametrically opposed
 economic systems, manifests itself here practically in a struggle between
 them. Where the capitalist has at his back the power of the mother-country,
 he tries to clear out of his way by force the modes of production and appropriation
 based on the independent labour of the producer. The same interest, which
 compels the sycophant of capital, the political economist, in the mother-country,
 to proclaim the theoretical identity of the capitalist mode of production
 with its contrary, that same interest compels him in the colonies to make
 a clean breast of it, and to proclaim aloud the antagonism of the two modes
 of production. To this end, he proves how the development of the social
 productive power of labour, co-operation, division of labour, use of machinery
 on a large scale, &c., are impossible without the expropriation of
 the labourers, and the corresponding transformation of their means of production
 into capital. In the interest of the so-called national wealth, he seeks
 for artificial means to ensure the poverty of the people. Here his apologetic
 armor crumbles off, bit by bit, like rotten touchwood. It is the great
 merit of E.G. Wakefield to have discovered, not anything new about the
 Colonies [2], but to have discovered in the Colonies
 the truth as to the conditions of capitalist production in the mother country.
 As the system of protection at its origin [3] attempted
 to manufacture capitalists artificially in the mother-country, so Wakefield’s
 colonisation theory, which England tried for a time to enforce by Acts
 of Parliament, attempted to effect the manufacture of wage-workers in the
 Colonies. This he calls “systematic colonisation.”