Settler colonialism versus " ?" colonialism

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I got the New Zealand reference through a Google search for "settler
colonialism". What I was trying to dig out was a debate in the Comintern in
the 1920's that proposed a distinction between colonies that consisted
mainly of settler from the metropolitan country and colonies whose native
populations were administered by the Empire.

It seemed valuable because the different types of colony were in different
positions during the era of imperialism (in the Leninist sense), and
presented different challenges for democratic and working class struggle.
Countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand which became white
Dominions in the British Empire were obviously in the former category. Most
countries of black Africa were of course in the latter category.


 A country such as South Africa of course had features of both types of
colony, which added to the particularity of its contradiction.

The difference relates largely to whether the colony emerged during the era
of rising capitalism or the era of rising imperialism.

I was interested in the theory because I thought it could explain part of
the difficult issues of struggle in Ireland where the Scots Irish of Ulster
are settlers. It may also be illuminating for the conflicts in the Middle East.

I am not aware however that the concept survived in the Comintern policies,
perhaps because half way houses are difficult to categorise, partly because
it highlights differences in the condition of working people which in
political struggle the Communist Parties would not want to emphasise.

My difficulties are

1. I cannot lay hands on the reference

2. I cannot remember what the second type of colonialism was called.

Can anyone help?

Chris Burford

London