Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the nature of E. G. Wakefield's theory of "Systematic Colonization" and try to answer the question of how Marx evaluated his argument. As well known, Wakfield's theory is the one which essentially includes the criticism of classical political economy. It is natural, therefore, that his argument has been studied mainly in terms of how Wakefield criticize and affect classical political economy. On the other hand, there seems to be little argument as to how his argument itself hadbeen-and really should be-criticized. In the light of these circumstances, firstly I examine Wakefield's argument of "the combination of labour" which is a basis of his theory of "Systematic Colonization", and then take a look at J. S. Mill's criticism. Second, I have an overview of "Systematic Colonization" and consider the argument of Herman Merivale who is known to be an important critic of Wakefield's theory of colonization. Lastly, I try to explain the relation between Wakefield's argument and the economic theory of Marx, referring especially to his Outline of the Critique of Political Economy (Grundrisse). The main points are as follows. 1) "Systematic Colonization" is a theory to create a colony which will serve as a supply source of primary products as well as an outlet for mother country, by means of the creation of "the combination of productive power" at the expense of people who want to be a self-sufficient farmer with their own land. 2) One of the main differences between Wakefield and Marx is that the latter makes it clear that "the combination of productive power" is the power of capital, not of labourers. 3) "Systematic Colonization" should be understood as a theory created and then made unnecessary by what Marx called "the great civilising influence of capital".
