By Abba Sadauki
Introduction
There comes a time when the world’s weight seems unbearable, making each breath a struggle. Like a midlife crisis, this pivotal moment is when one confronts the reality of their material existence. It’s a stark realisation that all the goals and aspirations pursued were essentially economic activities aimed at providing for oneself and loved ones.
Another revelation compounds the gravity of this understanding – the fact that these efforts have primarily served to enrich others. Despite all the hard work, one finds themselves barely making ends meet, with the prospect of accumulating enough wealth for a comfortable life or pursuing truly fulfilling endeavours seeming increasingly elusive.
The weight of economic struggle is a universal experience shared by countless individuals across the globe. This article aims to shed light on the historical journey that has shaped this experience, particularly within the context of Northern Nigeria.
We will explore, starting from the feudal reigns of the Sarkis (Kings) and Amirs (Emirs), delving into the transformative impact of British imperialism. Our journey will culminate in an analysis of post-colonial governance and the pervasive influence of global capitalism, painting a picture of our present reality.
Through this, we will uncover the roots of the stark wealth inequality that pervades our society, understand the purpose and implications of debt, and confront the enduring reality of class struggle.
As we navigate through the complexities of these issues, we will question the viability of our current system in the face of 21st-century challenges. The 2008 economic crisis is a stark reminder of these challenges, prompting us to reevaluate and rethink our economic structures.
The Emergence of Capitalism in Northern Nigeria: Pre-capitalist Economic Systems
The Emergence of Market Societies
As in the bible, we will start at Genesis, to the very inception of our economic systems. In the beginning, there were no economies, only markets. But what exactly are markets? They are places where a willing buyer and a willing seller meet to exchange goods or services. Here, we encounter the first myth that capitalism propagates – the notion that markets did not exist before its advent. However, markets existed long before capitalism emerged as a system during the Industrial Revolution in Britain in the 18th century.
You might wonder, what do I mean by “there was no economy”? The answer lies in a simple yet crucial condition for markets to evolve into an economy – the existence of a “surplus”. A surplus refers to the excess resources that can be accumulated and utilised.
When our ancestors first tilled the land and initiated the process we now know as agriculture, they created resources that exceeded immediate needs. This surplus transformed markets into an economy – a complex network of relationships that emerges in societies with a surplus.
This economy enabled us to produce food and, more importantly for this discussion, tools and instruments that wouldn’t exist with labour alone. The first instrument of this system was likely writing, used to account for the units of agricultural produce stored by an individual in the communal granary. These units were probably represented by engravings on shells, signifying the value of the stored produce.
These shells could be exchanged between individuals for goods or services. If this concept sounds familiar, it’s the precursor to what we know as money today. Instead of shells, we now use pieces of paper or digital representations.You could also borrow these shells or promise a specific amount in the future in exchange for immediate service. This is the concept we now understand as debt.
Someone had to ensure the value of these shells was guaranteed, often through force. In today’s terms, this individual might be known as a king, whose domain of influence is a state. The king would have people managing the accounting and others enforcing his guarantee, akin to modern-day police.
As we can see, a “surplus” led to a radical societal transformation. However, this transformation was not without its adverse side effects. One of these was that the king and his bureaucracy accumulated a surplus, leading to an overconcentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few. This process, which we now call inequality, is still a pressing issue in our modern society.
Now, let’s dive into the heart of our economic systems, armed with conceptual toolboxes that will guide us through its intricate workings. Our first concept is a ‘commodity’. Simply put, commodities are goods produced to be sold. Each of these goods has a market price reflecting its exchange value.
Next, we explore ‘production’, the transformative process that turns raw materials into components or finished goods. This production journey begins with the first factor, the raw materials and the infrastructure used to extract them, such as tools and machines. These are what we refer to as ‘capital goods’.
To carry out this process, we need a location—land or space—our second factor of production. Lastly, we require human labour to transform these raw materials into finished goods. This production process forms the bedrock of an economy, making it tick and thrive.
The Hausa Feudal Society
The early days of the Hausa kingdoms are shrouded in various myths used to legitimise their existence; the most plausible scenario of how they came to be is that diverse ethnic groups cohabited in the same area, known as Kasar Hausa. These groups were often embroiled in relentless resource conflicts, leading to chiefdoms composed of dominant families.
As time unfolded, the chiefdoms with superior military prowess and organisational structures absorbed the weaker ones, giving rise to kingdoms. The less powerful chiefdoms gradually became vassals, paying tribute to a king or Sarki.
The kingdom’s population began to stratify. The most influential family head ascended to the position of Sarki, distributing offices among his followers from other families. The lineages of these followers evolved into Sarakuna, the aristocracy. These Sarakuna integrated into Sarki’s military organisation, acting as vanguards in establishing dominance over weaker groups and compelling them to pay tribute.
Over time, the Sarki and Sarakuna transformed into the leisure class, while the rest of society, forming the base of economic production, became subordinate to them. Within the broader Hausa society, another stratification layer emerged based on the economic services offered. Free peasants, serfs, and enslaved people emerged as the new classifications of the labour class.
Each kingdom mentioned earlier was divided into administrative units (fiefs) by its ruling class, with a titled lord or his representative serving as its overseer. The kingdom’s capital depended on the resources sent from the labour class in the fiefs and political power in the form of laws, and their enforcers came from the capital to enforce them in the kingdom’s territory.
Society was broadly divided into two distinct classes. The’ Isarakim’ ruling class comprised the king and his officials. On the other hand, the ‘Talakawa’, or the ruled class, consisted of peasants, serfs, and enslaved people.
As we’ve observed, the ruled class formed the backbone of the economy. The ruling class appropriated their labour and the fruits of their production through tribute, taxes, special levies, and forced labour. This arrangement, where the ruling class expropriated labour at the expense of the commoner, is a characteristic feature of all feudal societies
Rise of Merchant Class and Beginnings of Capitalist Spirit
Trade in the Hausa states was determined by the basic facts of geography and communication, the primary routes linking the area to the rest of the world being the trans-Saharan caravan routes. The main imports from Europe and North Africa were cotton and calicoes from Lancashire, cotton and sugar loaves from France, red cloth from Saxony, beads from Venice, needles, mirrors, and paper from Nuremberg, sword-blades from Solingen, razors from Styria, fine silks from Lyons, coarse silks from Trieste and Tripoli, red fezzes from Leghorn, and all kinds of Arab dress from North Africa. In contrast, the main commodities the Hausa exported to balance its trade with the outside world were cotton, goatskins, leather goods, and slaves.
The acquisition of wealth from these ventures eventually led to new values within the ruling class and new members of that class—the merchants. These emerging values played a crucial role in shaping modern social stratification and the formation of nation-states.
The merchants and their heirs, often referred to as the “nouveaux riches,” found themselves beyond the control of the aristocracy. With the support of imperialists, they absorbed ancient traditional kingdoms, uniting them into regional and national entities under their control. In the following discussion, we’ll explore the process by which this transformation occurred.
The Creation and Evolution of Capitalism and Its Effects in Colonial Northern Nigeria
1. The Birth of Capitalism
In the earlier societies we explored, none of the factors of production were treated as commodities. For instance, consider labour: throughout history, people worked, but during feudal times, this labour was not sold or rented to the aristocrats. Instead, a portion of the talakawa’s harvests was forcibly taken. The tools of production—such as hoes and cutlasses—were often crafted by the talakawa themselves or by craftsmen from the same fief. In exchange for these tools, the talakawa provided food to the craftsmen. Land, too, was never treated as a commodity. The sarakuna never sold it; such an idea would have been unthinkable. Land ownership was either inherited or forever out of reach.
The process by which these factors became commodities began with the development of shipbuilding in Europe and advancements in sea navigation. European merchants traded vast distances, shipping wool from England to places like Shanghai in exchange for silk and other Asian goods. Upon returning to England, they exchanged these acquired goods for even more wool than they had initially started with. The traded products gained international value through these exchanges, and those involved in their production or sale amassed significant wealth.
By observing these nouveau riche individuals—whom they considered social inferiors—amassing fortunes that threatened to overshadow their own, English aristocrats adopted a classic strategy: “If you can’t beat them, join them.” They disrupted the existing system built by their ancestors. They uprooted perishable crops that lacked international value and fenced off their land. Peasants who had lived on that land for generations were evicted and replaced with sheep, whose wool could fetch a healthy price in international markets. It is estimated that around 70 per cent of the peasants were displaced during this transformation. Ultimately, this process turned Britain from a society with markets into a market society, effectively commodifying land and labour.
Indeed, the commodification of labour emerged from the basic human need to survive. As the newly evicted peasants wandered from village to village, desperate for sustenance and shelter, they knocked on countless doors, willing to do anything in exchange for those necessities. In this process, they unwittingly auctioned their labour, transforming themselves into the precursors of modern workers—the very traders of their own toil.
The land was commodified when aristocrats decided to lease it rather than directly oversee wool production. They set rental prices based on international market conditions. Some former serfs accepted these offers, as it was a choice between that or poverty. They signed leases hoping that selling wool in the market would cover rent and wages for other serfs working under them, with any leftover funds going toward their families’ sustenance. These transformations, coupled with the invention of the steam engine, eventually gave rise to what we now refer to as industrial society. This development reinforced the Great Contradiction: the simultaneous existence of unimaginable new wealth and unspeakable suffering. As a result, the inequalities that originated during the agricultural revolution, which we encountered previously, increased dramatically.
New creations also came about due to the birth of this new system, and the concept of debt has existed throughout human history. In simpler times, it might manifest as a neighbour helping another in need, with the recipient expressing gratitude by saying, “I owe you one.” No formal contract was necessary; both parties understood that the favour would eventually be repaid, settling their moral debt. However, with the advent of capitalism, this moral obligation became legal. Debt now comes with terms—precisely, exchange values. When a debtor borrows money, they agree to repay the original sum plus a little extra to compensate the creditor for granting the loan. This additional amount is known as interest.
Another new creation was the subversion of production by distribution; in the feudal system, the production process followed a specific order: serfs worked the land (production), feudal lords dispatched agents to collect rents (distribution), and any surplus from rent collection was converted into money. This allowed the lords to purchase, offer loans, and pay for services (credit-debit).
However, under the new capitalist system, distribution began before production. Former serfs, now renting land from landowners, supervised the production of wool and crops for profit. But they needed capital upfront—for wages, seeds, and rent—before producing any goods. To acquire this capital, they turned to debt. Those who lent them money naturally expected interest as profit. Since all the production processes (wage payments, rent to the landowner, procurement of raw materials and tools) occurred before actual production commenced, distribution now preceded production, and debt became the primary lubricant driving the capitalist machine.
2. Capitalism and Imperialism in Northern Nigeria
We previously touched upon the collaboration between imperialists and the nouveau riche, which is pivotal in shaping today’s social stratification and nation-states. The process unfolded through a series of significant events.
Firstly, colonial assaults weakened the power and economic position of the feudal aristocracy. Territorial fiefdoms were abolished, along with the economic foundations of feudalism—such as tribute, taxes, levies, tolls, and forced labour. The military hierarchy was dismantled, and the judicial powers of the feudal class were curtailed. These measures effectively stripped the feudal class of its political influence.
Subsequently, during independence movements, the imperialists lost ground to the merchant class. As political power shifted, so did economic power. The traditional elites—the former ruling class—also experienced this loss.
The new elites, primarily merchants, leveraged the state’s economic structure to accumulate wealth. They secured loans from state banks and participated in emerging enterprises. However, they didn’t entirely abandon the traditional aristocracy. Instead, they strategically married into feudal families, accepting honorific titles from kings. This move allowed them to invoke an ethnocentric ideology reminiscent of feudalism, defending the unity of the now-defunct feudal kingdoms and their values.
For instance, the Northern People’s Congress (NPC) was entangled with the emirs—a metamorphosis of feudal society in a new guise. Yet, the forces of modern capitalism compelled this new ruling class to target vital vantage points of feudal state power, which they perceived as impediments to the evolution of capitalism.
“All these forces transformed the merchant class into the new bourgeoisie in modern capitalist Northern Nigeria. This class spans both the public and large-scale, foreign-controlled capitalist sectors. Its dominant elements include administrative, managerial, and supervisory roles alongside local private capital and professional groups.
The arrival of oil revenue further strengthened the federal drive at the centre, led by the federal bureaucracy. This allowed the state to play a crucial role in creating a national base for capital accumulation. The state achieved this through infrastructure expansion, the development of a local financial system, the growth of state capital in industry and agriculture, and measures to increase local ownership and control.
Conclusion
The Nature of Capitalism
Throughout this journey, I have aimed to demonstrate that capitalism is not a natural system, as some claim, but rather a created system that evolved and transformed through historical conditions and forces. While capable of generating immense wealth and development, capitalism also bears the responsibility of allowing a select few to accumulate wealth at the expense of the majority, pushing the system to its limits.
Capitalism has historically experienced periods of crisis, but the current crisis extends beyond mere stagnation in productive forces. It encompasses a broader cultural, moral, political, and religious turmoil. The 2008 financial crisis marked a significant turning point. World capitalism has never fully recovered from that shock; massive government interventions were necessary to prevent total catastrophe. However, these measures led to uncontrolled inflation and substantial public, corporate, and private debt.
Now, the entire process must reverse. The world hurtles toward an uncertain future marked by perpetual cycles of war, economic collapse, and increasing suffering. Even in the wealthiest nations, rising prices erode wages, while cuts to public services like healthcare and education exacerbate social inequalities. In poorer countries, millions face slow starvation, trapped by the grip of imperialist moneylenders.
The comforting myth of equal opportunity for every citizen has shattered. Obscene wealth flaunted alongside poverty, unemployment, and homelessness highlights the stark contrast. Capital increasingly concentrates in the hands of a few billionaires, giant banks, and corporations. We must seek a new system that acknowledges the unsustainable status quo and upholds the sanctity of life. The era of the sarakuna has ended, and the time has come for a new bourgeoisie to emerge. The shifting sands of the North must transform into an oasis of new ideas and a system dedicated to uplifting all.
… I’ll conclude with this statement. “No matter how neat and beautiful you are, you sink if your character stinks. In other words, there ain’t no need telling it: with a character that stinks, you’re finished, girl. So work on your personality more than your physicality”.
.
