This article looks at the history of dispossession, privatization and loss of the commons in the Hawaiian Kingdom, Britain, Canada and Chile in order to highlight the need to look beyond the simple dichotomy of socialism vs. capitalism—terms which in modern times are vaguely and variously defined—and look instead at present and past examples of how nations attempted to develop political economies suited to their specific contexts.[1]

“Every market is structured and managed. Every economy is a planned economy. The question is: Who is going to do it? Right now, instead of the government planning the economy, you have Wall Street planning the economy, and that’s more centralized than government planning. That’s what people don’t realize.”

- Michael Hudson
president of The Institute for the Study
of Long-Term Economic Trends,
Professor of Economics, University of Missouri,
The Keiser Report, 07:35~, January 1, 2020

(last revised on January 22, 2020)

In Gavan Daws’ history of Hawai’i, Shoal of Time, the author describes the process by which Native Hawaiians lost connection to their lands in the 19th century:

The old konohiki system, under which a chief appointed an agent or steward to manage his lands and collect his taxes, was replaced by a system under which each owner determined for himself the best use to which his land might be put, being free to cultivate, lease, or sell at will… For the foreigners, certainly, it was the beginning of a new era; but for the Hawaiian commoners it was the beginning of the end. In their first exercise of free choice they chose to uproot themselves. They were liberated at last from the burdensome tax payments to the chiefs that had kept them tied to the land, and most of them found more interesting things to do than grow taro, which required a long time and a lot of hard work. The idea of the kuleana, the small freehold lot cultivated as an independent family farm, never took hold. In the old days the taro patch and the family had flourished together; a single word, ohana, served to describe both a cluster of taro roots and a family group. The Great Mahele, the great division, cut the connection, because once the commoner was free to buy land he was also free to sell it, and that was a freedom he understood. So the great division became the great dispossession. By the end of the nineteenth century white men owned four acres of land for every one owned by a native, and this included chiefs’ lands. The commoners had had their moment, and it had passed by. They were left with not much more than a terrible sense of deprivation.[2]

The description above makes a general point about the process of dispossession that can occur when traditional tenants are given fee-simple title to their land, or if land reform is done recklessly without a plan for developing a political economy suited to local circumstances. However, Gavan Daws’ description of the Hawaiian Kingdom has been criticized as being far too simplistic and anecdotal. Some new land owners must have lost interest in farming and cashed out, but he provides no data on how many others held onto and developed their private property, and or how much revenue from land development was put to good use. Gavan Daws’ interpretation downplays the active part played by the Hawaiian Kingdom government in preserving native rights to the land. The land reforms in Hawai’i known as the Great Mahele were actually more sophisticated than a simple privatization scheme as the term is understood in the 21st century. Native Hawaiians and the Hawaiian Kingdom government were not passive victims in the process. By the 1840s, the kingdom had transformed itself into a constitutional monarchy and a fully independent state, and the government had many successes in protecting the native population from colonization and subjugation. Keanu Sai, an expert on the history of the Hawaiian Kingdom, describes the reforms in more detail, stressing that the Mahele was not a typical laissez-faire privatization. Until the overthrow of the kingdom in 1893, the rights of native tenants were maintained in lands that were set aside as crown land and government land:

In the Hawaiian Kingdom, the type of economy that existed was not American capitalism. In fact, it was a different kind of capitalism called cooperative capitalism, and that was called nokikalai’aina. There was actually a book published in Lahaina in the 1840s called Nokikalai’aina, Elements of Political Economy. We now have that. When you look at that, you see that capitalism in this political economy is infused with values and morality. It’s not the laissez-faire Adam Smith version of capitalism. Every country has its own economy. Everybody thinks capitalism is America and it’s all over the world.[3]

In an earlier article, Keanu Sai elaborated on this topic:

A common misunderstanding is that the Great Mahele endeavored to divide all the rights of the three classes [nobility, government, native tenants] in the lands. The Great Mahele only divided the vested rights of the Chiefly class from the Government class in the lands. These divided rights over specific lands called ahupua’a and ili’aina, and these remained subject to the rights of Native Tenants, who by application to the Minister of the Interior, who managed government lands, or to a particular Chief or Konohiki who managed lands that were separated from the government, could acquire a fee-simple title to their house lot and cultivating lands… Under Hawaiian law, all revenues derived from the lands of the Hawaiian Islands; whether by the Government through taxation, rent or sale, or from the Chiefs or Konohikis, through rent or sale, continue to have the vested rights of native tenants. This is… why the Queen’s Hospital provided health care without charge to native Hawaiians in the nineteenth century. Queen’s Hospital acquired monies from the Government and from Queen Emma as a Chiefess who acquired lands from Mahele grantees, and after her death through the Queen Emma Trust. This is not to be confused with socialism, but rather management of the vested rights of Native Tenants that remained and continue to remain in all the lands of the Hawaiian Islands.[4]


In addition to this assessment made in 2019, there is a report on the Mahele written in 1872 by W.D. Alexander, surveyor general for the kingdom, which makes no mention of a great catastrophe of dispossession.[5] It is full of praise for the wisdom of the monarchy and its concerns for the welfare of the commoners. It appears that the narrative of the great dispossession took form after the overthrow of the kingdom because it suited the needs of the new government to portray the Hawaiian monarchy as tragically inept. There is evidence that dispossession came not because of the Mahele but because of the Hawaiian Kingdom becoming a US-occupied territory (via local insurrection in 1893, then US annexation in 1898). In his graduate thesis on the Mahele, Donovan Preza found that the greatest factor in the dispossession was the Land Act of 1895—after the overthrow of the kingdom—which seized the large tracts of crown lands that were later purchased by non-Hawaiians. He found no evidence of a significant number of land transfers before that time that would indicate the former tenants (who became small land owners) had become a new class of dispossessed citizens.[6]

In the citation above, Keanu Sai put the words “continue to remain” in the present tense because, as he has demonstrated in his other work, the Hawaiian Kingdom was never ceded in a treaty and should be considered, under international law, as an occupied nation. When the US occupation ends, on some day when the US decides to abide by the “rules-based international order” that it imposes on others, the laws and land policies of the Hawaiian Kingdom will still be in effect as they were at the time of the insurrection in January 1893.[7]

If one follows Daws’ account of 19th century Hawai’i, one might reflect with pity on what happened to the poor natives, those innocent indigenous people who could not have known what kind of damage the modernity would inflict on their ancient way of life. There is a tendency to think of a clear dichotomy between the ways of the white man and the ways of the dark-skinned hunter-gatherers whose culture was destined to be replaced by that of the former. However, pre-contact Hawai’i was far from being the classic hunter-gatherer culture described in anthropology textbooks. The land was so fertile that it led to the growth of a feudal culture that would have been perfectly understood by any European of the 15th century. This similarity may be the reason that the rulers of the Hawaiian Kingdom were astute enough, firstly, to keep foreign visitors from planting their flags and applying the Doctrine of Discovery and, secondly, to assert their sovereignty on the world stage. They were keen to learn about the outside world from the American and British missionaries who came in the early 19th century, and it is likely that they had learned how and why the French monarchs had lost their heads to the guillotine during the French Revolution. They would have understood that the French monarchy’s downfall came from its failure to reform the feudal land system and their refusal to relinquish power under the new constitution. Land reform was the central issue in preserving Hawaiian sovereignty during the transition from feudalism to industrial-age capitalism.

The Mahele in Hawai’i might best be seen in contrast to the horrible consequences of the termination of the English commons, known as the Enclosures, which began in the 17th century and forced English commoners off rural lands and into the factories of the industrial age, or onto ships that took them to the New World—a move which turned them into accessories in the dispossession of the native inhabitants there.[8] Perhaps the Hawaiian monarchs drew lessons from this precedent as well. With the Mahele the Hawaiian monarchy attempted to preserve land-use rights of the commoners while also accommodating foreign concepts of land title that were needed for modernizing and trading with foreign nations. In addition to the comparison with the Enclosures, one could consider how, from 1857-1870, Britain arranged the transfer of a vast territory called Rupert’s Land (all lands that drained into Hudson’s Bay) to the newly formed Dominion of Canada in order to make the lands available for non-indigenous settlement. The property rights, land-use rights, and sovereignty of people already there were ignored because, under the assumption of the Doctrine of Discovery, the British had never felt a need to take them into consideration.[9]

20th Century dispossession within the Colonizing Nations

It is an error to think dispossession occurs only to “the other” or only in the distant past. Europeans and North Americans must also pity their own ancestors for the loss of their own indigenous heritage that occurred not so long ago during the Enclosures. In fact, they must also pity themselves in the present age because attempts in the 20th century to regain the commons (known by demonized term “socialism”) have also been reversed with devastating effects. Every generation people get sold and bought again and relearn the same painful lesson. Anthropologist David Harvey explained the modern dispossession in an interview held in 2018:

The main argument about accumulation by dispossession rests on the idea that when people run out of the capacity to make things or provide services, then they set up a system which extracts wealth from other people, and that extraction then becomes the center of their activities. And one of the ways in which that extraction can occur is by creating new commodity markets where there were none before. For example, when I was younger, higher education in Europe was essentially a public good. Increasingly, it has become a private activity. Health service is another. So many of these areas which you would consider not to be commodities in the ordinary sense become commodities. Housing for the lower income populations was often seen as a social obligation, but now increasingly it has to be provided through the market… So you impose a market logic on areas in which you really shouldn’t.

It’s all about having entrepreneurialism in oneself, and then what happens is that people start to speculate on what they can get out of somebody else. You have some assets that I want and I lend you some money, and then I suddenly say, “I want all my money back tomorrow.” You can’t pay it, and I say “OK, give me your assets.” So I take away your land. I take away your house… a large percentage of the British population was housed in social housing [before the 1980s]. In some cities it was as high as 80 percent and she [Margaret Thatcher] basically privatized it, and she turned it over to people, and said, “OK, you can become the private owner of this if you want.” So you become a private owner. Now poor people often get into difficulty. They get into debt. They can’t pay their debts, and so somebody comes along and says, “Well, you’ve got a very nice [former] social housing house there. Why don’t you trade it to me? So after a bit, suddenly all of that social housing where poor people were living becomes a sort of a living space for the very ultra-rich, and you get gentrification. You get all those kinds of things driving out populations from neighborhoods, and pushing up prices. So again, one of the ways in which you start to extract value from people is by speculating in land values and speculating in housing, and then people have to pay more and more for their housing, and more and more for their health care, more and more for the education of the children, more and more for the services that they get. So in the end, people are just paying and paying and paying.

[There is also] depletion of the global environmental commons: land, air, water and proliferating habitat degradation that precludes anything but capital intensive modes of agricultural production. These have likewise resulted from the wholesale commodification of nature in all its forms.

When I was a kid, water in Britain was provided as a public good, and then, of course, it got privatized, and so the private companies come in and you start to pay water charges and water pricing… They privatize transportation… right now in Britain… the Labour Party says we’re going to take all of that back into public ownership because this privatization is totally insane and has insane consequences, and it’s not working. And I think the majority the population now agrees with that. We’re always told the private sector is far more efficient than the state sector, but actually a lot of evidence is the other way around.

Financialization takes the debt economy and starts to import it. If wages start to be curbed, then people need money, so they have credit cards… then the credit card companies start to put charges on… Education should be a public service, not a commodity, and it’s a commodity right now. And of course when people get heavily indebted they become less and less politically active… When mortgage housing was introduced [that meant] homeowners don’t go on strike, and so this is a social control mechanism. They [government planners] were very well aware of it. There was a great poster once which called the building societies [the privatizing institutions] “the first defense against Bolshevism.” So this was going to stop any kind of left-wing politics because people were going to say they want to keep their houses…

This was really done by deregulation to allow the financial system to become one of the main centers of redistributive activity, through speculation, predation, fraud and thievery, stock promotions, Ponzi schemes, structured asset destruction, through inflation asset stripping, through mergers and acquisitions, the promotion of levels of debt incumbency that reduced whole populations, even in the advanced capitalist countries, to debt peonage—to say nothing of corporate fraud, dispossession of assets, the raiding of pension funds and their decimation by stock and corporate collapses, by credit and stock manipulations. All of these became central features of the capitalist financial system.

…think for a moment about what Donald Trump has done since he came in… What’s he done? He’s deregulated almost everything. He’s allowed drilling on the federal lands. He’s passed a tax bill which is giving all kinds of goodies to the bondholders and the rich and the corporations. So the deregulation and the privatization that has gone on under Trump has been absolutely astonishing. You see right in front of you an economic program that is a classic neoliberal program, and it’s happened over the last two years of the Trump administration.[10]

One more example makes the point and illustrates how the process of dispossession is cyclical. After citizens are dispossessed of their common property, privatization then strips all value from that property. Finally, the citizens, after paying the costs of this asset stripping and the resulting social devastation, win back control of the commons to some extent—only for the process to be repeated again. Noam Chomsky described how the process unfolded in South America in the late 20th century and is being repeated again now with the rise to power of the fascist president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro:

Guedes [Bolsonaro’s chief economic adviser] is an ultra-right-wing Chicago economist. He spent time in Pinochet’s Chile. He’s been very frank and open in interviews in the Brazilian press about his plans. It’s very simple: As he puts it, privatize everything—infrastructure, anything you can think of. The reason, the motive, is to pay off the debt which is owned by the predatory financial institutions that have been robbing the country blind. This will give away the resources of the country for the future… one part of it is Bolsonaro’s favorite program of opening the Amazon to agribusiness. So, he’s exactly the kind of person who succeeded in driving Chile’s economy to utter disaster within only a few years.

It’s rarely remembered that when the Chicago boys took over the Pinochet economy, they had every conceivable advantage. There couldn’t be any dissent. The torture chambers took care of that. They had the advice of the top stars of [University of] Chicago economics, the right-wing economics system. They were clever enough not to nationalize—not to privatize—one of the major bases of the Chilean economy, the highly efficient, nationalized copper corporation, the biggest in the world, Codelco… Within about five years, they had created such an economic disaster that the state had to take over the economy. People, as a joke, used to call it “the Chicago road to socialism.” They have left a residue which is pretty bitter.[11]

This selection of quotations may convince readers that the process of dispossession under capitalism unfolds in a common fashion, unless a nation is very determined to maintain and defend a political economy that it has designed for its own purposes. There is no reason for the descendants of settlers in North America to look at the descendants of the original inhabitants and feel secure, to feel that “what happened to them could not happen to us.” It has happened and it is happening again. Anyone can be relocated to a figurative or literal reservation at the margins of society.

This leads to an additional point about some seemingly progressive political discourse being a distraction from the root of the problem. The Canadian university student Lindsay Shepherd explained it well when she spoke out against the misguided policy of “self-congratulatory” Indigenous Land Acknowledgments that many Canadian institutions now require before holding official events.[12] She notes that they are recreating condescending “counter-productive stereotypes which are a re-packaging of the noble savage stereotype.” The acknowledgments involve no obligation on the part of the speaker or the institution to stand up for a radical change in the economic system. They are virtue signals and soothing balm for the conscience of the descendants of settlers and little more. The acknowledgments also often pay tribute to indigenous people as the “designated caretakers of the land,” a status which implies all indigenous people feel, or must feel, this obligation and that other races have no such responsibility. Indigenous people may have better insights into the problem because their experience as victims of a slow genocide has left them with no illusions about Western civilization (the descendants of Europeans still have a bit of work to do in this regard), but this does not mean that they have the power to save the world. Far from it. They are among the most dis-empowered and are unlikely to succeed without help from the majority of the population.

The economic and social devastation described above continues unopposed partly because people have been trained to think every social problem is rooted in identity politics and can be addressed by such gestures as land acknowledgments. As Martin Luther King noted near the end of his life, the struggle for racial equality had to shift to a broad concern with fighting against poverty, war and the nuclear arms race.[13] Real solutions involve recognizing our common humanity and common interest in restoring the commons, or undertaking a Great Mahele in various settings throughout the world. Without resorting to a simplistic dichotomy that pits preconceived notions of capitalism against preconceived notions of socialism, we could think like the Hawaiian monarchs did when they endeavored to create the political economy that was the most just and appropriate for their circumstances.

(last revised on January 22, 2020)


[1] Political economy: a branch of social science that studies the relationships between individuals and society and between markets and the state, using a diverse set of tools and methods drawn largely from economics, political science, and sociology. The term political economy is derived from the Greek polis, meaning “city” or “state,” and oikonomos, meaning “one who manages a household or estate.” Political economy thus can be understood as the study of how a country—the public’s household—is managed or governed, taking into account both political and economic factors. (From

[2] Gavan Daws, Shoal of Time: A History of the Hawaiian Islands (University of Hawai’i Press, 1968), p. 128. In spite of all the research done on the Mahele, it seems like it has not been possible to quantify how many of the tenant class sold their properties and subsequently fell into poverty. It is likely that many did, but it is difficult to confirm that the Mahele was the cause of the disastrous dispossession that came in the 20th century. It is argued here that in spite of what its eventual effects may have been, its intent and design was to be of benefit to all citizens. It did not begin as a deliberate dispossession as was common in settler governments’ dealings with indigenous people in North America.

[3]Dr. Keanu Sai Q and A with Maui County Council 8-21-19“ (34:40~), Integrative Media Group, August 30, 2019.

[4] Keanu Sai, “Under Hawaiian Law Native Hawaiians Receive Health Care at No Charge,” Hawaiian Kingdom Blog, April 25, 2016.

[5] W.D. Alexander (Superintendent of Government Survey), “A Brief History of Land Titles in the Hawaiian Kingdom, Interior Department Appendix 1 to Surveyor General’s Report,” Honolulu PC Advertisers Co. Steam Print, 1882. Digitized by the University of Michigan, July 3, 2019. Some excerpts from this document that elaborate on the nature of the Mahele:

After long and patient investigation it was finally settled that there were but three classes of persons having vested rights in the land; 1st the King, 2nd the chiefs, and 3rd the tenants. The Land Commission decided that if the King should allow to the landlords one third, to the tenants one third, and retain one-third himself, “he would injure no one unless himself.” (page 9)

His Majesty… shall in accordance with the Constitution and Laws of the Land, retain all his private lands, as his own individual property, subject only to the rights of the Tenants, to have and to hold to Him, His heirs and successors forever. (page 13)

On the 7th of the following June, 1848, the Legislative Council passed the “Act relating to the lands of His Majesty the King and of the Government,” … and designates the several Crown Lands and Government Lands by name.

By this great Act of Kamehameha III, he showed his deep sympathy with the wants of his people, and set an illustrious example of liberality and public spirit. It remained for his chiefs to follow his example.

The second Division of lands took place during the summer of 1850, when most of the chiefs ceded a third of their lands to the Government, in order to obtain allodial title for the remainder.

The whole transaction was a severe test of their patriotism, and reflects great credit on that Hawaiian aristocracy which thus peacefully gave up a portion of its hereditary rights and privileges for the good of the nation. (pages 16-17)

… the Act of August 6th, 1850 confirmed and amended the rights of Tenants are expressly reserved… protects the common people in the enjoyment of the right to take wood, thatch, ki leaf etc. from the lands on which they live, for their own private use, but not to sell for profit. They are so guaranteed the right to water and the right of way, but not the right of pasturage on the land of the Konohiki [the chiefs’ land agents]. These rights are embodied in Section 1477 of the Civil Code.

The same Act of August 6th, 1850, confirms the resolutions passed by the Privy Council on the 21st of December, 1849, granting fee simple titles, free of all commutation to all native tenants, for their cultivated lands and house lots, except in the towns of Honolulu, Lahaina and Hilo. (page 17)

Author’s note: The king was motivated to retain large private holdings for himself as an individual—still “subject only to the rights of the tenants”—and not as government land because he rightly feared that under the international norms of the time a foreign conquest of Hawai’i could lead to the loss of government property to the conqueror. In contrast, conquerors respected private property and paid compensation if they seized it. This situation did not change until the Kellogg–Briand Pact (General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy) of 1928 made armed conquest illegal under international law.

[6] Donovan C. Preza, The Emperical Writes Back: Re-examining Hawaiian Dispossession Resulting from the Māhele of 1848, MA Thesis, University of Hawai’i, 2010, 157-165.

[7] Keanu Sai, “Hawaiian Royal Commission of Inquiry,” Hawaiian Kingdom Blog, October 17, 2019.

[8] Jay Walljasper, “A Brief History of How We Lost the Commons,” On the Commons, March 9, 2013.

[9] Benjamin Doolittle U.E., “Great Britain’s Claims of Ownership Of Native Peoples Lands,”, January 10, 2020.

[10] Chris Hedges, “On Contact: Interview with David Harvey—Part 2,” Russia Today, November 17, 2018. The interview is a discussion of David Harvey’s book A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford University Press, 2007). Parts of this citation are excerpts from the book read aloud during the interview.

[11]After Visiting Brazil’s Lula in Prison, Noam Chomsky Warns Against ‘Disaster’ Under Jair Bolsonaro,” Democracy Now, November 22, 2018.

[12] Lindsay Shepherd, Why I Reject Indigenous Land Acknowledgments, October 15, 2018.

[13] Vincent Intondi, “W. E. B. Du Bois to Malcolm X: The Untold History of the Movement to Ban the Bomb,” Zinn Education Project, July 30, 2015.