Generally under colonialism, the colonial power actively prevented any development of native capitalism in the colonies, even if the colonial power was capitalist in their home country. The goal was to prevent the colony from developing its own economy and rather to have the colony supply basic resources (food, minerals, oil, etc.) to the colonizer and force the colony to rely on goods from the colonizer.
It’s worth considering the famine in India at the end of the 19th century. The British integrated India into the world capitalist system in a way that directly led to famine: promotion of cash crops which led to vulnerability when drought struck; speculators hoarding food during famine (some stores of food even rotting while people starved); building of railways and ports (which were used to export food out of famine stricken areas for profit); and laissez faire relief policies. The death toll was in the millions. I found Mike Davis’ book Late Victorian Holocausts to be a good resource on this subject.
While the famines were real, and a result of British rule, that wasn't because India was part of a "world capitalist system". Capitalism doesn't just mean "people doing things for profit" but rather the use of capital to build up industry, which Britain had no intention of doing in India.
Capitalism is a system where one class of people (workers) sell their labor for the profit of another class (owners/capitalists). So feudalism was neither capitalist nor industrialist. Colonial capitalism - not typically industrial but still capitalist. Industrial capitalism - both industrialist and capitalist. The modern American economy - service based not industry based - but still capitalist.
