Theories of European Imperialism in the PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Theories of European Imperialism in the PDF

Description

Theories of European Imperialism in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries

By

Johnson Sesan Michael www.smbafrica.org [email protected]

Abstract: Imperialism as a phenomenon had received and is still receiving wide currency. Arguably, imperialism is highly linked to both capitalism, and colonialism, however, imperialism had been in existence long before capitalism and colonialism. One thing that is evident is that imperialism contributed to the emergence of both capitalism and colonialism. The immense multiplicity of elucidations on imperialism has become an eclectic and cacophonous blend of academic supposition, ideological positions, and rhetorical expositions as the basic questions that characterize the mainstream or canonical views of imperialism, like what it is, what constitutes it, what are (or were) its causes and effects, and is it still existing, have become subject to a wider range of reconstruction, contestation and reinterpretation. Significantly, this work is set to scrutinize some of the theories of imperialism vis-à-vis the foundation upon which European imperialism was established in the 17th and 18th-century. In doing this, attempt shall be made to consider the works of people such as John. A. Hobson, (Imperialism: A Study, 1902); Vladimir Illyich Lenin (1870-1924), (Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism, 1916); Adams Smith, (An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776); Karl Marx; etc.

Theories of European Imperialism in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries by Sesan Michael Johnson, BA 󰾴 History & Int󰾺l Relations, OAU, Ife, Nigeria

INTRODUCTION Imperialism as a phenomenon had received and is still receiving wide currency. Arguably, imperialism is highly linked to both capitalism, and colonialism, however, imperialism had been in existence long before capitalism and colonialism. One thing that is evident is that imperialism contributed to the emergence of both capitalism and colonialism. The immense multiplicity of elucidations on imperialism has become an eclectic and cacophonous blend of academic supposition, ideological positions, and rhetorical expositions as the basic questions that characterize the mainstream or canonical views of imperialism, like what it is, what constitutes it, what are (or were) its causes and effects, and is it still existing, have become subject to a wider range of reconstruction, contestation and reinterpretation. Significantly, this work is set to scrutinize some of the theories of imperialism vis-à-vis the foundation upon which European imperialism was established in the 17 th and 18th-century. In doing this, attempt shall be made to consider the works of people such as John. A. Hobson, (Imperialism: A Study, 1902); Vladimir Illyich Lenin (18701924), (Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism, 1916); Adams Smith, (An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776); Karl Marx; etc. Imperialism: Concept and Definitions To Marxists, 󰾽imperialism󰾾 is not simply the 󰾽trend towards expansion󰾾 or the 󰾽conquest of foreign lands,󰾾 as it is defined by most political scientists and sociologists. The word is used in a much more precise sense to describe the general changes which occurred in the political, economic and social activity of the big bourgeoisie of the advanced capitalist countries, beginning in the last quarter of the 19th century. These changes were closely related to alterations in the basic structure of this bourgeoisie. Lenin defines imperialism as a specific historical stage of capitalism. He further describes imperialism as 󰾽the highest stage of capitalism󰾾. According Lenin imperialism specific character is threefold: (a) imperialism is monopoly capitalism; (b) parasitic or decaying capitalism; (c) moribund capitalism.

Theories of European Imperialism in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries by Sesan Michael Johnson, BA 󰾴 History & Int󰾺l Relations, OAU, Ife, Nigeria

Lenin remarked that 󰾽If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism he would have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism.󰾾 However, Lenin went well beyond this fundamental proposition, and he hypothesized that modern imperialism is 󰾽the monopoly stage of capitalism󰾾. He gave a more elaborate 5-point definition of capitalist imperialism as follows: 󰾽And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its complete development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features: (1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;( 2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this 󰾽finance capital,󰾾 of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist combines which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism in that stage of development in which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital has established itself; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun; in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.󰾾 John A. Hobson in his book titled Imperialism: A Study elucidated out that imperialism was as a result of explosion or surplus in Europe that is needed in Africa, however, not for the benefits of Africa but the benefits of Europe. Hobson identified contemporary European imperialism as a historically unprecedented thing. For Hobson imperialism represents a more or less conscious and organized effort of a nation to expand its old political boundaries and take in by annexation other outside countries where its citizens have acquired strong industrial interests. Imperialism can be said to be a stage in development that redefines human status with two competing groups of dominance and subservient. Imperialism is empire building. The empires of Europe, including those of the UK, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, and Russia, reached their greatest extent in the 19 th century. Although partly a continuation of the expansionist policy of previous centuries,

Theories of European Imperialism in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries by Sesan Michael Johnson, BA 󰾴 History & Int󰾺l Relations, OAU, Ife, Nigeria

these nations increased their efforts to extend their powers and influence across the globe. At various times during the 19th century, Europeans held control over the continents of South America, Africa, Asia, and Australasia. Paradoxically, the earliest victims of Western European imperialism were other Europeans. Some 800 years ago, Ireland became the first colony of what later became known as the British Empire. Other early Caucasian victims included the Eastern Europeans. The people Charlemagne worked to death in his mines in the early part of the ninth century were Slavs. European global imperialism had actually begun in the fifteenth century, but the process greatly accelerated in the nineteenth century. Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, were undoubtedly characterized by series of wars and expeditions, the creation or the expansion of colonial empires: the French expeditions to Tonkin (now Vietnam), Tunisia and Morocco; the conquest of the Congo by Leopold II; the British expansion to the boundaries of India, Egypt and the Sudan, East and South Africa; the German and Italian expansions in Africa, etc. The term imperialism poses certain problems, since the term has been used almost exclusively by Communists since the 1940's to describe the current behavior of Western powers. This is quite odd, since there is a deep split among bourgeois ideologues about whether or not imperialism is a necessary part of capitalism. Imperialism is obviously an unambiguous historical phase in the history of Europe, the USA, and Japan, and there are ample grounds for saying the USSR too engaged in imperialism. Foundations and Theories of Eighteenth & Nineteenth Centuries European Imperialism We shall consider different theories that have been put forward to explain the foundation of European imperialism. We shall consider Political Theory, Economic Theory, Cultural Theory, among others. Political Theory According to political theorists like Morgenthau, and Cohen imperialism is simply a manifestation of the balance of power and it is the process by which nations try to

Theories of European Imperialism in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries by Sesan Michael Johnson, BA 󰾴 History & Int󰾺l Relations, OAU, Ife, Nigeria

achieve a favorable change in the status quo. The purpose of imperialism is to decrease the strategic and political vulnerability of a nation. No doubt political consideration played a major part in motivating European imperialism in the 18 th and 19th centuries. British politicians such as Benjamin Disraeli and the Marquees of Salisbury promoted the glory of an empire on which 󰾽the Sun never sets󰾾. In Germany, the Kaiser and his government demanded that Germany be given equal status with France and the UK, which included colonial possessions. This thus accentuated political rivalries between and amongst European nations. The UK and France, both leading imperial powers, had fought over control of India, and North America. The UK had also come into conflict with Spain over trading rights in South America. Particularly in Western Europe the pride of having a great empire was also a key factor influencing European imperialism in the 18 th and 19th centuries. Pride in empire had already proved important in France and the UK, the two most powerful empirebuilders, and its importance was demonstrated by the new states of Italy and Germany, who were quick to establish their own empires in the second half of the 19th century. While writing about Britain󰾺s imperialism J.S. Mill's third defense of imperialism was that it increased England's political power and eminence. Conventionally, Britain protected her areas of influence because, they might well be taken over by, and add to the power of rival nations. Indeed, this was typical of all European powers of the 18th and 19th centuries. Generally speaking, almost all the European powers joined in the race towards imperialism. According to John A. Hobson in a Contemporary Review article of 1903, while using political theory to explain imperialism he took the arguments about protection much further than was the case in his book Imperialism: A Study, and he tried to show how intimately linked were protection and imperialism. Therefore, imperialism represents a more or less conscious and organized effort of a nation to expand its old political boundaries and take in by annexation other outside countries where its citizens have acquired strong industrial interests. Protection represents the converse tendency, an effort to prevent industrial interests from wandering outside the political limits of the nation, to keep capital and labor employed within the political area.

Theories of European Imperialism in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries by Sesan Michael Johnson, BA 󰾴 History & Int󰾺l Relations, OAU, Ife, Nigeria

Economic Orthodoxy Writers like John A. Hobson and Angell pointed out that imperialism is a policy choice, and not an inevitable consequence of capitalism. Increasing concentration of wealth within the richer countries leads to under-consumption for the mass of people. Overseas expansion is a way to reduce costs and to secure new consumption. Overseas expansion is not inevitable, however. A state can solve the problem of underconsumption by increasing the income levels of the majority of the population either through legislation concerning wage levels (minimum wage laws, legalization of unions, child labor laws) or through income transfers (unemployment compensation, welfare). Looking back the Industrial Revolution that swept across Europe in the 18 th and 19th centuries was a major factor in the acceleration of European imperialism. Industries in European metropolis were in dire need of raw materials such as cotton, silk, palm oil, etc. These raw materials were readily available in Africa and other parts of the globe; hence, this propelled the European powers to accelerate European imperialism. Thus, the investors or the industrial barons greatly influenced the European government in pursuing imperialism. Colonies acquired through imperialism are foreign markets for the products of the industries of the metropolis. Coupled with this, is the fact that raw materials were gotten from them at a very low rates. Hobson in his argument considers the role of finance capital as 'governor' of the engine of imperialism, he made many accurate observations heretofore ignored: imperialism's primary beneficiary and primary instigator was a congeries of financial and industrial interests, divorced from those of the rest of the nation, and intent on terminating the competitive conditions that a free market economy is said to promote. The object of imperialism was to ensure that today's market winners would be tomorrow's winners, and their winnings would be bigger. So we find Hobson writing, in language reminiscent of J. S. Mill, that: 󰾽when the safest, most fundamental and upon the whole, most profitable employments for capital at home have been already amply furnished by our saving and investing classes, it is natural, desirable, and even necessary, that large quantities of the fresh capital should be placed further afield󰾾

Theories of European Imperialism in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries by Sesan Michael Johnson, BA 󰾴 History & Int󰾺l Relations, OAU, Ife, Nigeria

Hobson did not altogether forget his old position that foreign investment was a source of imperialist exploitation, he pointed out that: 󰾽as foreign trade and foreign investment advance it becomes a more important and more useful function of every government to try to secure for its citizens new markets for their goods and for their capital, and to employ public diplomacy and force to improve the markets already got and the capital already invested.󰾾

Hobson had no doubt that the prime cause of imperialism was "the pressure of the investing class for larger and safer areas of profitable investment", pressure which often led to wars which were beneficial to certain interests within -each nation, as in the case of the South African war. While each government tried to keep exclusive control of particular areas for investment, Hobson admitted that conflict was inevitable. Lenin developed his theory of imperialism amid an intensification of European engagement with the periphery. This intensification had begun during the second half of the 19th century. Domestically, capital was concentrating into large monopolistic corporations integrated with and led by a few large financial oligarchies. Lenin theorized that these two developments were intrinsically linked. The concentration of capital created inequality. Inequality in the core constrained aggregate demand levels. The general population could not absorb the mass of commodities achieved by higher levels of productive capacity. Insufficient demand created continual realization crises. The price of raw materials threatened profits further. The falling rate of profit required economic expansion to open up new regions for investment, sources of raw materials, and new consumer markets. From the premise that the capitalist class controls the state politically, Lenin theorized that finance-capital, the dominant form of capital, used the state machinery to colonize the periphery. In the periphery, capitalists would (1) use oppressed peripheral labor to produce primary commodities and raw materials cheaply; (2) create an affluent stratum (peripheral elite) to consume expensive commodities imported from the core;

Theories of European Imperialism in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries by Sesan Michael Johnson, BA 󰾴 History & Int󰾺l Relations, OAU, Ife, Nigeria

and (3) undermine indigenous industry, making the colonies dependent on core investment. The overall effect was that the core pumped wealth out of the periphery. The wealth flowing into the domestic economies of the core stifled the fall in the rate of profit. Lenin called this set of circumstances "imperialism." Several specific consequences followed; two are notable. One, surpluses permitted the development of a "labor aristocracy," a stratum of well-paid workers loyal to the capitalist class. Two, nation-state rivalry in the imperial system intensified nationalist sentiments among the working class and this deflected class struggle. Both of these effects functioned to strengthen the bourgeoisie over against the proletariat. Although this strategy would work in the short-term, Lenin argued, in the longer term it would undermine first imperialism and then capitalism in the core. Nation-state rivalry would lead to inter-imperial wars. The costs (financial drain) and devastation (destruction of productive capacity) of these wars would weaken core nation-states, not only because the losers would find themselves in an unfavorable position and with a diminished capacity to exploit the periphery, but because nationalist movements in the periphery and anti-colonial wars would undermine the capacity of even victorious core nations to exploit the periphery. Once the core lost control over its colonies the imperial would stagnate domestically. Domestic economic stagnation would raise the level of antagonisms between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat leading to a social revolution in the core. Another compelling argument on European imperialism in the 18 th and 19th centuries that tended to undermine the integrity of the united European metropolis was of course conquest for the purpose of securing markets. This was actually a motive noticed by Adam Smith, who disparaged the great folly of allowing capitalists to capture the state so they could use "buy customers": To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers may at first sight appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers; but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers. Such statesmen are capable of fancying that they will find some advantage

Theories of European Imperialism in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries by Sesan Michael Johnson, BA 󰾴 History & Int󰾺l Relations, OAU, Ife, Nigeria

in employing the blood and treasure of their fellow-citizens to found and maintain such an empire. Bentham while writing on European imperialism in our period of study also argued, like Adams Smith, that England had no problem with excess capital. There were ample investment opportunities at home, especially in agriculture, for all of the capital accumulated. England was not dependent on foreign trade and would not benefit from any exportation of capital to found and maintain colonies. This colonial expansion inspired the first efforts by Marxists to interpret the development of this period of capitalism. Karl Kautsky emphasized the commercial reasons for imperialist expansion. According to him, industrial capital cannot sell the whole of its production within an industrialized country. In order to realize surplus value, it must provide itself with markets made up of non-industrialized countries, essentially agricultural countries. This was the purpose of the colonial wars of expansion and the reason for the creation of colonial empires. It was Rosa Luxemburg who drew together in a complete theory all these concepts of an imperialism expanding to compensate for inadequate markets for the products o...