IMPERIALISM – DEFINITION

HISTORY MINOR (ASSIGNMENT)

SUBMITTED BY

NITUL BORAH

FACULTY IN-CHARGE
DR. M MUSTAQUE ALISH AIJAJA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY AND JUDICIAL ACADEMY

Imperialism can be defined as the extension of the rule of a country or the establishment of the
rule of a country and creation of enlarged body through conquest or acquisition. The world
imperialism comes from Latin word imperium which means Empire. It denotes a policy by
which a country extends its territories by acquisition or through conquest and establishes its
establishments over others’ territories and the consequent and subsequent economic and
political subjugation of the population of that country under its own. The term ‘Imperialism’
was coined in the late 1890s by a group of British political leaders led by Joseph Chamberlain,
a MP and father of Neville chamberlain who was later became the prime minister of England.
Joseph Chamberlain advocated the policy of extending England’s boundaries and creating by
creating colonies in different countries. Against this there were also another group of political
leaders in England and it was led by politicians like William Gladstone, Sir Henry Campbell-
Bannerman. Campbell-Bannerman were against the policy of imperialism which had been
propagated and promoted by people like Joseph Chamberlain. They felt that the best policy for
England was to be within its imperial bounds, within its own territories and not to covet others’
territories rather to develop whatever it had. According to them, the colonies were more like
burden than asset. According to them maintaining colonies lead to drain of resources. So, it
was better not to enter into a colonial policy. These people who did not support the imperialist
policies were called the little Englanders.
Imperialism went hand in hand with colonialism, however they both are slightly different from
each other. Colonialism and Imperialism are the two sides of the same coin but colonialism
means generally the establishment of colonies. Colonialism entails a relationship of unequal
rights. The mother country is in a much supreme position and the colonies have distinct
difference in the rights enjoyed by the colonial people and the people of the mother country.
Imperialism does not always mean establishment of colonies. For example, Napoleon
Bonaparte was a fierce imperialist. He conquered one country after another and introduced
Napoleonic rules there but he had not converted them into colonies. They were not necessarily
integral parts of the big French empire. They had their independent entities.
From the earliest times we have seen the expansion of Empires and establishment of colonies.
It had started in the 16th and the 17th centuries. When in the middle of the 15th century. The
Ottoman Turks invaded Europe in 1453 for the first time. Turks were very powerful at that
time and they kept on conquering one European country and after another especially in South
Eastern Europe. Colonialism started in 16th or 17th centuries particularly because of the
invasion of Turks. There were several commodities in which Europe was not self-sufficient.
For example, in Europe the production of spices, gold, silver and cotton wasn’t much. So, trade
relations with Arab merchants were established. Cotton, spices, gold, silver etc. were now
being brought by the Arab merchants to Europe through the Mediterranean ports. Arab
merchants used to bring their merchandise there and from there the Italian merchants brought
them and sent them to different parts of Europe. The Arab merchants and Italian merchants
both earned a lot of profit and commission. Trade was going on perfectly. It was stopped when
the Ottoman Turks Invaded Europe in 1453, in the middle of the 15th century. Turks conquered
a large part of Europe and established the powerful ottoman in Turkish empire. The trade
relations between the Arab merchants and the Europeans were not allowed. Even if they did
trade, they faced severe consequences. Then some European countries, especially
Mediterranean countries like Spain, Portugal, Italy etc, started to discover sea routes. If
discovered, sea routes could establish direct trade relations with Asian countries without the
dependency on the Arab merchants. Cartographers were called and initiative was taken
especially by Spain and Portugal also by Italy and various geographical explorers were sent to
discover trade routes via sea. Bartolomeu Dias discovered the cape of good hope in South
Africa. In 1492 Christopher Columbus, an Italian explorer commissioned by the Spanish king,
was given the responsibility of finding out easy trade routes to India. However, Columbus lost
the path and reached the shores of America, San Salvador and that is how America came to be
discovered. Another Portuguese explorer Cabral discovered Brazil, South America. Amerigo
Vespucci an Italian explore had claimed that he had discovered America much before
Columbus.
These new discoveries led to the beginning of imperialism/colonialism. Imperialism wasn’t a
new concept in Europe it has started as early as in the 15th century. This leads to the rise of
question that why the period from 1870 to 1914 is termed as the age of imperialism. According
to David Thompson and James Joll, the period (1870-1914) is known as the age of imperialism.
The main reason behind it was the dramatic suddenness of its reappearance on the scene of
Europe after a gap of almost half a century. Imperialism, which happened in second part of the
19th century, was in contrast to the period of decolonization which happened in Europe in the
first half of the 19th century. According to them prominent leaders like William Gladstone,
Disraeli, Bismarck of Europe were slowly losing interest in colonies and thought colonies
should be set freed because they were no longer financially viable. This view of David
Thompson has been contested by Robinson and Gallaher. They say that England did say against
colonies but despite that they were involved in Ghana, Egypt etc. therefore not matching words
and works. Slowly huge competition and serious rivalry, suspicion, disputes between European
powers especially in arena of Africa and Asia.
As far as the reasons are concerned for imperialism- industrial development, financial
investment, establishment trade and military supremacy etc. were the major factors. This
entailed a state of militarism. Everyone was watching each other carefully in order to not fall
behind. This state of jealousy is also associated with imperialism. It divided the whole world
into 2 rival camps- Triple alliance and triple entente, initiated by Bismarck. At first these
alliances were lost in nature but with increased imperialist clashes over creation of colonies in
different parts of the world they became more and more solidified. Propagation of religion,
Geographical exploration were two other important factors responsible for the imperialism.
Another social motivation was provided by Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection and
survival of the fittest. Same logic was applied in human relations because when the imperialist
scramble started.
Several academics have tried to explain imperialism. First explanation was given in 1902 by
liberal British economist JA Hobson in his pamphlet called imperialism: a study. He elaborated
Malthusian theory and doesn’t agree with it where population expanse is a geometric
progression of multiplication by 5, while food production in by addition of 3, thereby unequal
pace leading to shortage of resources, hence destitution and poverty. Many thinkers like
Fawcett, Rogers cairnes etc. agreed with Malthusian theory. J.A. Hobson has rejected the
theory rather he says that agricultural products or industrial production will be under
consumption regardless of population and because of underpayment to the working class there
will be limited buying causing under-consumption, but production will increase enormously.
Market will be saturated with goods and they will have to look for markets outside of Europe
to sell their products. Adam Smith calls it vents for surplus. Hobson calls it ‘excessive material
in search of investment’.
Rudolph hilferding provides Marxist explanation of imperialism in his work ‘Das Finanz
Kapital’. He gave theory that how there was a close nexus between capitalists and the banks.
According to him money is the medium of exchange for the goods. Capitalists invest the money
in the banks. Sometimes before starting an enterprise the bank gives loans and aids to the
industrialist. Therefore, the relationship is very close. Rudolph Hilferding identifies 2 types of
cartelization to establish monopoly, all these dependent on the banks. Banks also amalgamates
to facilitates the industrial cartelization. In this way a big finance capital is created. The entire
industrial world gets dominates and they seek to move overseas in order to invest, exploit in
other market where there is no market saturated with these cartels and more finance capital can
be created. Therefore, colonies became extremely essential.
Rosa Luxemburg in her pure gain hypothesis says that the main objective of the capitalists was
accumulation of capital and surplus values by investing more in reproduction, labor, raw
material and since it was not possible in saturate markets of Europe, so for this enhancement
of production it was essential to get colonies. This led to imperialism. Further, the gaining of
colonies was always associated with militarism, to suppress and subjugate and resist external
forces. Rosa argues that capitalist countries cannot go on increasing without the help of non-
capitalist countries. Pure gain cannot be produced within the saturated capitalist society.
Therefore, colonies are essential. Secondly, she says that there lies the death of capitalism in
capitalism itself. The capitalist society full of contraction would lack market, have high cost of
labor and raw material which will lead to colony establishment. Therefore, non-capitalist
countries would be capitalized, with varying degrees. So, Rosa Luxemburg argues that slowly
the entire world will be capitalized, and entire world will reach saturation of capitalism
George lee, critical of Rosa, has argued that she does not realize that it was very hard to
capitalize the entire world because the non-capitalist countries were being exploited at a full
swing, so these countries were being pushed to the edge of poverty. So, these countries in
essence become deindustrialized. Anthony brew says that Rosa Luxemburg’s theory says
reinvestment generates surplus value. But pure gain can’t be increased at a volatile pace
because, a large part of gain is used in production and rest of it is invested in machinery, wages,
bills etc. So pure gain is not multiplied at the pace rosa hypothesizes. Lenin’s pamphlet
“imperialism the highest stage of capitalism” was a combination of ideas of Hobson and
Ferdingher. He argues that the capital mode of production has the tendency of successful
production houses merging together to create monopoly. They are not very large in number;
the small entrepreneurs are huge in number but the cartels have monopoly which is dangerous
because they consume the highest resources of the country. He also borrows the idea that banks
amalgamate in order to supply finance to the cartels. Therefore, excessive capital and excessive
need to invest leads to imperialist conquest of colonies. Capital in search of investment.
Further, industrial growth throughout Europe led to rise in labour demand which created
‘aristocracy of labour’. This increases the need for colonies and cheap exploited laobour.
Imperialism in the stage at which the finance capital has reached its peak, when export of
capital becomes of pronounced importance, when the capital becomes divided among the
industrial trusts and, ultimately when the whole world gets partitioned by the few capitalists.
Dadabhai naoroji in 1867 wrote poverty and unbritish rule in India. He elaborated a relentless
drain of wealth from India to the Britain since Plassey. (Heavy taxation imposed on Indians,
Construction of several projects like railroads, bridges, defense investments responsible for
drain of wealth) This was also accepted by John Sullivan, director of board of revenue of
madras. Aditya Mukherjee argues that capitalist development of Britain was at the cost of
colonies. Professor Sabyasachi bhattacharya said that a lot of extortion was faced by the Indian
traders, artisans and farmers at the hands of Indian sahukars and money lenders and they have
not been adequately criticized. Tirthankar roy, however, was very apologetic for Dadabhai
naroji’s comments, he believed without the colonial rule India could never have had a
commercial growth. Professor Vera anstey, Percival Griffin, sir Theodor Morrison among
others were the bureaucratic defenders. For them without the British how could India have
developed railways, admin structure and infrastructure. According to Vera Anstey home
charges amounted to only 2% of budget.
Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter says colonialism and imperialism is not required for
capitalism. Its growth is rested upon advanced technology. To some extent he depends on the
theories of Ricardo of double squeeze. For him imperialism is the legacy of feudal age. Robert
Heilbroner criticizes Schumpeter very bitterly. He says that if technology was the primary
question behind the growth of profit, then why hadn’t the policy been applied at the time of
great depression. Why didn’t it revive the economy at that time? In the 1960s two economists
Segal and Simon have interpreted that it wasn’t for capitalism that imperialism took place.
With the example of Britain, they say that the maximum investment of British capital was not
in the colonies of Asia and Africa, but the Americas. 50% of investment was in America, 14%
in Asia, 11% in Africa. Therefore, if colonies are required for more profit, then why is there
less investment in acquired colonies? Simultaneously, Simon and Segal have also agreed with
dadabhai naoroji, only 1.1% british capital was invested in development and structural growth
of India. Paul Baran also agrees with Dadabhai naoroji, that the lack of development and
continuing poverty was because of amount of capital exported from these countries to the richer
countries. Paul sweezy, Emmanuel Wallerstien and Andre Gunderfrank also agree with Paul
Baran. Sweezy also says that exploitation of peripheral states and marginal states by the core
states was going on constantly by world capitalist system. Wallerstien divides the world
systems into 3 kinds of states- periphery, semi periphery and core. The core states are big
capitalist states, they exploit the periphery the maximum. Andre Gunderfrank calls semi-
peripheral states ‘the lumpen bourgeoisie’ because the act as agents of core states but are also
exploited by them, this is the theory of ‘metropolis satellite relationship’. All these scholars
agree that it is a big chain. Patrick wolf gives the theory that in this chain, everyone is being
exploited and are exploiting and has a dual role. Except the two states at the very end. The
highest core state can’t be exploited, and the lowest periphery can’t exploit anyone. When this
chain breaks the capitalist order will collapse. The state at the very end- a tribal marginalized
state- will one day not be bothered with exploitation and state developing, and then the chain
will break.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. James Joll – Europe since 1870
2. David Thomson- Europe since Napoleon