Imperialism 2003

International Relations
IMPERIALISM
TERM REPORT
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (SECTION “C”)
SUBMITTED TO : DR SAHIB ALI KHAN CHANNA
DATED : 8th April 2010
PREPARED BY: Irfan Junejo - 9063
2 |Page
IMPERIALISM – Term Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LETTER OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................5

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................7
HISTORY OF IMPERIALISM..................................................................................7
EARLY EMPIRES...........................................................................................................................7
CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY....................................................................................................................8
MIDDLE AGES ...........................................................................................................................8
COLONIAL EMPIRES ....................................................................................................................10
MODERN PERIOD ......................................................................................................................11
EMPIRE FROM 1945 TO THE PRESENT...............................................................................................14
OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................17
DEFINITIONS FROM SOME OTHER SOURCES.......................................................18
EMPIRE............................................................................................................19
TYPES OF IMPERIALISM....................................................................................20
CULTURAL IMPERIALISM................................................................................................................20
HEGEMONY..............................................................................................................................22
NEW IMPERIALISM......................................................................................................................23
Background....................................................................................................................24
Rise of New Imperialism.................................................................................................25
Theories Of New Imperialism.........................................................................................27
OIL IMPERIALISM..............................................................................................35
Control of oil...................................................................................................................35
Criticism.........................................................................................................................36
SCIENTIFIC IMPERIALISM....................................................................................................36
CRITIQUE OF POWER......................................................................................................37
RELIGION OF INTELLECTUALS.........................................................................................38
MARGINALIZED...............................................................................................................38
IN MEDICINE...................................................................................................................39
ULTRA-IMPERIALISM (HYPER IMPERIALISM).......................................................40
AMERICAN IMPERIALISM ..................................................................................42
IMPERIALISM IN ASIA........................................................................................44
IMPERIALISM IN CHINA.....................................................................................46
QING TERRITORIAL EXPANSION.........................................................................................................46
USING IMPERIALISM TO DESCRIBE QING EXPANSION.................................................................................46
THE PROCESS OF EXPANSION..........................................................................................................47
3 |Page
EUROPEAN PENETRATION OF CHINA...................................................................................................49

LIST OF TERRITORIES OCCUPIED BY IMPERIAL JAPAN..........................................52
OVERVIEW..............................................................................................................................52
PRE-WORLD WAR II..................................................................................................................52
WORLD WAR II........................................................................................................................53
JAPANESE AND CHINESE RESPONSES TO IMPERIALISM.......................................54
DEFINITION OF IMPERIALISM IN DIFFERENT DICTIONARIES.................................56
DICTIONARY.............................................................................................................................56
BUSINESS DICTIONARY.................................................................................................................56
US MILITARY DICTIONARY............................................................................................................56
GEOGRAPHY DICTIONARY..............................................................................................................57
POLITICAL DICTIONARY.................................................................................................................57
CRITIQUE OF IMPERIALISM................................................................................58
THE PLACE OF IMPERIALISM IN HISTORY...........................................................64
VLADIMIR LENIN’S APPROACH...........................................................................67
LENINISM................................................................................................................................67
IMPERIALISM, THE HIGHEST STAGE OF CAPITALISM.................................................................................68
PUBLICATION HISTORY..................................................................................................................69
INDEX..............................................................................................................70
REFERENCES....................................................................................................71
4 |Page
Letter of Acknowledgement
I am thankful to Allah Almighty for giving me the capability and strength to complete
this Term report on “Imperialism” of the Course, “International Relations”.
I would also like to thank my course instructor Dr. SAHIB ALI KHAN CHANNA whose
utmost dedication and devotion provided me with the insight to analyze all the
situations. It was due to his guidance and teachings that enabled me to finish this
term report.
I would also like to thank All the Sources who have cooperated with me and provided
me with all the information that I required to complete this report. I express sincere
gratitude to our parents for their continuous support throughout the preparation of
this report.
Prepared By:
Irfan Junejo
2008-1-83-9063
5 |Page
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Dr SAHIB ALI CHANNA November 23, 2010
Course Instructor, Department of International Relations
Institute of Business Management
Korangi Creek
Karachi
Dear Sir,
Here is my term report on IMPERIALISM, which is to be submitted on April 8 . This

report analyzes the various practices of IMPERIALISM followed by the WORLD.
I greatly benefited from this report as my term report. It helped me to widen my

vision, improve my quality of work, build self-reliance work and it gave a vital experience in
order to improve my analytical skills.
I hope it is up to your expectations and fulfils all the requirements given by you.
Sincerely,
Irfan Junejo
6 |Page
INTRODUCTION
Imperialism is autocratic, and also sometimes monolithic in

character. While the term imperialism often refers to a political
or geographical domain such as the Ottoman Empire the
Russian Empire, or the British Empire, etc., the term can
equally be applied to domains of knowledge, beliefs, values
and expertise, such as the empires of Christianity or Islam.
The belief in the desirability of the acquisition of colonies and

dependencies, or the extension of a country's influence
through trade, diplomacy, etc.
HISTORY OF IMPERIALISM
Early empires
The imperial concept predates the Roman Empire by millennia;

the Akkadian Empire of Sargon of Akkad (24th century BC),
was the earliest model of a geographically extensive terrestrial
empire. In the 15th century BC, the loosely-organized New
Kingdom of Ancient Egypt, ruled by Thutmose III, was the
ancient Near East’s major force upon incorporating Nubia and
the ancient city-states of the Levant. Despite their imperial
condition, these early empires had no effective administrative
control of their subject territories. The ancient world’s earliest,
centrally-organized empire, comparable to Rome, was the
Assyrian empire (2000–612 BC), and the first, successful, multi-
cultural empire was the Persian Achaemenid Empire (550–330
7 |Page
BC), then the most extensive, comprehending Egypt, Greece,

Western Asia (the Middle East), Central Asia, and India.
Classical Antiquity
The Roman Empire was the most extensive Western empire

until the early modern period.
Prior to the Roman Empire the kingdom of Macedonia, under

Alexander the Great, became an empire that spanned from
Greece to India. After Alexander’s death, his empire fractured
into four, discrete kingdoms ruled by the Diadochi, which,
despite being independent, are denoted as the "Hellenistic
Empire", given the Greek influence.
In the East, the term Persian Empire denotes the imperial

states established at different historical periods of pre–Islamic
and post–Islamic Persia. And in the Far East, various Celestial
Empires arose periodically in China between periods of civil
war and foreign conquests. The Han Empire was one of the
world’s largest Empires in Antiquity, and one of Chinas most
long lived dynasties.
Middle Ages
The Mongol Empire was the largest contiguous empire.
For centuries, in the West, “empire” was exclusively applied to

States that considered themselves the heirs and successors of
the Roman Empire, e.g. the Byzantine Empire, the German Holy
Roman Empire, the Russian Empire, yet, said states were not
always technically — geographic, political, military — empires.
To legitimize their imperium, these states directly claimed the
title of Empire from Rome. The sacrum Romanum imperium
(800–1806), claimed to have exclusively comprehended
Christian German principalities, was only nominally a discrete
imperial state. The Holy Roman Empire was not always
8 |Page
centrally-governed, as it had neither core nor peripheral

territories, was not multi-ethnic, and was not governed by a
central, politico-military élite — hence, Voltaire’s remark that
the Holy Roman Empire “was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an
empire” is accurate to the degree that it ignores German rule
over Italian, French, Provençal, Polish, Flemish, Dutch, and
Bohemian populations, and the efforts of the eighth-century
Holy Roman Emperors (i.e. the Ottonians) to establish central
control; thus, Voltaire’s “. . . nor an empire” observation
applies to its late period.
In 1204, after the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople, the

crusaders established a Latin Empire (1204–1261) in that city,
while the defeated Byzantine Empire’s descendant’s
established two, smaller, short-lived empires in Asia Minor: the
Empire of Nicaea (1204–1261) and the Empire of Trebizond
(1204–1461). In the event, the Muslim Ottoman Empire
(ca.1300–1918), conquered most of that region by 1453.
Moreover, Eastern Orthodox imperialism was not re-
established until the coronation, in 1682, of Peter the Great as
Emperor of Russia. Like-wise, with the collapse of the Holy
Roman Empire, in 1806, during the Napoleonic Wars (1803–
1815), the Austrian Empire (1804-1867), emerged
reconstituted as the Empire of Austria–Hungary (1867–1918),
having “inherited” the imperium of Central and Western
Europe from the losers of said wars.
In the South India the Dravidian empire the Cholas were at the
height of their power continuously from the latter half of the
9th century till the beginning of the 13th centuries. Under
Rajaraja Chola I and his son Rajendra Chola I, the dynasty
became a military, economic and cultural power in Asia. During
the period 1010–1200, the Chola territories stretched from the
islands of the Maldives in the south to as far north as the
banks of the Godavari River in Andhra Pradesh. Rajaraja Chola
conquered entire South India, annexed parts of Sri Lanka and
9 |Page
occupied the islands of the Maldives. Rajendra Chola sent a

victorious expedition to North India that touched the river
Ganga and defeated the Pala ruler of Pataliputra, Mahipala. He
also successfully invaded kingdoms of the Malay Archipelago.
The Mongol Empire, under Genghis Khan in the thirteenth

century, was forged as the largest contiguous empire in the
world. Genghis Khan's grandson, Kublai Khan, was proclaimed
emperor, and established his imperial capital at Beijing;
however, in his reign, the empire became fractured into four,
discrete khanates.
Colonial empires
The discovery of the New World (the Americas and Australasia)

in the 15th century, proved opportune for European countries
to launch colonial imperialism like that of the Romans and the
Carthaginians. In the Old World, colonial imperialism was
attempted, affected, and established upon the Canary Islands
and Ireland, wherein, the conquered lands and peoples became
de jure subordinates of the empire, rather than de facto
imperial territory and subjects. In the event, such subjugation
elicited “client-state” resentment that the empire unwisely
ignored, leading to the collapse of the European colonial
imperial system in the late-nineteenth century and the early-
and mid-twentieth century.
An inherent problem of European colonial imperialism was the

matter of the arbitrary territorial boundaries of the colonies.
For administrative expediency, discrete colonies were
established solely by convenient geography — while ignoring
the sometimes extreme cultural differences among the
conquered populace(s); effective in the short-term control of
the subject peoples, but politically, militarily, and economically
ineffective in the imperial long-term. For the British Empire,
10 | P a g e
this occurred with the populaces of the colony of “India” — the

Indian sub-continent — who, on partition and independence, in
1947, divided themselves by culture and religion, not
geography, and established the modern countries of India and
Pakistan (the geographically-distant states of West Pakistan
and East Pakistan), which later, respectively, became Pakistan
(The Islamic Republic of Pakistan), in 1947, and Bangladesh
(The People’s Republic of Bangladesh), in 1971. Moreover, in
Africa, said arbitrary imperial borders remain, and define the
contemporary countries, because the African Union’s explicit
policy is their preservation in avoiding political instability and
concomitant war.
Modern period
In time, most monarchies,

usually kingdoms, styled
themselves as having greater
size, scope, and power than the
territorial, politico-military, and
economic facts allowed; despite
The Spanish–Portuguese Empire in the
that, they assumed the title of Iberian Union (1580–1640) period;
“Emperor” (or its corresponding Spanish Empire (red), Portuguese Empire
translation: Tsar, Emperador, (blue)
Kaiser, et cetera) and re-named their states as “The Empire
of . . . ”. For example, in 1056, King Ferdinand I of León,
proclaimed himself “Emperor of Hispania”, and began the
Reconquista (718–1492) of the Iberian Peninsula from the
Muslims; another, medieval example is Bulgaria.
In the 19th century, the French emperors Napoleon I and

Napoleon III (See: Second Mexican Empire [1864–1867]) each
attempted establishing a Western imperial hegemony based in
France; and the German Empire (1871–1918), another “heir to
the Holy Roman Empire” arose in 1871. In consequence, the
11 | P a g e
Europeans began applying the conceptual political structure of

“empire” to non-European monarchies, such as the Manchu
Dynasty and the Mughal Empire, and then to past polities,
leading, eventually, to the looser denotations applicable to any
political structure (monarchic or not) meeting the criteria of
imperium; thus, the empire synonyms: tsardom, realm, reich,
and raj.
Empires accrete to different types of states, although, they

traditionally originated as powerful monarchies ruled by an
hereditary (sometimes self-appointed) emperor, nevertheless,
the Athenian Empire, the Roman Empire, and the British
Empire developed under elective auspices, while the Brazilian
Empire declared itself an empire born of a Portuguese colony
in 1822, and France has twice transited from being the French
Republic to being the French Empire; whilst nominally a
republic, France remained an overseas empire; to date, it
governs a territorial, colonial empire (French Guyana,
Martinique, Réunion, French Polynesia, New Caledonia) and an
hegemony in Francophone Africa (Chad, Rwanda, et cetera).
Historically, empires resulted from military conquest, with the

conqueror incorporating the vanquished states to its political
union; yet, a strong state could establish imperial hegemony
with minimal militarism. The victim-state’s inability to
militarily resist, and its knowledge of that inability, usually
suffices to convince it to negotiate for annexation, rather than
conquest, to the empire. For example, the bequest of
Pergamon, by Attalus III, to the Roman Empire, in antiquity,
and, the Unification of Germany as the empire accreted to the
Prussian metropole, whose military action was less a military
conquest of the German states, than their political divorce
from the Austrian Empire. Having convinced them of its
12 | P a g e
military prowess — and having excluded the Austrians —

Prussia dictated the terms of imperial membership to the
nominally independent German states joining what initially
was a revamped customs union; thus, via Prussian hegemony,
the German states mostly retained the trappings of
sovereignty, and the hegemon empire avoided a protracted
war of conquest and consolidation.
In sub-continental Asia, the Sikh Empire (1799–1846) was

established in the Punjab, by the Maharaja Ranjit Singh, after
the Sikhs defeated the Afghan Empire; it comprised the
territory from Kabul to Delhi. The Sikh Empire collapsed at
Ranjit Singh’s death, when — despite the Sikhs having
opportunity of capturing the local colony of the British Empire
— Tej Singh and Lal singh betrayed their army to the British in
1846.
Politically, it was typical for either a monarchy, or an oligarchy,

rooted in the original, core territory of the empire, to continue
dominating said union of states. Usually, such government was
maintained via control of a natural resource vital to the
colonial subjects, usually, water; such régimes were
denominated “hydraulic empires”. Moreover, pace Edward
Gibbon, the empire’s introduction of a common religion
amenable to every subject populace also strengthened the
imperial political structure, as occurred with the adoption of
Christianity under Constantine I.
In time, an empire metamorphoses to another form of polity;

thus, the Bernese Empire of conquest ceased existing when its
conquered territories were (culturally) incorporated, either to
the Canton of Bern or to other cantons of the Swiss
Confederation. To wit, the Holy Roman Empire, a German re-
13 | P a g e
constitution of the Roman Empire, metamorphosed into

various political structures (i.e. Federalism), and, eventually,
under Habsburg rule, re-constituted itself as the Austrian
Empire — an empire of much different politics and vaster
extension. After the Second World War (1939–1945) the British
Empire, evolved into a loose, multi-national Commonwealth of
Nations; while the French Colonial empire metamorphosed to a
Francophone commonwealth; and the Soviet Empire became
the Commonwealth of Independent States.
An autocratic empire can progress to being a republic, usually

with a coup d’etat (e.g. Brazil in 1889; the Central African
Empire in 1979); or it can become a republic with its imperial
dominions reduced to a core territory (e.g. Weimar Germany,
1918–1919 and the Ottoman Empire, 1918–1923). The
dissolution of the Austro–Hungarian Empire, in 1918, is an
example of a multi-ethnic superstate devolving to its
constituent states: the republics, kingdoms, and provinces of
Austria, Hungary, Transylvania, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Czechoslovakia, Ruthenia, Galicia, et al.
Empire from 1945 to the present
* Etymology and semantics; Contemporaneously, the

concept of Empire is politically valid, yet, is losing semantic
cohesion; for example, Japan, the world’s sole empire, is a
constitutional monarchy, with an heterogeneous population
that is 97 per cent ethnic Japanese and a land mass smaller
than that of other modern nations. Moreover, given the
disfavour against absolute monarchy and the absence of any
government with explicitly imperial policies, the term empire
might become a linguistic anachronism; nonetheless, as
political science, the military command of Imperium evolved to
the political structure of Empire, which evolved into hegemonic
Imperialism — its theoretical denotations and connotations of
14 | P a g e
global capitalism as imperialism derive from Imperialism, the

Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916), Vladimir Lenin’s incisive,
analytic study of cultural and economic hegemony.
* Communist Empire; the USSR (1922–1991) met the

imperium criteria, was governed by a ruling group, not an
hereditary emperor (cf. Soviet Empire), yet never identified
itself as such; nevertheless, its anti-Communist, ideological
opponents, most notably the US President Ronald Reagan and
the UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, named it The Evil
Empire, tacitly contrasting it with The Good Empire of the
democratic West. Academically, the USSR was denominated
imperial, given its likeness to empires past and its ideologic
appeal to the poor peoples of Eurasia.[citation needed].
* Capitalist Empire; identifying the USA’s American Empire,

by its international behavior, is controversial in that country.
To wit, Stuart Creighton Miller posits that the public’s self-
styled “sense of innocence” about Realpolitik (cf. American
Exceptionalism) impairs popular recognition of US imperial
conduct, because it governs via surrogates — domestically-
weak, right-wing governments that collapse without US
support. To wit, G.W. Bush Administration Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld having said: “We don’t seek
empires. We’re not imperialistic; we never have been” —
directly contradicts Thomas Jefferson, in the 1780s, awaiting
the fall of the Spanish empire: “. . . till our population can be
sufficiently advanced to gain it from them piece by piece
[sic]”. In turn, historian Sidney Lens confirms Jefferson, noting
that, from its British imperial independence, the US has used
every means to dominate other nations.
15 | P a g e
* Historically imperial countries — China, India, Indonesia,

Myanmar, Russia, Spain — whose body politic comprises
violent and peaceful political separatist groups, whether or not
State action controlling their activities is legitimate law-
enforcement or imperial repression remains debated. Unlike an
empire, modern multi-ethnic states are federations (e.g.
Belgium) and commonwealth unions (e.g. the UK) whose
democratic political systems share governing power at the
federal, provincial, and state jurisdictions.
* European Empire redux; in the post–Cold War era, since

the European Union began, in 1993, as a west European trade
bloc, it established its own currency, the Euro, in 1999,
established discrete military forces, and exercised its
hegemony in eastern Europe and in Asia, behavior which the
political scientist, Jan Zielonka, posits as imperial, because it
coerces its neighbor countries to adopt its European economic,
legal, and political structures.
* The Age of Nation Empires as the Order of the World in the

twenty-first century; in his book review of Empire (2000), by
Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Mehmet Akif Okur posits
that, since the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the US,
the international relations determining the world’s balance of
power (political, economic, military) have been altered by the
intellectual (political science) trends that perceive the
contemporary world’s order via the re-territorrialization of
political space, the re-emergence of classical imperialist
practices (the “inside” vs. “outside” duality, cf. the Other), the
deliberate weakening of international organizations, the
restructured international economy, economic nationalism, the
expanded arming of most countries, the proliferation of
nuclear-weapon capabilities, and the politics of identity
emphasizing a State’s subjective perception of its place in the
world, as a nation and as a civilization. These changes
constitute the “Age of Nation Empires”; as imperial usage,
16 | P a g e
nation-empire denotes the return of geopolitical power from

global power blocs to regional power blocs (i.e. centered upon
a “regional power” State [China, Russia, US, et al.]), and
regional multi-state power alliances (i.e. Europe, Latin
America, South East Asia), thus nation-empire regionalism
claims sovereignty over their respective (regional) political
(social, economic, ideologic), cultural, and military spheres.
OVERVIEW
Imperialism is found in the ancient histories of the Assyrian

Empire, Roman Empire, Greece, the Persian Empire, and the
Ottoman Empire (see Ottoman wars in Europe), ancient Egypt,
India, the Aztec empire, and a basic component to the
conquests of Genghis Khan and other warlords. Although
imperialist practices have existed for thousands of years, the
term "Age of Imperialism" generally refers to the activities of
nations such as Britain, Japan, and Germany in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, e.g. the "Scramble
for Africa" and the "Open Door Policy" in China.
The word itself is derived from the Latin verb imperare (to
command) and the Roman concept of imperium, while the
actual term 'Imperialism' was coined in the sixteenth century,
reflecting what are now seen as the imperial policies of
Portugal, Spain, Britain, Belgium, France, and the Netherlands
in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Imperialism not only
describes colonial, territorial policies, but also economic and/or
military dominance and influence.
17 | P a g e
DEFINITIONS FROM SOME OTHER SOURCES
Definition 3 in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary (2007) is

particularly apropos to our second (attitude) meaning above;
and also to the issue of how far non-military and not-overtly-
territorial control can be called imperialism:
[Imperialism:] The belief in the desirability of the acquisition

of colonies and dependencies, or the extension of a country's
influence through trade, diplomacy, etc. Usu. derog.
Also on the issue of non-military control, we have this from the

first paragraph of the article, "Imperialism," in the
International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (second
edition):
. . . Commonly associated with the policy of direct extension

of sovereignty and dominion over non-contiguous and often
distant overseas territories, it also denotes indirect political or
economic control of powerful states over weaker peoples.
Regarded also as a doctrine based on the use of deliberate
force, imperialism has been subject to moral censure by its
critics, and thus the term is frequently used in international
propaganda as a pejorative for expansionist and aggressive
foreign policy.
The following passage, from Wm. Roger Louis, Imperialism

(1976) is also informative. He is discussing an influential
theory of 19th century European imperialism by the historians
John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson:
More specifically, Robinson and Gallagher attack the

traditional notion that "imperialism" is the formal rule or
control by one people or nation over others. In their view,
18 | P a g e
historians have been mesmerized by formal empire and maps

of the world with regions colored red. The bulk of British
emigration, trade, and capital went to areas outside the formal
British Empire. A key to the thought of Robinson and Gallagher
is the idea of empire "informally if possible and formally if
necessary." [This last phrase referring to the fact that the
British government was often reluctant to entangle itself with
formal colonies. -- Wikipedia.
EMPIRE
Empire derives from the Latin word imperium, denoting
“military command” in Ancient Rome. Politically, an empire is
a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic
groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor,
empress) or an oligarchy. Geopolitically, the term empire has
denoted very different, territorially-extreme states — at the
strong end, the extensive Spanish Empire (16th c.) and the
British Empire (19th c.), at the weak end, the Holy Roman
Empire (8th c.–19th c.), in its Medieval and early-modern
forms, and the anæmic Byzantine Empire (15th c.), that was a
direct continuation of the Roman Empire, that, in its final
century of existence, was more a city-state than a territorial
empire.
Etymologically, the political usage of “empire” denotes a

strong, centrally-controlled nation-state, but, in the looser,
quotidian, vernacular usage, it denotes a large-scale business
enterprise (i.e. a transnational corporation) and a political
organization of either national-, regional-, or city scale,
controlled either by a person (a political boss) or a group
authority (political bosses).
19 | P a g e
An imperial political structure is established and maintained

two ways: (i) as a territorial empire of direct conquest and
control with force (direct, physical action to compel the
emperor’s goals), and (ii) as a coercive, hegemonic empire of
indirect conquest and control with power (the perception that
the emperor can physically enforce his desired goals). The
former provides greater tribute and direct political control, yet
limits further expansion, because it absorbs military forces to
fixed garrisons. The latter provides less tribute and indirect
control, but avails military forces for further expansion.
Territorial empires (e.g. the Mongol Empire, the Median
Empire) tended to be contiguous areas; while maritime
empires or thalassocracies, (e.g. the Athenian, Achaemenid
Persian Empire, and British Empire) are intercontinental, far-
flung overseas empires.
TYPES OF IMPERIALISM
Cultural Imperialism
Cultural imperialism is the practice of promoting,

distinguishing, separating, or artificially injecting the culture
or language of one culture into another. It is usually the case
that the former belongs to a large, economically or militarily
powerful nation and the latter belongs to a smaller, less
important one. Cultural imperialism can take the form of an
active, formal policy or a general attitude. The term is usually
used in a pejorative sense, usually in conjunction with a call to
reject foreign influence.
Cultural imperialism is the practice of promoting,

distinguishing, separating, or artificially injecting the culture
or language of one culture into another. It is usually the case
20 | P a g e
that the former belongs to a large, economically or militarily

powerful nation and the latter belongs to a smaller, less
important one. Cultural imperialism can take the form of an
active, formal policy or a general attitude. The term is usually
used in a pejorative sense, usually in conjunction with a call to
reject foreign influence.
Some real-world examples that may illustrate various forms of

cultural imperialism are:
* The forced assimilation of the Ainu of Japan through the

slaughter of the deer they depended on for sustenance and
cultural survival.
* The beating of Native Hawaiian children for speaking the

Hawaiian language in school during the early territorial period.
* The importation of items such as infant formula into non-

Westernized societies (see Nestlé boycott).
* The active suppression of pre-war Yugoslavian cultural

practices and common language in Croatia.
* The ongoing threat to the Inuit hunting culture in

Greenland by environmental groups such as Greenpeace, and
of the traditional Thule culture in Greenland by encroachment
of a cash-based economy.
* The forced use of French as the language of Occitania.
* The forced use of French and Spanish as languages of

Catalonia.
* The beating of Scottish and Welsh children for speaking

Scottish Gaelic and Welsh instead of English in schools in the
early 20th century. See the Welsh Not.
21 | P a g e
* The use of US culture in marketing and advertising

worldwide
* Residential schools in Canada designed to assimilate First

Nations, Métis and Inuit children into the predominate
European cultures of Canada (anglophone, francophone).
Hegemony
Hegemony (leadership) first denoted the dominance

(“leadership”) of a Greek city-state over other city-states, and
then denoted the dominance of one nation over others. The
political scientist Antonio Gramsci developed the former
conceptions to identify the dominance of one social class over
the other social classes in a society by means of cultural
hegemony. Moreover, a hegemony is the type of empire,
wherein, the imperial state controls the subordinate state with
power (the perception that it can enforce its political goals),
rather than with force (direct physical action to compel its
political goals), (cf. suzerainty).
In the field of international relations, the hegemon (leader)

dictates the politics of the subordinate states upon whom it
has hegemony via cultural imperialism — the imposition of its
way of life, i.e. its language (as imperial lingua franca) and
bureaucracies (social, economic, educational, governing), to
make its dominance formal — and, so, render as abstract its
foreign domination of the subordinate state; thus, power does
not rest in a given person, but in the way things are, yet, any
rebellion (social, political, economic, armed) is eliminated by
the local police and military, without the hegemon’s direct
intervention, e.g. the Spanish and the British empires, and the
united Germany (extant 1871–1945).
22 | P a g e
Politically, hegemony is the predominance of one political unit

over other units in a political group — a province within a
federation (Prussia in the Second Reich), one man in a
committee (Napoleon Bonaparte in the Consulate), and one
state in a confederation (France in the EU). Sociologically, as
cultural hegemony, it denotes and explains the domination and
maintenance of power (either by a person or a group), and how
the hegemon class “persuades” the subordinated social
classes to accept and adopt the imposed external values, i.e.
bourgeois hegemony; per Gramsci, the hegemonic Imperial
State is a mixture of coercion and hegemony, distinguishable
as force and power. To wit, it is the social and political
power(s) derived from the populace’s “spontaneous consent”
— given because of the intellectual and moral authority that
grant leadership to the "subalterns" of the Imperial State —
thus, hegemony is exercised through power (coercion and
consent), rather than through force (arms). These constitute
the cultural hegemony — its agents (the Imperial State’s
subalterns) are the press (mass communications media),
organized religion, the schools (educational curricula), and the
commercialized popular arts (cinema, music, et cetera) —
imposed from above, that influence the citizens of the
subordinate state to accept the hegemon’s (foreign, external)
values, thereby, maintaining the hegemonic status quo, so
that the empire can continue.
New Imperialism
New Imperialism refers to the colonial expansion adopted by

Europe's powers and, later, Japan and the United States,
during the 19th and early 20th centuries; approximately from
the Franco-Prussian War to World War I (c. 1870–1914). The
23 | P a g e
period is distinguished by an unprecedented pursuit of what

has been termed "empire for empire's sake," aggressive
competition for overseas territorial acquisitions and the
emergence in some colonizing countries of doctrines of racial
superiority which purported to explain the unfitness of
backward peoples for self-government.
Background
The term imperialism was used from the third quarter of the
nineteenth century to describe various forms of political
control by a greater power over less powerful territories or
nationalities, although analytically the phenomena which it
denotes may differ greatly from each other and from the
"New" imperialism.
A later usage developed in the early 20th century among

Marxists, who saw "imperialism" as the economic and political
dominance of "monopolistic finance capital" in the most
advanced countries and its acquisition — and enforcement
through the state — of control of the means (and hence the
returns) of production in less developed regions. They
supported it as a necessary phase of human development.
Elements of both conceptions are present in the "New
imperialism" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But
along with the adoption of ultra-nationalist and racial
supremacist ideologies, the period saw a shift to pre-emptive
colonial expansion, fueled by the imposition of tariff barriers
aimed at excluding economic rivals from markets.
English writers have sometimes described elements of this

period as the "era of empire for empire's sake," "the great
adventure," and "the scramble for Africa." During this period,
24 | P a g e
the advanced European nations conquered 20% of the Earth's

land area (nearly 23,000,000 km²). Africa, Asia and the Pacific
Islands, the remaining world regions that had largely been
uncolonized by Europeans, became the primary targets of this
new phase of imperialist expansion; in the latter two regions,
Japan and the United States joined the European powers in the
scramble for territory.
Rise of New Imperialism
The Rise of the New Imperialism overlaps with the Pax

Britannica period (1815-1870). The American Revolution and
the collapse of the Spanish empire in the New World in the
early 1810-20s, following the revolutions in the viceroyalties of
New Spain, New Granada, Peru and the Rio de la Plata ended
the first era of European empire. Especially in the United
Kingdom (UK), these revolutions helped show the deficiencies
of mercantilism, the doctrine of economic competition for
finite wealth which had supported earlier imperial expansion.
The 1846 repeal of the Corn Laws marked the adoption of free
trade by the UK. As the "workshop of the world", the United
Kingdom was even supplying a large share of the
manufactured goods consumed by such nations as Germany,
France, Belgium and the United States. The Pax era also saw
the enforced opening of key markets to European, particularly
British, commerce. This activity followed the erosion of Pax
Britannica, during which British industrial and naval
supremacy underpinned an informal empire of free trade and
commercial hegemony.
During this period, between the 1815 Congress of Vienna

(after the defeat of Napoleonic France) and the end of the
Franco-Prussian War (1871), Britain reaped the benefits of
being the world's sole modern, industrial power. As the
25 | P a g e
"workshop of the world," Britain could produce finished goods

so efficiently and cheaply that they could usually undersell
comparable, locally manufactured goods in foreign markets.
The erosion of British hegemony after the Franco-Prussian War

was occasioned by changes in the European and world
economies and in the continental balance of power following
the breakdown of the Concert of Europe, the balance of power
established by the Congress of Vienna. The establishment of
nation-states in Germany and Italy resolved territorial issues
that had kept potential rivals embroiled in internal affairs at
the heart of Europe (to Britain's advantage).
Economically, adding to the commercial competition of old

rivals like France were now the newly industrializing powers,
such as Germany and the United States. Needing external
markets for their manufactured goods, all sought ways to
challenge Britain's dominance in world trade – the
consequence of its early industrialization.
This competition was sharpened by the Long Depression of

1873-1896, a prolonged period of price deflation punctuated
by severe business downturns, which added to pressure on
governments to promote home industry, leading to the
widespread abandonment of free trade among Europe's
powers (in Germany from 1879 and in France from 1881).
The resulting limitation of both domestic markets and export

opportunities led government and business leaders in Europe,
and later the U.S., to see the solution in sheltered overseas
markets united to the home country behind imperial tariff
barriers: new overseas colonies would provide export markets
26 | P a g e
free of foreign competition, while supplying cheap raw

materials.
The revival of working-class militancy and emergence of

socialist parties during the Depression decades led
conservative governments to view colonialism as a force for
national cohesion in support of the domestic status quo. Also,
in Italy, and to a lesser extent in Germany and Britain, tropical
empires in India and Burma were seen as outlets for what was
deemed a surplus home population.
Theories Of New Imperialism
Hobson's accumulation theory
The accumulation theory, conceived largely by Karl Kautsky

and J.A. Hobson, then popularized by Lenin, centers on the
accumulation of surplus capital during the Second Industrial
Revolution.
Both theorists linked the problem of shrinking continental

markets driving European capital overseas to an inequitable
distribution of wealth in industrial Europe. They contended
that the wages of workers did not represent enough
purchasing power to absorb the vast amount of capital
accumulated during the Second Industrial Revolution.
Hobson, a British liberal writing at the time of the fierce

debate on imperialism during the Second Boer War, observed
27 | P a g e
the spectacle of what is popularly known as the "Scramble for

Africa", and emphasized changes in European social structures
and attitudes as well as capital flow (though his emphasis on
the latter seems to have been the most influential and
provocative). His so-called accumulation theory suggested that
capitalism suffered from under-consumption due to the rise of
monopoly capitalism and the resultant concentration of wealth
in fewer hands, which apparently gave rise to a misdistribution
of purchasing power. Logically, this argument is sound, given
the huge impoverished industrial working class - then often far
too poor to consume the goods produced by an industrialized
economy. His analysis of capital flight and the rise of
mammoth cartels later influenced Lenin in his Imperialism, the
Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916) which has become a basis
for the modern neo-Marxist analysis of imperialism. Thus some
have argued that the New Imperialism was caused essentially
by a flight of foreign capital.
New Imperialism was one way of capturing new overseas

markets.
By the eve of World War I, Europe, for instance, represented

the largest share (27 %) of the global zones of investment,
followed by North America (24 %), Latin America (19 %), Asia
(16 %), Africa (9 %), and Oceania (5 %) for all industrial
powers. Britain, the forerunner of Europe's capitalist powers,
however, was clearly the chief world investor, though the
direction of its investments underwent a striking change,
becoming oriented less toward Europe, the United States, and
India, and more toward the rest of the Commonwealth and
Latin America. In non-industrial regions that lacked both the
knowledge and the power to direct the capital flow, this
investment served to colonize rather than to develop them,
destroying native industries and creating dangerous political
and economic pressures which would, in time, produce the so-
28 | P a g e
called "north/south divide." Dependency Theory, devised

largely by Latin American academics, draws on this inference.
Some have criticized J.A. Hobson's analysis of over-

accumulation and under-consumption, arguing it does not
explain why less developed nations with little surplus capital,
such as Italy, participated in colonial expansion. Nor does it
fully explain the expansionism of the great powers of the next
century — the United States and Russia, which were in fact,
net borrowers of foreign capital. Opponents of his
accumulation theory also point to many instances in which
foreign rulers needed and requested Western capital, such as
the hapless modernizer Khedive Ismail Pasha.
Since the "Scramble for Africa" was the predominant feature of

New Imperialism and formal empire, opponents of Hobson's
accumulation theory often point to frequent cases when
military and bureaucratic costs of occupation exceeded
financial returns. In Africa (exclusive of South Africa) the
amount of capital investment by Europeans was relatively
small before and after the 1880s, and the companies involved
in tropical African commerce exerted limited political
influence. First, this observation might detract from the pro-
imperialist arguments of Léopold II, Francesco Crispi, and Jules
Ferry, but Hobson argued against imperialism from a slightly
different standpoint. He concluded that finance was
manipulating events to its own profit, but often against
broader national interests. Second, any such statistics only
obscure the fact that African formal control of tropical Africa
had strategic implications in an era of feasible inter-capitalist
competition, particularly for Britain, which was under intense
economic and thus political pressure to secure lucrative
markets such as India, China, and Latin America.
29 | P a g e
Lenin's theory of monopoly capitalism
Lenin, like Kautsky in the 1900s, argued that capitalism

necessarily induced monopoly capitalism - which he also called
"imperialism" - in order to find new markets and resources,
representing the last and highest stage of capitalism. This
theory of necessary expansion of capitalism outside the
boundaries of nation-states - one of the foundations of
Leninism as a whole - was also shared by Rosa Luxemburg and
then by liberal philosopher Hannah Arendt. Since then,
however, Lenin's theory has been extended by Marxist
scholars to be a synonym of capitalistic international trade and
banking.
While Karl Marx never published a theory of imperialism, he

referred to colonialism in Das Kapital as an aspect of the
prehistory of the capitalist mode of production. In various
articles he also analyzed British colonial rule in Ireland and
India. Moreover, using the Hegelian dialectic, he predicted the
phenomenon of monopoly capitalism in The Poverty of
Philosophy (1847), hence the slogan "Workers of the world,
unite!"). Lenin defined imperialism as "the highest stage of
capitalism" (the subtitle of his outline), the era in which
monopoly finance capital becomes dominant, forcing nations
and corporations to compete themselves increasingly for
control over resources and markets all over the world.
Marxist theories of imperialism, or related theories such as

dependency theory, focus on the economic relations between
countries (and within countries, as outlined below), rather
than the more formal political and/or military relationships.
Imperialism thus consists not necessarily in the direct control
of one country by another, but in the economic exploitation of
one region by another, or of a group by another. This Marxist
30 | P a g e
usage contrasts with a popular conception of 'imperialism', as

directly controlled vast colonial or neocolonial empires.
Lenin held that imperialism was a stage of capitalist

development with five simultaneous features as outlined
below:
1) Concentration of production and capital has led to the

creation of national and multinational monopolies - not as
understood in liberal economics, but in terms of de facto
power over their enormous markets - while the "free
competition" remains the domain of increasingly localized
and/or niche markets:
Free competition is the basic feature of capitalism, and of

commodity production generally; monopoly is the exact
opposite of free competition, but we have seen the latter being
transformed into monopoly before our eyes, creating large-
scale industry and forcing out small industry, replacing large-
scale by still larger-scale industry, and carrying concentration
of production and capital to the point where out of it has
grown and is growing monopoly: cartels, syndicates and trusts,
and merging with them, the capital of a dozen or so banks,
which manipulate thousands of millions. At the same time the
monopolies, which have grown out of free competition, do not
eliminate the latter, but exist above it and alongside it, and
thereby give rise to a number of very acute, intense
antagonisms, frictions and conflicts. Monopoly is the transition
from capitalism to a higher system.
[Following Marx's value theory, Lenin saw monopoly capital as

plagued by the law of the tendency of profit to fall, as the ratio
of constant capital to variable capital increases. In Marx's
theory only living labor or variable capital creates profit in the
31 | P a g e
form of surplus-value. As the ratio of surplus value to the sum

of constant and variable capital falls, so does the rate of profit
on invested capital.]
2) Industrial capital as the dominant form of capital has been

replaced by finance capital (repeating the main points of
Rudolf Hilferding's magnum opus, Finance Capital), with the
industrial capitalists being ever more reliant on finance capital
(provided by financial institutions).
3) The export of the aforementioned finance capital is

emphasized over the export of goods (even though the latter
would continue to exist);
4) The economic division of the world by multinational

enterprises, and the formation of international cartels; and
5) The political division of the world by the great powers, in

which the export of finance capital by the advanced capitalist
industrial nations to their colonial possessions enables them to
exploit those colonies for their resources and investment
opportunities. This super exploitation of poorer countries
allows the advanced capitalist industrial nations to keep at
least some of their own workers content, by providing them
with slightly higher living standards.
The Soviet Union, which claimed to follow Leninism,

proclaimed itself the foremost enemy of imperialism and
supported many independence movements throughout the
Third World. However, at the same time, it asserted its
dominance over the countries of Eastern Europe. Some
32 | P a g e
Marxists, including Maoists and those to the left of the

Trotskyite tradition, such as Tony Cliff, claim that the Soviet
Union was imperialist. The Maoists claim that this happened
after Khrushchev's seizure of power in 1956, while Cliff claims
it happened in the 1940s with Stalin's policies. Harry Magdoff's
Age of Imperialism is a 1954 discussion of Marxism and
imperialism. Globalization is generally viewed as the latest
incarnation of imperialism among Marxists.
World Systems theory
World-Systems theorist Immanuel Wallenstein addresses these

counterarguments without degrading Hobson's underlying
inferences.
Wallenstein’s conception of imperialism as a part of a general,

gradual extension of capital investment from the "centre" of
the industrial countries to an overseas "periphery" coincides
with Hobson's. According to Wallenstein, "Mercantilism
became the major tool of (newly industrializing, increasingly
competitive) semi-peripheral countries (i.e., Germany, France,
Italy, Belgium, etc.) seeking to become core countries."
Wallenstein hence perceives formal empire as performing a
function "analogous to that of the mercantilist drives of the
late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in England and
France." Protectionism and formal empire were characteristics
of this era of neo-mercantilism; the major tools of "semi-
peripheral," newly industrialized states, such as Germany,
seeking to usurp Britain's position at the "core" of the global
capitalist system.
The expansion of the Industrial Revolution thus contributed to

the emergence of an era of aggressive national rivalry, leading
33 | P a g e
to the late nineteenth century scramble for Africa and formal

empire. Hobson's theory is thus useful in explaining the role of
over-accumulation in overseas economic and colonial
expansionism while Wallenstein perhaps better explains the
dynamic of inter-capitalist geopolitical competition.
The interpretations of recent scholarship
Benjamin Disraeli and Queen Victoria
In this sense, contemporary imperial historian

Bernard Porter argues that formal imperialism
for Britain was a symptom and an effect of its
relative decline in the world, and not of
strength. Symbolic overtures, in fact, such as
Queen Victoria's grandiose title "Empress of
India", celebrated during the second Benjamin Disraeli and
premiership of Benjamin Disraeli in the 1870s, Queen Victoria
helped to obscure this fact. Joseph Chamberlain thus argued

that formal imperialism was necessary for Britain because of
the relative decline of the British share of the world's export
trade and the quick rise of German, American, and French
economic competition.
Porter, however, notes that Britain, "Struck with outmoded

physical plants and outmoded forms of business organization...
now felt the less favorable effects of being the first to
modernize." He contends that "a kind of vicious circle had been
set up, with domestic industry lagging because capital was
going elsewhere because industry was lagging." Unlike J.A.
Hobson, however, who links under-consumption to a
misdistribution of purchasing power, Porter argues that "the
best thing that Britain could have done to correct [its balance
34 | P a g e
of payments] would have been to make her export industry

more competitive —improve her methods of manufacturing and
marketing in order to sell more abroad."
As mentioned, contemporary historians, such as Bernard

Porter, P.J. Cain, and A.G. Hopkins, do not downplay the
influence of financial interests of "the city" either, but contest
Hobson's conspiratorial overtones and "reductionisms."
Nevertheless, they often acted as repositories of the surplus
capital accumulated by a monopolistic system and they were
therefore the prime movers in the drive for imperial expansion,
their problem being to find fields for the investment of capital.
OIL IMPERIALISM
Oil imperialism theories assert that direct and indirect control

of world petroleum reserves is a root factor in current
international politics.
Control of oil
While economists and historians agree that access to and
control of the access of others to important resources has
throughout history been a factor in warfare and in diplomacy,
oil imperialism theorists generally tend to assert that control
of petroleum reserves has played an overriding role in
international politics since World War I. Most critics (and some
supporters) of the Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
argue that oil imperialism was a major driving force behind
these conflicts. Some theories hold that access to oil defined
20th century empires and was the key to the ascendance of
the United States as the world's sole superpower and explain
how an undeveloped country like Russia was able to
35 | P a g e
industrialize so quickly (see Economy of the Soviet Union).

Petrodollar theory states that the recent wars in Iraq are
partly motivated by the desire to keep the US dollar as the
international currency.
Criticism
Critics of oil imperialism theories suggest that because the
United States is the third largest oil producer, and that it has
historically been the leading oil producer in the world, the
United States would be unlikely to predicate its foreign policy
on the acquisition of oil with such an undue focus. They point
out that, even relative to its consumption rate, oil is not an
expensive commodity in the market.
SCIENTIFIC IMPERIALISM
Scientific imperialism is a term that appears to have been
coined by Dr. Ellis T. Powell when addressing the
Commonwealth Club of Canada on 8 September 1920. Though
he defined imperialism as "the sense of arbitrary and
capricious domination over the bodies and souls of men," yet
he used the term "scientific imperialism" to mean "the
subjection of all the developed and undeveloped powers of the
earth to the mind of man."
In modern parlance, however, scientific imperialism refers to

situations in which critics charge that science seems to act
imperiously, such as "the tendency to push a good scientific
idea far beyond the domain in which it was originally
introduced, and often far beyond the domain in which it can
provide much illumination." (John Dupré, Against Scientific
Imperialism, 2006) Scientific imperialism can thus describe an
attitude towards knowledge in which the beliefs and methods
36 | P a g e
of science are assumed to be superior to, and to take

precedence over, those of all other disciplines. "Devotees of
these approaches are inclined to claim that they are in
possession not just of one useful perspective on human
behavior, but of the key that will open doors to the
understanding of ever wider areas of human behavior."
Scientific imperialism is also apparent in "those who believe

that the study of politics can and should be modeled on the
natural sciences, a position defended most forcibly in the
United States, and those who have dissented, viewing this
ambition as methodologically unjustified and ethically
undesirable."
CRITIQUE OF POWER
It has also been defined as the "pursuit of power through the

pursuit of knowledge," and its pejorative use arguably reflects
the frustration felt by some with "the limitations of reductive
scientism (scientific imperialism)." And "the myth that science
is the model of truth and rationality still grips the mind of
much of our popular and scientific culture. Even though
philosophers of science over the past few decades have gutted
many of the claims of this scientific imperialism, many
thinkers, knee-jerk agnostics, and even judges persist in the
grip of this notion." In its more extreme forms, critics of
science even question whether we should "automatically
assume ... that successful scientific theories are true or
approximately true models of the world," and periodically
express a desire to "dethrone science from an imperialistic
stance over philosophy and theology." Such extreme critics
also claim that maybe scientists harbor "unreal expectations
and mistaken assumptions, their hubris and their imperialism,"
in their desire to extend the methods and ideology of science
37 | P a g e
into regions of human investigation for which its methods

might be unsuited, such as to religions and the humanities.
RELIGION OF INTELLECTUALS
Scientific imperialism, "the idea that all decisions, in principle,

can be made scientifically - has become, in effect, the religion
of the intellectuals," for it seems to reflect "a natural
tendency, when one has a successful scientific model, to
attempt to apply it to as many problems as possible. But it is
also in the nature of models that these extended applications
are dangerous." Science appears most imperialistic when it
seeks domination over other disciplines and the subordination
of 'non-believers,' or those it perceives as being insufficiently
educated in scientific matters. It can thus involve some
zealotry, and perhaps a fundamentalist belief that science
alone stands supreme over all other modes of inquiry. In this it
may resemble cultural imperialism, as a rather rigid and
intolerant form of intellectual monotheism. If it acts
monopolistically then science does indeed seem rigid, ruthless
and intolerant.
MARGINALIZED
Advocates of this critical position may describe themselves as

marginalized and see their ideas described by scientists as
irrational, and of being fairly or unfairly labeled as New Agers
or religious romantics. In the science belief system, critics
argue that those who have a tight adherence to the core
dogmas of science attract the greatest credibility, respect and
reverence. It is further argued that scientists extol the
exclusive virtues of the scientific paradigm over other modes
38 | P a g e
of interpreting Nature, the world and human behavior. It

seems a paternalistic attitude that scientists alone belong to
an elite class of people who deal with matters of greatest
importance, and may belittle the intellectual powers of the
average citizen.
IN MEDICINE
Another meaning of this term is shown when it is claimed that

"poor people in developing countries are being exploited in
research for the benefit of patients in the developed world." In
such an example, then it is clear that, "the scientific
community has a responsibility to ensure that all scientific
research is conducted ethically." Another example lies in the
alleged misappropriation of indigenous drugs in poor countries
by drug companies in the developed world: "Ethno
pharmacology involves a series of sociopolitical, economic and
ethical dilemmas, at various levels...frequently host country
scientists, visiting scientists, and informants
disagree...research efforts are (often) perceived as scientific
imperialism; scientists are accused of stealing plant materials
and appropriating traditional plant knowledge for financial
profit and/or professional advancement. Many governments, as
well as indigenous societies are increasingly reluctant to
permit such research...historically neither native population
nor host countries have shared to a significant extent the
financial benefits from any drug that reaches the
market...unless these issues are amply discussed and fairly
resolved, medicinal plant research runs the risk of serving
ethically questionable purposes."
39 | P a g e
ULTRA-IMPERIALISM (HYPER IMPERIALISM)
Ultra-imperialism, or occasionally hyper imperialism, is a

potential phase of capitalism described by Karl Kautsky.
Kautsky elucidated his theory in the September 1914 issue of

Karl Kautsky
Die Neue Zeit. He described the current phase of capitalism as
imperialism. In Marxist theory, imperialism consists of
capitalist states super exploiting labor in agrarian regions in
order to increase both the imperialist nation's productivity and
their market. However, imperialism also required capitalist
states to introduce protectionist measures and to defend their
empires militarily. He believed that this was the ultimate cause
of World War I.
Kautsky noted that before the War, while industrial

accumulation had continued, exports had dropped, as a result
of a tendency of industry to expand out of proportion to
agriculture. He pointed out that growing nationalism in the
more industrially advanced colonies would necessitate a
continuation of the arms race after the War, and that if
happened, economic stagnation would worsen.
In Kautsky's view, the only one way in which capitalists would

be able to maintain the basic system, while avoiding this
stagnation, would be for the wealthiest nations to form a
"cartel", in the same manner as which banks had co-operated,
agreeing to limit their competition and renounce their arms
race, in order to maintain their export markets and their
systems of super exploitation. In doing so, he postulated that
war and militarism were not essential features of capitalism,
and that a peaceful capitalism was possible.
40 | P a g e
Lenin disagreed with Kautsky's approach. In an introduction to

Nikolai Bukharin's Imperialism and World Economy, written in
1916, he conceded that "in the abstract one can think of such a
phase. In practice, however, he who denies the sharp tasks of
to-day in the name of dreams about soft tasks of the future
becomes an opportunist."
Lenin developed Bukharin's theories of imperialism and his

own arguments formed the core of his work Imperialism: The
Highest Stage of Capitalism. He wrote that Kautsky's theory
supposed "the rule of finance capital lessens the unevenness
and contradictions inherent in the world economy, whereas in
reality it increases them." He gives examples of disparities in
the international economy and discusses how they would
develop even under a system of ultra-imperialism. He asks,
under the prevailing system, "what means other than war
could there be under capitalism to overcome the disparity
between the development of productive forces and the
accumulation of capital on the one side, and the division of
colonies and spheres of influence for finance capital on the
other?"
Some Marxists have pointed out similarities between the co-

operation between the capitalist states during the Cold War
and ultra-imperialism. Martin Thomas of Workers Liberty
claims that this "since the collapse of the Stalinist bloc in
1989-91, that 'ultra-imperialism' has extended to cover almost
the whole globe", but that "rather than being a sharply
polarized world of industrial states on one side, agrarian
states on the other, with the industrial states joining together
to keep the agrarian states un-industrial by force, it is a very
unequal but multifarious system, with political independence
for the ex-colonies, rapidly-permuting new international
41 | P a g e
divisions of labor, and many poorer states exporting mostly

manufactured goods."
Other commentators have pointed to similarities between

Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri's theory of Empire and
Kautsky's theory, although the authors themselves claim their
theory is founded in Leninism.
Opponents of the theory of ultra-imperialism argue that,

whatever similar forms may have existed during the Cold War,
since its end, inter-capitalist competition has tended to
increase, and that the nature of capitalism makes it impossible
for capitalists to make conscious decisions to avoid behavior if
in the short term it proves beneficial.
AMERICAN IMPERIALISM
Imperialism is defined as extending

one countries ideals and values over
another nation. A strong advocator of
imperialism was Teddy Roosevelt.
Imperialism greatly benefited the
United States in the early 1900’s.
Imperialism acted upon less
developed countries in order to make
them successful and able to thrive.
Imperialism morally benefited both countries’ in that free
trade became possible, America gained land, and economic
development occurred. Free trade is trade between nations or
countries without a protective tariff. When annexing a country
it becomes possible to have this. America has importation laws
that state there is a fee that must be paid while sending
something into America. If a country can develop into part of
the United States then it is possible to override those tariffs.
42 | P a g e
The sugar industry was overwhelming in Hawaii, but because

of the import tariff, large fees had to be paid in order to ship
it. When the annexation of Hawaii occurred, it was evident that
both countries would benefit from Hawaii’s natural resources.
America could now greatly benefit from the resource that once
seemed inaccessible. Hawaii’s main exporter, Samuel Dole
made millions of dollars when the tariff was waived because of
the annexation. Combining the nations was an intelligent and
beneficiary action taken by President McKinley. Expansion is a
major part of America’s history. People always wanted to
discover new land or expand on what they already had.
Annexation of nations helped to add to that expansion in which
people strived for. Having more land meant having more room
for immigrants, or for new opportunities. Businesses being
able to expand meant more profit and income for the business
owner. Also a major benefit of annexation was the Panama
Canal. This giant canal made it possible for ships to sail
through the country, instead of having to go all the way
around Latin America. It quickened jobs and tasks that needed
to be completed in Latin America. The United States made
canal benefited many countries if not all, for it made a speedy
process of transportation. Economic Development of Latin
American Countries was limited. Annexation of countries made
it possible for America to instate ideas of democracy. America
advocates for freedom in many aspects. Granting
independence and freedom would cure domestic unrest.
Domestic unrest causes a lack in growth for a country. Helping
poorer countries develop economically would in turn benefit
the United States. It gave America more territory to instill
democratic views and values. America was prospering, which
with the annexation of a nation would cause them to receive
that money back in some other form. It became a situation in
which both countries would benefit. Overall annexation and
imperialism cannot be seen as morally wrong, but morally
sound. It stopped tension within countries by promoting
freedom and independence. With America gaining land and
free trade between once foreign nations countries were
43 | P a g e
coming out with more benefits than drawbacks. Countries in

the early 1900’s needed guidance and support from larger
more developed nations, which is exactly what America helped
to do.
IMPERIALISM IN ASIA
Imperialism in Asia traces its roots back to the late fifteenth

century with a series of voyages that sought a sea passage to
India in the hope of establishing direct trade between Europe
and Asia in spices. Before 1500 European economies were
largely self-sufficient, only supplemented by minor trade with
Asia and Africa. Within the next century, however, European
and Asian economies were slowly becoming integrated through
the rise of new global trade routes; and the early thrust of
European political power, commerce, and culture in Asia gave
rise to a growing trade in lucrative commodities—a key
development in the rise of today's modern world free market
economy.
In the sixteenth century, the Portuguese established a

monopoly over trade between Asia and Europe by managing to
prevent rival powers from using the water routes between
Europe and the Indian Ocean. However, with the rise of the
rival Dutch East India Company, Portuguese influence in Asia
was gradually eclipsed. Dutch forces first established
independent bases in the East (most significantly Batavia, the
heavily fortified headquarters of the Dutch East India
Company) and then between 1640 and 1660 wrestled Malacca,
Ceylon, some southern Indian ports, and the lucrative Japan
trade from the Portuguese. Later, the English and the French
established settlements in India and established a trade with
44 | P a g e
China and their own acquisitions would gradually surpass

those of the Dutch. Following the end of the Seven Years' War
in 1763, the British eliminated French influence in India and
established the British East India Company as the most
important political force on the Indian Subcontinent.
Before the Industrial Revolution in the mid-to-late nineteenth

century, demand for oriental goods remained the driving force
behind European imperialism, and (with the important
exception of British East India Company rule in India) the
European stake in Asia remained confined largely to trading
stations and strategic outposts necessary to protect trade.
Industrialization, however, dramatically increased European
demand for Asian raw materials; and the severe Long
Depression of the 1870s provoked a scramble for new markets
for European industrial products and financial services in
Africa, the Americas, Eastern Europe, and especially in Asia.
This scramble coincided with a new era in global colonial
expansion known as "the New Imperialism," which saw a shift
in focus from trade and indirect rule to formal colonial control
of vast overseas territories ruled as political extensions of
their mother countries. Between the 1870s and the beginning
of World War I in 1914, the United Kingdom, France, and the
Netherlands — the established colonial powers in Asia — added
to their empires vast expanses of territory in the Middle East,
the Indian Subcontinent, and South East Asia. In the same
period, the Empire of Japan, following the Meiji Restoration;
the German Empire, following the end of the Franco-Prussian
War in 1871; Tsarist Russia; and the United States, following
the Spanish-American War in 1898, quickly emerged as new
imperial powers in East Asia and in the Pacific Ocean area.
In Asia, World War I and World War II were played out as

struggles among several key imperial powers—conflicts
involving the European powers along with Russia and the
45 | P a g e
rising American and Japanese powers. None of the colonial

powers, however, possessed the resources to withstand the
strains of both world wars and maintain their direct rule in
Asia. Although nationalist movements throughout the colonial
world led to the political independence of nearly all of the
Asia's remaining colonies, decolonization was intercepted by
the Cold War; and South East Asia, South Asia, the Middle
East, and East Asia remained embedded in a world economic,
financial, and military system in which the great powers
compete to extend their influence. However, the rapid post-
war economic development of the East Asian Tigers and the
People's Republic of China, along with the collapse of the
Soviet Union, have loosened European and North American
influence in Asia, generating speculation today about the
possible re-emergence of China and Japan as regional powers.
IMPERIALISM IN CHINA
Qing territorial expansion
During the eighteenth century, the Qing Dynasty government

expanded its western borders to include areas such as Xinjiang
and Tibet[citation needed] that had historically been under
direct Chinese control during the Han, Tang, and Yuan periods.
The name Xinjiang itself is Chinese for new territory. During
the Han and Tang dynasties it was known as "protectorate of
the west". The Qing expanded into Taiwan.
Using imperialism to describe Qing expansion

The process by which this occurred has been portrayed in
current Chinese nationalist historiography as a process of
national unification. Paradoxically Chinese nationalists,
46 | P a g e
particularly those of the nineteenth century, also regarded

Qing expansion as imperialist and colonial when it came the
Qing rule of Han Chinese areas, but not when it came to ruling
outlying regions.
Other alternative readings of history particularly by Tibetan,

Xinjiang, and Taiwanese advocates of independence have
portrayed Qing expansion as Chinese imperialism which is not
fundamentally different from European imperialism. Also some
Western studies of the Qing dynasty have used the concept of
colonialism as a framework to describe the expansion of the
Qing into neighboring areas such as Taiwan. The use of the
term colonialism or imperialism to describe or not describe
Qing territory expansion is highly controversial as it serves to
either legitimize or delegitimize claims of current governments
to rule these territories.
The process of expansion

The ability of Qing China to project power into Central Asia
came about because of two changes, one social and one
technological. The social change was that under the Qing
dynasty, from 1642, China came under the control of the
Manchus who organized their military forces around cavalry
which was more suited for power projection than traditional
Chinese infantry. The technological change was advances in
the cannon and artillery which negated the military advantage
that the people of the Steppe had with their cavalry (although
cannons and firearms were used in China centuries beforehand
to combat similar threats, see Technology of Song Dynasty).
Qing actions in Central Asia were aided by the preference of

most local rulers (particularly in Tibet) for the relative light
touch of Manchu control over the heavy-handedness of Russia
or the British. The Manchus-Jurchens (originally from the
47 | P a g e
southern region of current-day Manchuria and the northern

region of the Korean Peninsula) ruled China with the support
of some people from Mongolia, Korea, Tibet and Xinjiang. The
Manchu ruling family was a supporter of Tibetan Buddhism and
so many of the ruling groups were linked by religion. China
most of the time had little ambitions to conquer or establish
colonies. There were exceptions to this, such as the ancient
Han Dynasty (202 BC-220 AD) establishing control over
northern Vietnam, northern Korea, and the Tarim Basin of
Central Asia. The short-lived Sui Dynasty (581-618 AD) had
high imperial aims, reinvading Annam (northern Vietnam) and
attacking Champa (southern Vietnam), while they also
attempted to conquer Korea, which failed (see Goguryeo-Sui
Wars). The later Tang Dynasty (618-907) aided the Korean Silla
Kingdom in defeating their two Korean rivals, yet became
shortchanged when they discovered Silla was not about to
allow the Tang to reclaim Goguryeo's territory (as it had been
under the Chinese Han Dynasty centuries before). The Tang
Dynasty established control over the Tarim Basin region as
well, fighting wars with the new Tibetan Empire and stripping
them of their colonies in Central Asia (which was abandoned
after the An Lushan Rebellion). The Song Dynasty (960-1279),
in securing maritime trade routes that ran from South East
Asia into the Indian Ocean, had established fortified trade
bases in the Philippines. The Mongol-lead Yuan Dynasty (1279-
1368) made attempts to invade Japan after securing the
Korean peninsula, yet both of these military ventures failed
(see Mongol Invasions of Japan). Yet even when the Chinese
had established their first standing navy in the 12th century
(under the Southern Song), and when they had the world's
strongest and biggest naval fleet during the Ming Dynasty
(1368-1644), their aim was not colonization, but tribute
gathering. Rather, Chinese immigrated overseas to areas
outside the control of their government. For instance,
numerous southern Chinese emigrants settled in areas of
Southeast Asia outside Chinese political control; to this day
their descendants remain economic elite, especially in
48 | P a g e
Malaysia and Singapore, and to a fair extent also in Indonesia

and the Philippines.
European penetration of China
The 16th century brought many Jesuit

missionaries to China, such as Matteo
Ricci, who established missions where
Western science was introduced, and
where Europeans gathered knowledge of A shocked mandarin in
Chinese society, history, culture, and Manchu robe in the back,
with Queen Victoria (UK),
science. During the eighteenth century, William II (Germany),
merchants from Western Europe came to Nicholas II (Russia),
Marianne (France), and a
China in increasing numbers. However, samurai (Japan) stabbing
merchants were confined to Guangzhou into a plate with Chine
("China" in French)
and the Portuguese colony of Macau, as written on it
they had been since the 16th century. European traders were
increasingly irritated by what they saw as the relatively high
customs duties they had to pay and by the attempts to curb
the growing import trade in opium. By 1800, its importation
was forbidden by the imperial government. However, the
opium trade continued to boom.
Early in the nineteenth century, serious internal weaknesses

developed in the Manchu empire that left China vulnerable to
Western, Japanese, and Russian imperialism. In 1839, China
found itself fighting the First Opium War with Britain. China
was defeated, and in 1842, agreed to the provisions of the
Treaty of Nanjing. Hong Kong was ceded to Britain, and certain
ports, including Shanghai and Guangzhou, was opened to
British trade and residence. In 1856, the Second Opium War
broke out. The Chinese were again defeated, and now forced
to the terms of the 1858 Treaty of Tientsin. The treaty opened
49 | P a g e
new ports to trade and allowed foreigners to travel in the

interior. Christians gained the right to propagate their religion
—another means of Western penetration. The United States
and Russia later obtained the same prerogatives in separate
treaties.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, China appeared on

the way to territorial dismemberment and economic vassalage
—the fate of India’s rulers that played out much earlier.
Several provisions of these treaties caused long-standing
bitterness and humiliation among the Chinese: extra-
territoriality (meaning that in a dispute with a Chinese person,
a Westerner had the right to be tried in a court under the laws
of his own country), customs regulation, and the right to
station foreign warships in Chinese waters.
The rise of Japan since the Meiji Restoration as an imperial

power led to further subjugation of China. In a dispute over
China's longstanding claim of suzerainty in Korea, war broke
out between China and Japan, resulting in humiliating defeat
for the Chinese. By the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895), China
was forced to recognize effective Japanese rule of Korea and
Taiwan.
China's defeat at the hands of Japan was another trigger for

future aggressive actions by Western powers. In 1897,
Germany demanded and was given a set of exclusive mining
and railroad rights in Shandong province. Russia obtained
access to Dairen and Port Arthur and the right to build a
railroad across Manchuria, thereby achieving complete
domination over a large portion of northwestern China. The
United Kingdom and France also received a number of
concessions. At this time, much of China was divided up into
50 | P a g e
"spheres of influence": Germany dominated Jiaozuo (Kiaochow)

Bay, Shandong, and the Huang He (Hwang-Ho) valley; Russia
dominated the Liaodong Peninsula and Manchuria; the United
Kingdom dominated Weihaiwei and the Yangtze Valley; and
France dominated the Guangzhou Bay and several other
southern provinces.
China continued to be divided up into these spheres until the

United States, which had no sphere of influence, grew alarmed
at the possibility of its businessmen being excluded from
Chinese markets. In 1899, Secretary of State John Hay asked
the major powers to agree to a policy of equal trading
privileges. In 1900, several powers agreed to the U.S.-backed
scheme, giving rise to the "Open Door" policy, denoting
freedom of commercial access and non-annexation of Chinese
territory. In any event, it was in the European powers' interest
to have a weak but independent Chinese government. The
privileges of the Europeans in China were guaranteed in the
form of treaties with the Qing government. In the event that
the Qing government totally collapsed, each power risked
losing the privileges that it already had negotiated.
The erosion of Chinese sovereignty contributed to a

spectacular anti-foreign outbreak in June 1900, when the
"Boxers" (properly the society of the "righteous and
harmonious fists") attacked European legations in Beijing,
provoking a rare display of unity among the powers, whose
troops landed at Tianjin and marched on the capital. British
and French forces looted, plundered and burned the Old
Summer Palace to the ground for the second time (the first
time being in 1860, following the Second Opium War), as a
form of threat to force the Qing empire to give in to their
demands. German forces were particularly severe in exacting
revenge for the killing of their ambassador, while Russia
51 | P a g e
tightened its hold on Manchuria in the northeast until its

crushing defeat by Japan in the war of 1904-1905.
Although extra-territorial jurisdiction was abandoned by the

United Kingdom and the United States in 1943, foreign
political control of parts of China only finally ended with the
incorporation of Hong Kong and the small Portuguese territory
of Macau into the People's Republic of China in 1997 and 1999
respectively.
LIST OF TERRITORIES OCCUPIED BY IMPERIAL JAPAN
The following locations represent the maximum extent of

Japanese control of lands in the Pacific during the peak of its
empire in World War II.
Overview
This is a list of regions occupied or annexed by the Empire of

Japan until 1945. Control over all territories except the
Japanese mainland (Hokkaidō, Honshū, Kyūshū, Shikoku, and
some 3000 small surrounding islands) was renounced by Japan
in the Surrender after World War II and the Treaty of San
Francisco. A number of territories occupied by the United
States after 1945 has been returned to Japan, see Japan-United
States relations for details. In 2005, there are still a number of
disputed territories with Russia, South Korea, the People's
Republic of China and Taiwan. See foreign relations of Japan
for details.
Pre-World War II
52 | P a g e
* Korea
* Formosa (later known as Taiwan)
* Sakhalin
* Manchuria
* Kwantung
* South Pacific Mandate, Shandong - formerly of German

Empire
* Russian Far East, Baikal area and Kamchatka - 1918-1927

Japanese and Western anticommunist intervention period
* Japanese Antarctic territory
World War II
* Several regions in mainland China
* Portuguese Timor
* Macau
* Hong Kong
* French Indochina
* Thailand
* Burma
* British New Guinea
* Philippines
* Malaya
53 | P a g e
* Andaman and Nicobar Islands (British India)
* Straits Settlements (Singapore)
* Sarawak
* Brunei
* British North Borneo
* Nauru
* Dutch East Indies
* Guam
* Imphal (India)
* Wake Island
* Gilbert and Ellice Islands
* Christmas island
* Attu and Kiska (Alaska)
JAPANESE AND CHINESE RESPONSES TO IMPERIALISM
The Japanese and Chinese responses to imperialism were

different when Japan and China both faced the threat of
European imperialism in the late 19th century. They both took
separate paths when dealing with this threat, and only one of
them proved to be successful. The decisions Japan
made allowed it to become an imperial power, while
China’s decisions led the country to collapse and fall into the
hands of the imperialists.
54 | P a g e
At first, both Japan and China were very wary of the west and
its technology and culture. The two countries had followed
their own systems for centuries and they were not interested
in change. China would only trade for silver and Japan greatly
restricted western imports. Japan quickly realized the need for
change, however, while China continued this policy for many
years.
Once the imperial powers had been present

for a while, Japan and China started to shift
their foreign affairs. Japan vowed to become
industrial superior in order to protect itself
from colonization. They built factories,
schools, and goods, and toured western Flag of the Qing
Dynasty
countries to learn the ways of the west.
China decided it would be best to adopt just a few western
technologies, and further, most people simply pretended to
strive towards this. Technological progress was not made in
China. While the Japanese were busy building a great navy, the
Chinese leader, Empress Cixi, felt funds would be better spent
on a luxurious palace rather than the military, and secretly
diverted military funds otherwise used for gunpowder and
ammunitions.
As time progressed, the effects of Japanese and Chinese plans

were strongly felt. Japan had built itself a booming economy
and a powerful military. China had secluded itself from proper
trade, and failed to fight off the British opium invasion, while
at the same time made no forward advancement. A resource
hungry Japan was easily able to overrun the Chinese in combat
to capture prime territory (Korea). China buckled under the
force of Europe and was divided into Spheres of influence.
Japan was an independent power that had enough might to
defeat even the large Russian Empire, while China was weak
and had to rely on Europe for protection. By the time China
55 | P a g e
realized its mistake, the outcome was already in the books,

and Qing China was finished.
The results of these two separate policies were clear. Japan,

who embraced westernization, ended up as an imperial power,
while the Chinese were reduced to poverty, illiteracy, and
foreign control. Japan started open trade and industrialization
early and succeeded, while China got off to a late “reactive
rather than proactive” start and failed and fuelled revolution.
DEFINITION OF IMPERIALISM IN DIFFERENT

DICTIONARIES
Dictionary
The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial

acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political
hegemony over other nations.
Business Dictionary
Policy of systematic domination and exploitation of a country

by another country or an empire. Marxists assert that the
United States engages in imperialism because powerful U.S.
Businesses need to protect their foreign markets.
US Military Dictionary
A policy of extending a country's power and influence through

diplomacy or military force: the struggle against Western
imperialism.
56 | P a g e
Geography Dictionary
The control of one or a number of countries by a dominant

nation. This control may be political, economic, or both, and
indicates a degree of dependence in the subordinate nation.
Many writers take the word as a synonym for colonialism, but
imperialism can exist without the creation of formal colonies,
which usually require military force and the institution of a
colonial administration.
Political Dictionary
Domination or control by one country or group of people over

others. The precise nature and the causes of imperialism, the
clearest examples, its consequences, and therefore the period
which exemplifies it best, are all disputed.
The so-called new imperialism was the imposition of colonial

rule by European countries, especially the â€˜scramble for
Africa, during the late nineteenth century. Many writers
construed imperialism in terms of their understanding of the
motivating forces. Among these, Hobson, Luxemburg,
Bukharin, and especially Lenin focused on economic factors,
the rational pursuit of new markets and sources of raw
materials. Lenin argued, in Imperialism: the Highest Stage of
Capitalism (1917), that imperialism is an economic necessity of
the industrialized capitalist economies, seeking to offset the
declining tendency of the rate of profit, by exporting capital. It
is the monopoly stage of capitalism.
Schumpeter (1919) defined imperialism as the non-rational

and objectless disposition on the part of a state to unlimited
forcible expansion. Imperialism is rooted in the psychology of
rulers and the effects of surviving pre-capitalist social
structures, not the economic interests of nation or class.
Alternative accounts view imperialism as: an outgrowth of
57 | P a g e
popular nationalism; a device to underwrite the welfare state,

which pacifies the working class (notably in Britain); personal
adventurism; an application of social Darwinism to struggles
between races; a civilizing mission; and as simply one
dimension of international rivalry for power and prestige. The
latter implies that socialist states too were prone to be
imperialistic.
CRITIQUE OF IMPERIALISM
By the critique of imperialism, in the broad sense of the term,

we mean the attitude of the different classes of society
towards imperialist policy in connection with their general
ideology.
The enormous dimensions of finance capital concentrated in a

few hands and creating an extraordinarily dense and
widespread network of relationships and connections which
subordinates not only the small and medium, but also the very
small capitalists and small masters, on the one hand, and the
increasingly intense struggle waged against other national
state groups of financiers for the division of the world and
domination over other countries, on the other hand, cause the
propertied classes to go over entirely to the side of
imperialism. “General” enthusiasm over the prospects of
imperialism, furious defense of it and painting it in the
brightest colors—such are the signs of the times. Imperialist
ideology also penetrates the working class. No Chinese wall
separates it from the other classes. The leaders of the present-
day, so-called, “Social-Democratic” Party of Germany are justly
called “social-imperialists”, that is, socialists in words and
imperialists in deeds; but as early as 1902, Hobson noted the
existence in Britain of “Fabian imperialists” who belonged to
the opportunist Fabian Society.
58 | P a g e
Bourgeois scholars and publicists usually come out in defense

of imperialism in a somewhat veiled form; they obscure its
complete, domination and its deep-going roots, strive to push
specific and secondary details into the forefront and do their
very best to distract attention from essentials by means of
absolutely ridiculous schemes for “reform”, such as police
supervision of the trusts or banks, etc. Cynical and frank
imperialists who are bold enough to admit the absurdity of the
idea of reforming the fundamental characteristics of
imperialism are a rarer phenomenon.
Here is an example. The German imperialists attempt, in the

magazine Archives of World Economy, to follow the national
emancipation movements in the colonies, particularly, of
course, in colonies other than those belonging to Germany.
They note the unrest and the protest movements in India, the
movement in Natal (South Africa), in the Dutch East Indies,
etc. One of them, commenting on an English report of a
conference held on June 28-30, 1910, of representatives of
various subject nations and races, of peoples of Asia, Africa
and Europe who are under foreign rule, writes as follows in
appraising the speeches delivered at this conference: “We are
told that we must fight imperialism; that the ruling states
should recognize the right of subject peoples to independence;
that an international tribunal should supervise the fulfillment
of treaties concluded between the great powers and weak
peoples. Further than the expression of these pious wishes
they do not go. We see no trace of understanding of the fact
that imperialism is inseparably bound up with capitalism in its
present form and that, therefore [!!], an open struggle against
imperialism would be hopeless, unless, perhaps, the fight were
to be confined to protests against certain of its especially
abhorrent excesses.” Since the reform of the basis of
imperialism is a deception, a “pious wish”, since the bourgeois
representatives of the oppressed nations goes no “further”
forward, the bourgeois representative of an oppressing nation
59 | P a g e
goes “further” backward, to servility towards imperialism

under cover of the claim to be “scientific”. That is also “logic”!
The questions as to whether it is possible to reform the basis

of imperialism, whether to go forward to the further
intensification and deepening of the antagonisms which it
engenders. or backward, towards allaying these antagonisms,
are fundamental questions in the critique of imperialism. Since
the specific political features of imperialism are reaction
everywhere and increased national oppression due to the
oppression of the financial oligarchy and the elimination of
free competition, a petty-bourgeois-democratic opposition to
imperialism arose at the beginning of the twentieth century in
nearly all imperialist countries. Kautsky not only did not
trouble to oppose, was not only unable to oppose this petty-
bourgeois reformist opposition, which is really reactionary in
its economic basis, but became merged with it in practice, and
this is precisely where Kautsky and the broad international
Kautskian trend deserted Marxism.
Here is a sample of Kautsky’s economic criticism of

imperialism. He takes the statistics of the British export and
import trade with Egypt for 1872 and 1912; it seems that this
export and import trade has grown more slowly than British
foreign trade as a whole. From this Kautsky concludes that
“we have no reason to suppose that without military
occupation the growth of British trade with Egypt would have
been less, simply as a result of the mere operation of economic
factors”. “The urge of capital to expand ... can be best
promoted, not by the violent methods of imperialism, but by
peaceful democracy.”
This argument of Kautsky’s, which is repeated in every key by

his Russian armor-bearer (and Russian shielder of the social-
chauvinists), Mr. Spectator, constitutes the basis of Kautskian
critique of imperialism, and that is why we must deal with it in
60 | P a g e
greater detail. We will begin with a quotation from Hilferding,

whose conclusions Kautsky on many occasions, and notably in
April 1915, has declared to have been “unanimously adopted
by all socialist theoreticians”.
It is interesting to note that even the bourgeois economist, A.

Lansburgh, whose criticism of imperialism is as petty-
bourgeois as Kautsky’s, nevertheless got closer to a more
scientific study of trade statistics. He did not compare one
single country, chosen at random, and one single colony with
the other countries; he examined the export trade of an
imperialist country: (1) with countries which are financially
dependent upon it, and borrow money from it; and (2) with
countries which are financially independent. He obtained the
following results:
EXPORT TRADE OF GERMANY (000,000

marks)
To countries Per
financially cent
1889 1908
dependent on increas
Germany e
Rumania 48.2 70.8 47
Portugal 19.0 32.8 73
Argentina 60.7 147.0 143
Brazil 48.7 84.5 73
Chile 28.3 64.0 114
Total 234.8 451.5 92
To countries
financially
independent
of Germany
Great Britain 651.8 997.4 53
France 210.2 437.9 108
Belgium 137.2 322.8 135
Switzerland 177.4 401.1 127
Australia 21.2 64.5 205
Dutch 8.8 40.7 363
61 | P a g e
East Indies
1,206. 2,264.
Total 87
6 4
Lansburgh did not draw conclusions and therefore, strangely

enough, failed to observe that if the figures prove anything at
all, they prove that he is wrong, for the exports to countries
financially dependent on Germany have grown more rapidly, if
only slightly, than exports to the countries which are
financially independent. (I emphasize the “if”, for Lansburgh’s
figures are far from complete.)
An American writer, Hill, in his A History of the Diplomacy in

the International Development of Europe refers in his preface
to the following periods in the recent history of diplomacy: (1)
the era of revolution; (2) the constitutional movement; (3) the
present era of “commercial imperialism”. Another writer
divides the history of Great Britain’s “world policy” since 1870
into four periods: (1) the first Asiatic period (that of the
struggle against Russia’s advance in Central Asia towards
India); (2) the African period (approximately 1885-1902): that
of the struggle against France for the partition of Africa (the
“Fashoda incident” of 1898 which brought her within a hair’s
breadth of war with France); (3) the second Asiatic period
(alliance with Japan against Russia); and (4) the “European”
period, chiefly anti-German. “The political patrol clashes take
place on the financial field,” wrote the banker, Riesser, in
1905, in showing how French finance capital operating in Italy
was preparing the way for a political alliance of these
countries, and how a conflict was developing between
Germany and Great Britain over Persia, between all the
European capitalists over Chinese loans, etc. Behold the living
reality of peaceful “ultra-imperialist” alliances in their in
severable connection with ordinary imperialist conflicts!
62 | P a g e
Kautsky’s obscuring of the deepest contradictions of

imperialism, which inevitably boils down to painting
imperialism in bright colors, leaves its traces in this writer’s
criticism of the political features of imperialism. Imperialism is
the epoch of finance capital and of monopolies, which
introduce everywhere the striving for domination, not for
freedom. Whatever the political system, the result of these
tendencies is everywhere reaction and an extreme
intensification of antagonisms in this field. Particularly
intensified become the yoke of national oppression and the
striving for annexations, i.e., the violation of national
independence (for annexation is nothing but the violation of
the right of nations to self-determination). Hilferding rightly
notes the connection between imperialism and the
intensification of national oppression. “In the newly opened-up
countries,” he writes, “the capital imported into them
intensifies antagonisms and excites against the intruders the
constantly growing resistance of the peoples who are
awakening to national consciousness; this resistance can
easily develop into dangerous measures against foreign
capital. The old social relations become completely
revolutionized, the age-long agrarian isolation of ‘nations
without history’ is destroyed and they are drawn into the
capitalist whirlpool. Capitalism itself gradually provides the
subjugated with the means and resources for their
emancipation and they set out to achieve the goal which once
seemed highest to the European nations: the creation of a
united national state as a means to economic and cultural
freedom. This movement for national independence threatens
European capital in its most valuable and most promising
fields of exploitation, and European capital can maintain its
domination only by continually increasing its military forces.”
To this must be added that it is not only in newly opened-up

countries, but also in the old, that imperialism is leading to
annexation, to increased national oppression, and,
consequently, also to increasing resistance. While objecting to
63 | P a g e
the intensification of political reaction by imperialism, Kautsky

leaves in the shade a question that has become particularly
urgent, viz., the impossibility of unity with the opportunists in
the epoch of imperialism. While objecting to annexations, he
presents his objections in a form that is most acceptable and
least offensive to the opportunists. He addresses himself to a
German audience, yet he obscures the most topical and
important point, for instance, the annexation of Alsace-
Lorraine by Germany. In order to appraise this “mental
aberration” of Kautsky’s I shall take the following example. Let
us suppose that Japanese condemns the annexation of the
Philippines by the Americans. The question is: will many
believe that he does so because he has a horror of annexations
as such, and not because he himself has a desire to annex the
Philippines? And shall we not be constrained to admit that the
“fight” the Japanese is waging against annexations can be
regarded as being sincere and politically honest only if he
fights against the annexation of Korea by Japan, and urges
freedom for Korea to secede from Japan?
Kautsky’s theoretical analysis of imperialism, as well as his

economic and political critique of imperialism, are permeated
through and through with a spirit, absolutely irreconcilable
with Marxism, of obscuring and glossing over the fundamental
contradictions of imperialism and with a striving to preserve at
all costs the crumbling unity with opportunism in the European
working-class movement.
THE PLACE OF IMPERIALISM IN HISTORY
We have seen that in its economic essence imperialism is

monopoly capitalism. This in itself determines its place in
history, for monopoly that grows out of the soil of free
competition, and precisely out of free competition, is the
transition from the capitalist system to a higher socio-
economic order. We must take special note of the four
principal types of monopoly, or principal manifestations of
64 | P a g e
monopoly capitalism, which are characteristic of the epoch we

are examining.
Firstly, monopoly arose out of the concentration of production

at a very high stage. This refers to the monopolist capitalist
associations, cartels, syndicates, and trusts. We have seen the
important part these play in present-day economic life. At the
beginning of the twentieth century, monopolies had acquired
complete supremacy in the advanced countries, and although
the first steps towards the formation of the cartels were taken
by countries enjoying the protection of high tariffs (Germany,
America), Great Britain, with her system of free trade,
revealed the same basic phenomenon, only a little later,
namely, the birth of monopoly out of the concentration of
production.
Secondly, monopolies have stimulated the seizure of the most

important sources of raw materials, especially for the basic
and most highly cartelized industries in capitalist society: the
coal and iron industries. The monopoly of the most important
sources of raw materials has enormously increased the power
of big capital, and has sharpened the antagonism between
cartelized and non-cartelized industry.
Thirdly, monopoly has sprung from the banks. The banks have
developed from modest middleman enterprises into the
monopolists of finance capital. Some three to five of the
biggest banks in each of the foremost capitalist countries have
achieved the “personal link-up” between industrial and bank
capital, and have concentrated in their hands the control of
thousands upon thousands of millions which form the greater
part of the capital and income of entire countries. A financial
oligarchy, which throws a close network of dependence
relationships over all the economic and political institutions of
present-day bourgeois society without exception—such is the
most striking manifestation of this monopoly.
65 | P a g e
Fourthly, monopoly has grown out of colonial policy. To the

numerous “old” motives of colonial policy, finance capital has
added the struggle for the sources of raw materials, for the
export of capital, for spheres of influence, i.e., for spheres for
profitable deals, concessions, monopoly profits and so on,
economic territory in general. When the colonies of the
European powers, for instance, comprised only one-tenth of
the territory of Africa(as was the case in 1876), colonial policy
was able to develop—by methods other than those of
monopoly—by the “free grabbing” of territories, so to speak.
But when nine-tenths of Africa had been seized (by 1900),
when the whole world had been divided up, there was
inevitably ushered in the era of monopoly possession of
colonies and, consequently, of particularly intense struggle for
the division and the red vision of the world.
The enthusiastic admirer of German imperialism, Schulze-

Gaevernitz, exclaims:
“Once the supreme management of the German banks has

been entrusted to the hands of a dozen persons, their activity
is even today more significant for the public good than that of
the majority of the Ministers of State. .. . (The “interlocking”
of bankers, ministers, magnates of industry and renters is here
conveniently forgotten.) If we imagine the development of
those tendencies we have noted carried to their logical
conclusion we will have: the money capital of the nation united
in the banks; the banks themselves combined into cartels; the
investment capital of the nation cast in the shape of securities.
Then the forecast of that genius Saint-Simon will be fulfilled:
‘The present anarchy of production, which corresponds to the
fact that economic relations are developing without uniform
regulation, must make way for organization in production.
Production will no longer be directed by isolated
manufacturers, independent of each other and ignorant of
man’s economic needs; that will be done by a certain public
institution. A central committee of management, being able to
66 | P a g e
survey the large field of social economy from a more elevated

point of view, will regulate it for the benefit of the whole of
society, will put the means of production into suitable hands,
and above all will take care that there be constant harmony
between production and consumption. Institutions already
exist which have assumed as part of their functions a certain
organization of economic labor, the banks.’ We are still a long
way from the fulfillment of Saint-Simon’s forecast, but we are
on the way towards it: Marxism, different from what Marx
imagined, but different only in form.”
A crushing “refutation” of Marx indeed, which retreats a step

from Marx’s precise, scientific analysis to Saint-Simon’s guess-
work, the guess-work of a genius, but guess-work all the same.
VLADIMIR LENIN’S APPROACH
Leninism
Leninism refers to various related

political and economic theories
elaborated by the Bolshevik communist
leader Vladimir Lenin. Leninism builds
upon and elaborates the ideas of
Marxism, and serves as a philosophical
basis for the ideology of Soviet
communism.
The term "Leninism" came into

widespread use only after Lenin ended
his active participation in the Soviet government due to a
series of incapacitating strokes shortly before his death.
Vladmircongress
Grigory Zinoviev popularized the term at the fifth Lenin of
the Communist International.
Leninism had become the dominant branch of Marxism, the

political and economic philosophy based on the works of Karl
Marx and Friedrich Engels, since the establishment of the
67 | P a g e
Soviet Union. Leninism's direct theoretical descendants are

Stalinism, associated with Joseph Stalin, and Trotskyism,
associated with Leon Trotsky. Stalin and Trotsky were
associates of Lenin who became the leaders of the two major
political and theoretical factions that developed in the Soviet
Union after Lenin's death. Proponents of each theory
(including Stalin and Trotsky themselves) deny that the other
is a "real" Leninist theory, and claim that only their own
interpretation is the continuation of Leninism.
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916) by

Vladimir Lenin is a classic Marxist theoretical treatise on the
relationship between capitalism and imperialism.
In this work Lenin identifies the merging of banks and

industrial cartels as giving rise to finance capital. According to
Lenin, in the last stage of capitalism, in order to generate
greater profits than the home market can offer, capital is
exported. This leads to the division of the world between
international monopolist firms and to European states
colonizing large parts of the world in support of their
businesses. Imperialism is thus an advanced stage of
capitalism, one relying on the rise of monopolies and on the
export of capital (rather than goods), and of which colonialism
is one feature (Bowles 2007).
According to Lenin as a result of the super-profits generated

by this colonial exploitation, capitalists are able to bribe lab
our leaders and the upper stratum of the labor aristocracy in
the home country thus avoiding the risk of worker revolt there.
The new proletarians are thus the exploited workers of the
third world. In his preface to the French and German editions
(1920) Lenin indicates that it is with the "thousand million
people" of the colonies and semi-colonies that the revolt
68 | P a g e
against the capitalist system is to begin rather than in the

advanced western societies as these are the weak links of the
chain of global capitalist control. (V.I. Lenin 2000: 37-8). Lenin
prophesized that it was from these countries, and from
backward Russia, where he himself had seized the
revolutionary initiative in the October Revolution that the
revolution would spread to the advanced capitalist states
(Read 2005: 116-26).
Lenin derived much of his analysis from, ironically, Karl

Kautsky himself, as well as from English economist John A.
Hobson's Imperialism: A Study (1902) and Austrian Marxist
Rudolf Hilferding's Finance Capital (Das Finanzkapital, Vienna:
1910) but applied it to the new situation of World War I - in
which imperial capitalist competition was exemplified by the
clash between the German Empire and its allies and the Anglo-
French bloc. Lenin saw Russia as a subsidiary, less socially
advanced ally of the latter advanced capitalist countries. In the
post war edition Lenin pointed to the punitive treaties of
Brest-Litovsk and Versailles as proving his thesis about the
economic motivation of the warring powers (Read 2005: 116-
26).
Publication history
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism was written by

Lenin in Zürich between January and June 1916. It was first
published by Zhzn i, Znaniye Publishers, Petrograd in mid
1917. Lenin wrote a new Preface for the French and German
editions, dated July 6th 1920, first published in the
"Communist International" No 18, 1921 (V.I. Lenin 2000).
69 | P a g e
INDEX
A Karl Kautsky · 27, 40, 69
Kautsky · 30, 40, 41, 42, 60, 61, 63, 64
Africa · 11, 12, 17, 24, 28, 29, 34, 44, 45, 57, King Ferdinand I of León · 11
59, 62, 66 L
Alexander · 8
America · 17, 28, 29, 42, 65 Lal singh · 13
Attalus · 12 Lansburgh · 61, 62
B Lenin · 15, 27, 28, 30, 31, 41, 57, 67, 68, 69,
71, 72
Bangladesh · 11 M
Benjamin Disraeli · 34
Bush · 15 Marxist · 28, 30, 40, 68, 69
C Mongol Empire · 8, 10, 20
N
Capitalist · 15
China · 8, 16, 17, 29, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, Napoleon · 11, 23
52, 53, 54, 55, 56 O
Christianity · 7, 13
Cold War · 16, 41, 42, 46 Oil imperialism · 35
Commonwealth · 14, 28, 36 Ottoman · 7, 9, 14, 17
Constantinople · 9 P
D
Pakistan · 11
Dravidian · 9 Pergamon · 12
E Prussia · 13, 23
Q
Egypt · 7, 17, 60
G Qing · 46, 47, 51, 56
R
Genghis Khan · 10, 17
Guangzhou · 49, 51 Rome · 7, 8, 19
H Roosevelt · 42
Russian Empire · 7, 8, 55
Hegemony · 22 S
Hobson · 27, 29, 33, 34, 35, 57, 58, 69
Holy Roman Empire · 8, 9, 11, 13, 19 Sargon · 7
I Sikh · 13
Soviet Union · 32, 36, 46, 68
Imperialism · 5, 7, 14, 17, 18, 20, 23, 25, 27, T
28, 29, 30, 33, 36, 41, 42, 44, 45, 57, 63, 68,
69, 71, 72 Tej Singh · 13
India · 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 44, The Japan · 54
45, 50, 54, 59, 62 Tsar · 11
Islam · 7 V
K
Vienna · 25, 26, 69
70 | P a g e
REFERENCES
• V I Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, International

Publishers, New York, 1997
• Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916)
• Paul Bowles (2007) Capitalism, Pearson: London
• Vladimir Lenin (1948) Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,

London: Lawrence and Wishart TOMLINSON, John, Cultural Imperialism:
A Critical Introduction, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press,
1991
• Vladimir Lenin (2000) Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,

with Introduction by Prabat Patnaik, New Delhi: LeftWord Books
• Christopher Read (2005) Lenin. London: Routledge
• Robert Bickers/Christian Henriot, New Frontiers: Imperialism's New

Communities in East Asia, 1842-1953, Manchester, Manchester
University Press, 2000
• State, Imperialism and Capitalism by Joseph Schumpeter
71 | P a g e
• Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism, Vintage Books, 1998
• Rothkopf, David, "In Praise of Cultural Imperialism," Foreign Affairs,

Summer 1997, Volume 107, pp. 38-53; all descriptions of Rothkopf's
points and his quotes are from this article
• Marcel Liebman. Leninism Under Lenin. The Merlin Press. 1980
• Roy Medvedev. Leninism and Western Socialism. Verso Books. 1981
• Neil Harding. Leninism. Duke University Press. 1996
• Coyne, Christopher J. and Steve Davies. "Empire: Public Goods and

Bads" (Jan 2007)
• The 19th Century : The New Imperialism
• Marxism and the New Imperialism by Alex Callinicos, John Rees, Chris
Harman, and Mike Haynes
72 | P a g e

Imperialism 2003

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Imperialism 2003

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

International Relations

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (SECTION “C”)

SUBMITTED TO : DR SAHIB ALI KHAN CHANNA

DATED : 8th April 2010

PREPARED BY: Irfan Junejo - 9063

LETTER OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................5

EUROPEAN PENETRATION OF CHINA...................................................................................................49

Dr SAHIB ALI CHANNA November 23, 2010

Course Instructor, Department of International Relations

Institute of Business Management

Here is my term report on IMPERIALISM, which is to be submitted on April 8 . This

I greatly benefited from this report as my term report. It helped me to widen my

Imperialism is autocratic, and also sometimes monolithic in

The belief in the desirability of the acquisition of colonies and

The imperial concept predates the Roman Empire by millennia;

BC), then the most extensive, comprehending Egypt, Greece,

The Roman Empire was the most extensive Western empire

Prior to the Roman Empire the kingdom of Macedonia, under

In the East, the term Persian Empire denotes the imperial

The Mongol Empire was the largest contiguous empire.

For centuries, in the West, “empire” was exclusively applied to

centrally-governed, as it had neither core nor peripheral

In 1204, after the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople, the

occupied the islands of the Maldives. Rajendra Chola sent a

The Mongol Empire, under Genghis Khan in the thirteenth

The discovery of the New World (the Americas and Australasia)

An inherent problem of European colonial imperialism was the

this occurred with the populaces of the colony of “India” — the

In time, most monarchies,

In the 19th century, the French emperors Napoleon I and

Europeans began applying the conceptual political structure of

Empires accrete to different types of states, although, they

Historically, empires resulted from military conquest, with the

military prowess — and having excluded the Austrians —

In sub-continental Asia, the Sikh Empire (1799–1846) was

Politically, it was typical for either a monarchy, or an oligarchy,

In time, an empire metamorphoses to another form of polity;

constitution of the Roman Empire, metamorphosed into

An autocratic empire can progress to being a republic, usually

Empire from 1945 to the present

* Etymology and semantics; Contemporaneously, the

global capitalism as imperialism derive from Imperialism, the

* Communist Empire; the USSR (1922–1991) met the

* Capitalist Empire; identifying the USA’s American Empire,

* Historically imperial countries — China, India, Indonesia,

* European Empire redux; in the post–Cold War era, since

* The Age of Nation Empires as the Order of the World in the

nation-empire denotes the return of geopolitical power from

Imperialism is found in the ancient histories of the Assyrian

DEFINITIONS FROM SOME OTHER SOURCES

Definition 3 in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary (2007) is

[Imperialism:] The belief in the desirability of the acquisition

Also on the issue of non-military control, we have this from the

. . . Commonly associated with the policy of direct extension

The following passage, from Wm. Roger Louis, Imperialism

More specifically, Robinson and Gallagher attack the

historians have been mesmerized by formal empire and maps

Etymologically, the political usage of “empire” denotes a

An imperial political structure is established and maintained

Cultural imperialism is the practice of promoting,

Cultural imperialism is the practice of promoting,

that the former belongs to a large, economically or militarily

Some real-world examples that may illustrate various forms of

* The forced assimilation of the Ainu of Japan through the