A Critique of Imperialism and Neo-Imperialism

INTRODUCTION
The politics of power and security and that of interdependence and transnational
relations are two key strands that have arguably dominated the developed worlds
conception of global politics in the last century. The politics of dominance and
dependency have in contrast however, arisen out of the experience of the exploited
classes in the developed world and that of the dominated peoples of the third world.
This world view was largely captured by classical Marxist-Leninist writings on the
character and implications of monopoly capitalism and imperialism. It also reflects the
specific experiences of the contemporary developing world within an international
system crafted by western political and economic activity. This perspective highlights
the overall structure of relations within which political action occurs and the
mechanisms by which the structural dominance of some groups is consolidated to the
disadvantage of others[1].
This paper is a critique of the contending theories of imperialism and neo-imperialism.
It examines the broad issues raised by the phenomenon of dominance and dependence
and generally interrogates the central problem of action and change within the context
of all pervading structural constraints. While effort is made to critically examine all the
key conceptions of imperialism, the paper locates imperial dominance chiefly in the
nature of economic relations. It contends that all other manifestations of imperialism
are mere rationalizations intended disguise the economic motivations that drive
societies to empire.
In the next section, we address the issue of political imperialism. This is based primarily
on Joseph Schumpeters treatment of the subject[2]. His theory of political imperialism
largely encapsulates the opinion of bourgeois scholars who view imperialism as a
heritage of the autocratic state. In contrast, Marxist-Leninist perspective locates
imperialism squarely in the economic sphere. In particular, it considers it a stage of
capitalist development necessitated by the much vaunted inner logic of capitalism
itself. This is what the section that follows will address. We will also, in the next section
examine the structural character of imperialism. This theory does not attempt to
identify the cause of or to typologize imperialism but rather builds a model mechanism
that underlies both the inequality between core and periphery states and the resistance
of that inequality to change. The next section then examines neo-imperialism in the
context of contemporary changes in the international system. In essence, it views neo

imperialism as globalization and attempts to show how globalization has perpetuated

the structure of dominance in less obvious but more effective ways. It contextualizes
globalization in asymmetrical exchanges between the old mtropoles and the satellites.
In short, as OConnor described it, control without colonialism[3]. This inevitably leads
to a brief examination of the African crisis of development. In this section we attempt to
interrogate some of the main issues confronting African development. We locate this
problem in what Samir Amin described as the manner of Africas cooptation into the
international political economy[4] and attempt to make modest suggestions as to how
the continent may break out of this cycle. The last section concludes. It briefly lays out
our main arguments and makes a case for the primacy of the economic perspective of
imperialism.
Imperialism as a Political Phenomenon
Joseph Schumpeter in Imperialism and Social Classes[5]dissociates capitalism from
imperialism. His theory of imperialism largely derives from his disagreements with the
Marxist-Leninist primacy of economic conditions perspective. He insists that
imperialism cannot be reduced to the mere pursuit of economic interest. Locating
imperial instincts in the dynamics of the political process, he argues that imperialism is
a heritage of the autocratic state the outcome of pre-capitalist forces which the
autocratic state has reorganized (and) would never have been evolved by the inner logic
of capitalism itself. This inner logic is free trade and as Schumpeter argued, where free
trade prevails, no class has an interest in forcible expansion as such (since) citizens and
goods of every nation can move in foreign countries as though those countries were
politically theirs. In short while Schumpeter does not deny the existence of imperial
relationships of dominance and dependence, he diverts attention from the economic
motivations and instead draws attention to what Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff referred to
as a much more comprehensive sociological phenomenon St Augustine called
it Animus Dominandi- that drives societies to seek expansion for its own sake, war for
the sake of fighting and dominion for the pleasure of ruling. Schumpeter like most other
scholars in the neo-liberal school of thought, highlights one of the key assumptions of
capitalism which is that market based societies and states are rational actors and that
like nationalism, imperialism is an irrational and unconscious atavism in the social
culture. Implicit in this perspective of imperialism is the supposed validity of the
comparative advantage theory of David Ricardo[6] which holds that all parties in
international commodity trade, where it is under competitive conditions, benefit in
accordance with the strength of the demand for their respective commodities. This

doctrine therefore assumes that exploitative economic relations between advanced

capitalist countries and the underdeveloped ones cannot survive in a world of politically
independent countries. It therefore locates imperialism not in economic rationalization
but rather in what Hans Morgenthau referred to as policies that aim at the overthrow of
the status quo (or) at a reversal of the power relations between two or more nations[7].
To this school therefore, the 20 century economic theory of imperialism is a distortion
in so far as it subordinates international politics to international economics both rigidly
and superficially[8].
If economic conditions do not drive imperialism what then does? Hans Kohn provided
what is arguably the most sophisticated typology of imperialism which he understands
in terms of distribution of political power[9]. This typology is in general agreement with
the works of most liberal scholars[10] who examine imperialism from, for instance, the
balance of power needs of major powers in the international system who acquire
colonial territories and dependencies for the purpose of enhancing their strategic
advantage relative to their competitors. This theory of imperialism would seem to have
been validated by the cold war era which saw a Marxist-Leninist state, supposedly
immune to the expansionist logic of capitalist states, get involved in empire building and
subtle and not so subtle imperial engagements in Eastern and Central Europe, South
East Asia and Africa as a response to real politick needs imposed by the power structure
of that international order.
The most distinctive feature of the political theory of imperialism is however its avid,
almost uncritical defense of capitalism and the market logic. This requires that
imperialism be taken away from the economic realm to the political frameworks within
which the character of dominance is supposedly developed and entrenched. To scholars
like Schumpeter, imperialism not only predates capitalism, and so could not have
originated from its dynamics, but it is also an essentially anachronistic system that has
no place in the modern international political economy. To them, imperialism is being
phased out by the development of capitalism that had sounded the death knell for the
old feudal and aristocratic systems. These old systems, according to them, were the real
purveyors of imperial conquests and not capitalism as economic theorists of imperialism
like Hobson and Lenin contend.
th

The Economic Theory of Imperialism

Lenin developed a radical economic theory of imperialism. Even though his writings
have had the most profound effect on the study and understanding of imperialism, it, in
large part, owes its origins to the work of the British scholar J.A Hobson[11]. Lenin

acknowledged the Hobsons influence in his preface to Imperialism, The Highest Stage
of Capitalism when he noted that he made use of the principal English work on
imperialism, the book by J.A Hobson, with all the care that it deserves[12].
Having developed their theories at the height of colonialism, both men seemed to equate
colonialism with imperialism and therefore failed to identify the significance of the
imperialism
of free trade that was to later become the hallmark of imperial dominance.
Nevertheless, they effectively established the economic content of imperial expansion.
Hobson for instance, viewed the vast increase in the supply of surplus capital in the
metropolitan countries, especially Britain, as being responsible for capital exports to
economically underexploited continents like Africa. As he saw it, inequalities in the
distribution of wealth and income in Britain dampened the consumption power of the
British working class, which in turn made it unprofitable for capitalists to fully utilize
their industrial capacity. Colonies were therefore acquired abroad as a sought of
dumping ground for surplus capital.
A key feature of Hobsons theory is his conception of colonialism (read as imperialism)
as the reflection of the unfulfilled promise of liberal democracy. He believed that
imperial domination was bound to lose popularity if liberal democratic values take hold
properly. This will in turn lead to increases in capital retention and absorption rates of
the mtropole to the extent that, as OConnor noted, the volume of consumption would
correspond more closely to the volume of production therefore negating the economic
logic that necessitated imperialism in the first place.
Lenins theory of imperialism agrees fundamentally with Hobson though he roundly
rejected the panacea of liberal democracy offered. He made a very profound
contribution to the understanding of the dynamics of imperialism. The most distinctive
element of his theory is however related to the cause of the economic surplus described
by Hobson and his establishment of the imperialism as an inevitable stage in the
historical development of capitalist political economy. Instead of imperialism being one
of many possible sets of foreign policy option, he considered it to have been imposed by
the diktat of monopoly capitalism. Imperialism, to Lenin, was the monopoly stage of
capitalism[13].
Lenin goes much further to distinguish between industrial and finance capital. This
distinction is taken in the context of the role surplus finance capital plays in the creation

of relations of dependence and dominance between the periphery states and the
mtropoles. He argued that even though free competition is the basic feature of
capitalism, the inherent contradictions in the distributive character of capitalist
commodity production has seen the displacement of free competition by monopoly
capitalism[14]. The accumulation of capital earlier described by Hobson agrees
fundamentally with this and in fact effectively identifies the origin of monopoly
capitalism itself. The replacement of the fundamental features of capitalism by its polar
opposites is viewed by Lenin as indicating, not the retrogression of capitalism as it so
obviously suggests, but rather its progression to a higher stage of development-that is
imperialism.
The needs of monopoly capitalism are therefore the overriding logic that imposes the
acquisition of colonies and the entrenchment of imperial systems. These monopolies do
not however, as they would once again seem to suggest, eliminate free competition,
having grown out of it, but rather, as is shown by Lenin, exists above and alongside it,
thereby giving rise to acute and intense antagonisms[15].
While Leninist writings have been generally accepted, at least by third world scholars, as
decisive explanations of the economic perspective of imperialism, revisionist scholars
like Karl Kautsky[16] have attempted to modify some aspects of Marxist political
economic thought that are the foundations of economic theories of imperialism. In
particular, he tried to de-emphasize the constant allusion to irreconcilable class
antagonisms and as a consequence, violent conflict as inevitable products of the
contradictions that plague capitalist political economy. Indeed, Kautsky canvassed the
possibility of what he called ultra imperialism- a super imperialism growing out of a
coalescence of imperialisms and their various interests. These imperialisms, he figures,
will then, united by their common economic needs, collectively exploit weaker and more
vulnerable regions of the world. The purpose of this paper is not to debate these
controversies but to rather show that they exist and debunk the myth of universal
Marxism. It is suffice however to note that not even revisionists like Kautsky deny the
fundamental economic essence of imperialism. To them imperialism is highly
developed industrial capitalism. It consists of the striving of every industrial capitalist
nation to bring under its control or to annex large areas of agrarian territory,
irrespective of what nations inhabit it[17]. In spite of the disagreement of core Leninist
led by Lenin himself, this definition fits almost perfectly the orthodoxy of economic
imperialism and that suffices for our purposes here.
In conclusion, the economic theory of imperialism and of its crisis must include a theory
of the state in the imperialist epoch. Samir Amin for instance identified the relevance of

the state in the very process of accumulation, how its powers are appropriated for the
purpose of protecting and expanding the accumulation process and how it modifies
transnational relations.[18] This aspect of contemporary Leninist imperialism is very
important given the context of state-centrism in the international system. It is often
argued that, even though transnational capital exports are the key platforms for the
entrenchment of imperialist domination, the state context within which it is advanced
requires the construction of a theory of the state along similar politico- economic lines
or indeed as an accompaniment to the theory of imperialism. Recent developments in
the global order is however seriously challenging this line of thought as will be shown
later in this paper.

The Structural Theory of Imperialism

This theory is not concerned with the cause of imperialism but rather attempts to
account for inequality within and between nations and the resistance of this inequality
to change by constructing a mechanistic model that highlights the nature of relations
between what Galtung referred to as center and periphery states[19] and between core
and periphery classes within each state. This theory seeks to build a model that provides
a clear view of the network of relations of dominance and dependence in the
international system. Galtung views imperialism from the perspective of discrepancies.
Concisely, imperialism is a system that splits up collectivities and relates some of the
parts to each other in relations of harmony of interest and the other parts in relations of
disharmony of interest.
The structural theory attempts to explain the inner workings of an imperial system by
tracing the cross cutting webs of relationships between and among classes. Like classical
Marxists, they base their analysis of material relations on class antagonisms. They
however go further to identify the possibility, nay imperative of relations of harmony
between the center of the mtropole and that of the periphery for the purpose of
constructing and entrenching imperialism.
Underpinning these networks of material relations are two key principles identified by
Johan Galtung[20]. These are: the principles of vertical interaction relation and that of
feudal interaction relation. The first concerns the nature of the interaction itself and
the second how these relations are put together in a larger interaction structure. The
idea of interaction implies of course that since nations and people have different
complementary values, exchange between them is carried out following Ricardos

comparative advantage theory. A mere cursory examination of the third worlds

experience however challenges this contention. Quite often, material relations between
states at different levels of capitalist or industrial development are asymmetric. Two key
factors arising from the interaction may be easily employed to determine the exact
nature of relations. The factors are: value exchange (this speaks to inter-actor effects)
and the effects of interaction inside the actors (intra-actor effects). Where exchange
creates or widens the gap between societies, where it increases the relative dependence
of one society to the other and where it enhances the ability of the advantaged society to
compel action on the other society, imperialism can be said to exist.
While structural theories of imperialism did not bring anything new per-se, it benefited
immensely from having examined the phenomenon from a non-jaundiced prism. The
fact that the structural theory holds a mechanistic rather than an ideological view on the
nature of imperialism earned it the toga of objectivity. Its views can therefore be
dispassionately examined by both radical and liberal theorists.

Neo-Imperialism and the new International Order: An Examination of the

Imperialist Character of Globalization.
The controversies discussed above largely reflect the dynamics of 19 and 20 century
thoughts on imperialism. The unending controversies notwithstanding, there are broad
areas of consensus. For instance both Marxists and Liberals agree on the general
description of economic organization and policy. They agree that irrespective of the
initial motive of imperial expansion, the essential ingredient of imperialism as
Dobb[21] rightly noted, is privileged investment that is investment in projects that
carry with them some differential advantage or preferential treatment. Even
Schumpeter views monopoly combines as created by protective tariffs, forced imports
(that is dumping) and a generally aggressive foreign policy posture[22]. The second area
of broad agreement is that whatever the causes of imperialism, it depends on the
colonial control of the territories on the fringes of the global system and that the end of
colonialism will inevitably lead to the collapse of the imperial order. OConnor put it in
poignant perspective when he argued that modern imperialism depends on colonial rule
as the main form of economic and political control and that political independence will
significantly reduce or eliminate entirely the exploitative imperialist relations[23].
The events of the last decades particularly since the end of the cold war have however
severely undermined the validity of these assumptions. The new era has shown for
instance that the end of colonialism does not guarantee the collapse of the imperial
th

th

order. Even though the physical domination of foreign territories or even the
maintenance of empire by whatever guise is now considered anachronistic, the essential
features of imperialism: its advancement of monopoly capitalism, its export of capital,
its asymmetrical nature of inter-state relations and its promotion of relations of
dependence and dominance have survived into the present era. It is in this sense that we
speak of neo-imperialism.
No phenomenon in the contemporary world captures this global political economy
better than what is now generally referred to as globalization. It has become so
important that virtually every social science phenomenon may be explained in its
context. Jacques Gelinas captured the universal utility of the term globalization when he
noted that it could be approached from several perspectives: as a system, a process, an
ideology, a modern mythology, and an alibi[24]. In spite of the wide controversies
surrounding the exact meaning of globalization, there are areas of consensus. Adebayo
Olukoshi for instance identified three broad areas of consensus: that the last few
decades has seen the intensification of the process of globalization; that among the key
factors accounting for this intensification is the revolution in information and
communications technology; and that these changes have compressed time and space in
such a way that has been critical to the changes being witnessed in economic
organization in both national and international climes.[25] These areas of consensus are
however dwarfed by the very significant differences in the conception of many of the
most important aspects of globalization. For one there is no consensus as to the promise
that the process holds for states, individuals, groups, transnational firms, cultures and
indeed ideological contraptions like democracy. There is also an intense debate as to the
reversibility or otherwise of the system or indeed its desirability.
The controversies surrounding globalization are not helped by the very many
contradictions that the process has spurned. For instance while it undoubtedly
integrates the worlds financial systems, witnessing the movement of capital and goods
across national boundaries on a scale unprecedented in world history, it is also
advancing perhaps the most profound marginalization of states that have in the last few
centuries remained on the margins of the international system. Even within the
developed world that seems to benefit the most from the process, the distribution of the
advantages of globalization has been skewed. Globalization is creating immense wealth
and at the same time entrenching excruciating poverty. It is promoting the general
adherence to the western neo-liberal conception of political participation and freedom-

liberal democracy- yet it is undermining the very platform around which democracy
must be built-the state.
Globalization is without doubt a contradictory process but its critique need not detain
us any further. Our purpose here is to show how globalization is the new imperialism.
From our earlier treatment of imperialism, the following may be inferred:

Imperialism promotes a system of unequal exchange

It is characterized by the large scale export of financial capital
It invariably engenders relations of dominance and dependence
It establishes an international division of labor with natural commodities being
prized far lower relative to finished goods
It is characterized by pressures and resistance, which promotes conflict

The globalization process, as the experience of the developing world has shown perfectly
mirrors the above. The export of transnational capital has intensified most profoundly
and questions are increasingly being raised as to the implications of a globalization
project that Olukoshi rightly described as being dominated not only by finance capital
but by highly mobile and speculative investors[26], the exchange between the states at
the core and those on the margins is also still very asymmetrical and resistance to
imperialism is generating unorthodox violence like terrorism. The essentially nature of
the imperial age has survived and the beneficiaries are largely the same states that
benefited from the supposedly defunct era.

In the light of the above, one cannot but come to the conclusion that the phenomenon of
imperialism has transformed to what is now widely referred to as globalization without
changing its fundamental features. It is therefore new imperialism.

[1] See Michael Smith et. al. (1981), The politics of Dominance and Dependence: An
Introduction, In: Michael Smith et. al. (eds.) , Perspectives on World Politics: A
Reader, CroomHelm and The Open University Press: London

[2] His work pioneered the political perspective to imperialism and can be found in
Joseph Schumpeter(1951), Imperialism and Social Classes, (Reprinted
Version), Augustus Kelly: New York
[3] See James OConnor (1981), The Meaning of Economic Imperialism, In: Michael
Smith et. al. (eds.) ,op.cit
[4] See Samir Amin (), Delinking?, also See Samir Amin (2001), Africa on a Global
Stage,Africa Insight, Vol. 31, No.2
[5] Joseph Schumpeter (1951), op.cit
[6] See a critical examination of the Ricardian Theory of Comparative Advantage in M.L
Jhingan (), The Economics of Development and Planning, Delhi: Bhagswatti Press
[7] It is instructive to note that Hans Morgenthaus theory was essentially that of power
politics. It is therefore no Surprise that his treatment of imperialism was essentially
through the nature of power relations. See his classic in Hans Morgenthau
(1966), Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 4 ed., Knopf: New
York
[8] See James Dougherty and Robert Pfaltzgraff (1990), op.cit p.235
[9] See Hans Kohn (1958), Reflections on Colonialism, In: Robert Strausz-Hupe and
Henry Hazard (eds.), The Idea of Colonialism, Faber: London
[10] See for instance Kenneth Boulding (1970), Reflections on Imperialism, In: David
Mermelstein (ed.), Economics: Mainstream Readings and Radical Critiques, 2 ed.,
Random House: New York and Andrew Mack, Theories of Imperialism: The European
Perspective, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 18, September 1974
[11] See his work, John Hobson (1965), Imperialism: A study, University of Michigan
Press: Ann Arbor
[12] See Vladimir Lenin(1984), Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism, Progress
Publishers: Moscow, p.7
th

nd