BHIC 114 (English)

MPDD/IGNOU/P.O./2.
5K/JUNE, 2022
BHIC-114 History of Modern Europe-II (c. 1780-1939)
ISBN : 978-93-5568-412-7
MPDD/IGNOU/P.O./4K/JUNE, 2022
BHIC - 114
ISBN : 978-93-5568-411-0
BHIC-114
HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE-II

(c.1780 TO 1939)
School of Social Sciences

Indira Gandhi National Open University
Expert Committee
Prof. Arvind Sinha (Retd.) Dr. Nalini Taneja (Retd.) Dr. Vasudha Pandey
Centre for Historical Studies School of Open Learning Faculty of History Lady
Jawaharlal Nehru Unversity University of Delhi, Delhi Shri Ram College
New Delhi University of Delhi, Delhi
Prof. Srikrishna (Retd.) Prof. S.B. Upadhyay Shri Ajay Mahurkar

Faculty of History Faculty of History Faculty of History
Indira Gandhi Unviersity IGNOU IGNOU
Rewari, Haryana New Delhi New Delhi
Prof. Swaraj Basu (Convenor)

Faculty of History IGNOU
New Delhi
Course Editor Course Coordinator

Dr. Vasudha Pandey Prof. Swaraj Basu
Faculty of History Faculty of History
Lady Shri Ram College IGNOU, New Delhi
University of Delhi, Delhi
Course Preparation Team

Unit No. Writers Format Editing
1 Dr. Ravi Sundaram, Prof. Swaraj Basu
Fellow, CSDS, New Delhi Faculty of History,
IGNOU, New Delhi
4 Dr. Dilip Simeon
Fellow, National Labour Institute
6 Prof. Arup Banerjee (Retd.)

Dept. of History,
University of Delhi
7, 8 Prof. Sucheta Mahajan

Centre for Historical Studies,
Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi
9 (Late) Dr. Visha Lakshmi Menon

Jesus and Mary College,
University of Delhi
3, 10, 11 Prof. Sri Krishna (Retd.),

Indira Gandhi University,
Rewari, Haryana
2, 5, 12, 13, 14 Dr. Nalini Taneja (Retd.),

School of Open Learning ,
University of Delhi
15, 16, 17 Prof. Swaraj Basu,
School of Social Sciences,
IGNOU
This course is based on the earlier courses on European History,

EHI-07 and BHIE-107 developed for Bachelor’s Degree Programme.
Print Production
Mr. Tilak Raj
Assistant Registrar
MPDD, IGNOU, New Delhi
June, 2022
© Indira Gandhi National Open University, 2022
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by mimeograph or
any other means, without permission in writing from the Indira Gandhi National Open
University.
Further information on Indira Gandhi National Open University courses may be obtained
from the University's office at Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110 068 or visit University's
Website http://www.ignou.ac.in.
Printed and published on behalf of the Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi
by Registrar, MPDD, IGNOU, New Delhi.
Lasertypesetted at Graphic Printers, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110091.
Printed at M/s Chandu Press, 469, Patparganj Industrial Estate, Delhi- 110092
History of Modern
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939)
4
Liberal Democracy
Course Structure
Unit 1 Liberal Democracy 9

Unit 2 Early Socialist Thought and Marxian Socialism 21
Unit 3 Counter Revolution-1: Fascism to Conservative 35
Dictatorship
Unit 4 Counter Revolution-2: National Socialism in 49
Germany
Unit 5 The Socialist World-I 65
Unit 6 The Socialist World-II 81
Unit 7 Colonialism and Imperialism 96
Unit 8 Patterns of Colonial Domination-I 110
Unit 9 Patterns of Colonial Domination-II 125
Unit 10 Cultural Dimensions of Imperialism 137
Unit 11 Two World Wars 149
Unit 12 Crisis of Capitalism 160
Unit 13 Glimpse of Post-War World-I 173
Unit 14 Glimpse of Post-War World-II 183
Unit 15 Cultural and Intellectual Developments 195
since 1850
Unit 16 Creations of New Cultural Forms: From 205
Romanticism to Abstract Art
Unit 17 Culture and the Making of Ideologies: 218
Constructions of Race, Class and Gender
5
History of Modern
6
Liberal Democracy
COURSE INTRODUCTION
In the earlier course on European history (BHIC-111) you have studied that
how beginning with the French Revolution, Europe witnessed major
developments in the realm of politics and economy. Major focus in the earlier
course was political transition in Europe, emergence of industrial capitalism
and its consequences and rise of nationalism and nation-states. In this course
on European history (BHIC-114) we will introduce you to the developments
of ideologies of liberalism, socialism and fascism in Europe. Europe by virtue
of its political and economic supremacy extended its control over Asia, Africa
and South America and the collective experience of imperialism and colonialism
influenced in a great way not only the history of Europe but also the history
of the colonized people. The role of industrial capitalism and of the modern
state (with its modern armies) in the final conquest of the world has been told
often enough. But Europe deployed knowledge as an instrument of conquest
also. The rest of the world now came to be known as the ‘Orient’, which
meant backwardness and stagnation, intellectually, morally, technologically,
and often even physically. Europe would now breathe life into these lifeless
peoples, since Europe was dynamic and the rest were incapable of change.
This view of the world is known as ‘Orientalist’. It inspired a vast amount of
scholarship, all of it claiming to understand ‘Orientals’ and their culture better
than they themselves could hope to do, given their intellectual stagnation. In
future, Orientals could study their own languages, histories, and cultures
“scientifically” only in Western centres of learning. This is what Macaulay
meant when he declared that all the knowledge of the East is not worth a
single shelf of a good European library. This was also a form of conquest, the
conquest or appropriation of the other forms of subjugation. This course
introduces you to cultural and intellectual developments in Europe, new
cultural forms and the constructions of ideologies of race, class and gender.
The twentieth century was the century of crisis and disaster for Europe after
the immense prosperity, peace, and optimism of the nineteenth century.
Twentieth century saw two devastating wars across the continent of Europe;
and owing to European domination of the world, these became world wars.
The wars eroded the nation-state system, with supra-national agglomerations
taking shape. The sovereignty of the nation-states of Europe was now
subordinated to the power blocs of East and West, led respectively by the
USSR and USA.
This course consists of 17 Units. Unit 1 Liberal Democracy deals with the
major liberal democratic regimes of Germany, Britain and France. It gives
you some idea about the Post-World War I period which threw up these
regimes. Unit 2 introduces to the developments of socialist thought in Europe
having major focus on Marxian socialism. Unit 3 explains the basic features
of fascism and the reasons for its emergence in the Post-World War I Europe.
It also spells out the distinction between fascism and conservative right-wing
polity. It then takes up the stories of all the major conservative right wing
regimes of Europe except Germany. Unit 4 focuses on Germany under the Nazi
rule. It discusses the essence of one of the most brutal regimes and its
7
History of Modern attitude toward women, religion, art and literature and Jews. Units 5 and 6
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) deal with the socialist regime in Russia and the transformation that took place
in Russia under socialist regime. Unit 7 introduces you to the concepts of
colonialism and imperialism and also the nature and stages of colonialism.
The pattern of colonial domination was both direct and indirect rule. Unit 8
explains how the Europeans established their direct rule in India, Africa, Egypt
and South-East Asia through the creation of their own administrative system.
Unit 9 talks about the form of indirect rule as in China, Iran, the Ottoman
Empire and South America. In these lands, through a variety of diplomatic,
military, and economic interventions, they could direct the politics and economy
of these regions. To a certain extent restructure them socially, and where
necessary alter their international boundaries, all without direct rule as in
India. In Unit 10 we have discussed the impact of colonial domination in the
spheres of cultural life of a colonial country, how culture becomes tool of
imperial domination. Unit 11 analyses the World Wars and their aftermath.
Unit 12 explains the crisis of capitalism and its consequences. Units 13 and
14 provide a broad spectrum of developments in Europe in the Post-World
War. Units 15, 16 and 17 focus on changes that took place in the domain of
culture in Europe. You will get an idea of intellectual developments,
developments of new cultural forms starting with romanticism and how the
ideologies of race, class and gender marked the beginning of new culture
shaping the modern world.
8
Liberal Democracy
UNIT 1 LIBERAL DEMOCRACY
Structure
1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Background
1.3 Versailles and After
1.4 The Weimar Republic and Liberal Democracy
1.5 Social Struggle and Search for Stability: Britain and France
1.5.1 Britain
1.5.2 France
1.6 The Crisis of Diplomacy

1.7 The Economic Crisis
1.8 Understanding the 1920s
1.9 Let Us Sum Up
1.10 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises
1.0 OBJECTIVES
This Unit discusses the major developments in the period between the end of
the First World War and the economic crisis of 1929. After reading this Unit,
you will be able to explain:
 the nature of the new regimes in countries like Britain, France and Germany
in this period;
 the nature of the crisis that gripped the whole of Europe in this period;
 the factors that led to the economic depression of 1929; and
 how the developments of the 1920s shaped the political happenings in the
1930s and even later.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
If you were to study and compare the Europe of the 19th century with that of
the 1820s, you would find fundamental changes between the two periods.
This was so because the First World War and the subsequent developments
in the field of economy and diplomatic relations transformed the Europe of the
20th century beyond recognition. This Unit discusses the nature of changes
that occurred in Europe in the 1920s and their impact on the history of the
subsequent period. In particular it focuses on the nature of the liberal
democratic regimes which functioned in Britain, France and Germany. It also
informs you about the crisis in economy and politics which fundamentally
affected the course of events in Europe.
9
History of Modern
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) 1.2 BACKGROUND
‘The historian and critic Eric Hobsbawam once referred to the period 1914-
1945 as the Thirty Years War. Hobsbawm was speaking of the unresolved
crisis of Europe after the First World War, thus resulting in the catastrophe of
fascism and World War II. The inter-war period may be seen as attempt by
various regimes to overcome the crisis, with various solutions being posed
ranging from radical revolutions on the Left and fascism on the Right.
What about liberal democracy? Liberal Democracy also emerged from World
War I beset with the sense of crisis. Various factors contributed to this. The
brutality and savagery of the war, and the mobilization, privation and dislocation
all over Europe had led to a considerable radicalisation of the European
populations, with revolutions in Russia and failed revolts in Germany and
Hungary. In England and France, the main liberal democracies, the old elite
model of liberal democratic politics was confronted with movements of workers
alienated from the social order, and of women demanding the vote. The
economic crisis which obtained with the stock market crash of 1929 further
increased pressures on liberal democracy.
The major liberal democratic experiment was the Weimar Republic in Germany.
Born out of Germany’s defeat in World War I, the Weimar Republic was
Germany’s first attempt at liberal democracy with a broad adult suffrage. Though
crisis-ridden from its very inception the Weimar period in Germany produced
some of the pioneering debates on philosophy and politics and brilliant cultural
experiments that made Berlin the cultural capital of Europe in the 1920s.
Internationally, the liberal democratic regimes of France and England pursued
in different ways policies of dealing with the main threat perceptions posed by
Germany and the Russian Revolution. In the case of Germany, the French
were particularly forceful in demanding severe reparations and later pursuing
a policy of security pacts with states in Central and Eastern Europe to encircle
Germany. The Russian Revolution and the ensuing radical upsurge all over
Europe and the world posed particular problems for the liberal democracies.
The British were the most aggressive in the campaign against the Russian
Revolution, often seeing it as the main threat to security in Europe.
1.3 VERSAILLES AND AFTER

Discussions on the Treaty of Versailles give us an interesting window into the
liberal democratic experience in the inter-war period. As we know from the
previous discussions, the Versailles conference was the conference of the
victorious Allied powers to extract the terms of defeat from Germany. The
conference was dominated by three major actors: President Woodrow Wilson
of the United States, Georges Clemenceau of France and Lloyd George of
Britain. The real debate was between Wilson’s liberal vision over the post-
war settlement and Clemenceau’s nationalist insistence on extracting harsh
terms from Germany. Clemenceau was obsessed with what he saw as France’s
security needs, given that France as a mainland power had suffered the most
from the war. Hence the need to break Germany’s might once and for all.
10
On the other hand, Wilson’s vision was a broader one. His Fourteen Points Liberal Democracy
stressed the ideals of self-determination, sovereignty and justice. Wilson’s idea
was to provide for a new programme stability for the modern state system
(which had been put into place by the Treat of Westphalia in the 17th century).
This stability had been destroyed beginning with the intra-European rivalry in
the 19th century culminating in World War I. The American historian Charles
Maier has spoken of how the ideals of Wilson and those of the Russian
revolutionary leader Lenin (who was obviously not at Versailles) offer differing
yet new ways of perceiving the modern state-system. Thus while Wilson’s
was a liberal programme speaking of a new world order, world government
(the League of Nations), Lenin’s was a radical cry to overturn the old state
system through world revolution. Further Lenin’s call for the self-determination
of non-European peoples enlarged his internationalist programme and
questioned the foundations of the Westphalia system which had privileged the
power of Europe over others. At any rate, the internationalisms of Wilson and
Lenin, articulated around the time of Versailles were important as the first
significant global statements in the 20th century.
At the Versailles conference itself, it was Clemenceau’s hard-nosed policies
that carried the day. Severe reparations were imposed on Germany. Germany’s
military strength was crippled. Her army was cut down to 100,000 men based
on voluntary service, the old General Staff was destroyed, and no tanks or
heavy weaponry could be produced. Her navy was vastly reduced and the
submarine programme abolished. Territorially, Germany was divested of all
her colonial possessions totalling a million square miles, as were the provinces
of Alsace and Lorraine (which had been taken from France in 1871). Germany
ceded the coal mines of the Saar to France for 15 years, the territory itself
was administered by the League of Nations.
As the terms of the treaty show, the harshness with which the victors treated
Germany, and the unwillingness to give freedom to the colonies gave
considerable weight to Lenin and the Bolshevik’s assertion that World War I
was essentially a war among imperial powers to re-divide the world among
themselves. In this sense, despite the publicity of the Wilsonian programme of
liberal internationalism, Versailles led to considerable disillusionment among
colonial peoples with Western liberalism. Nationalists in the colonies now
looked to Bolshevik Russia for answers.
Most importantly, Versailles failed to deal with the radically changed situation in
the wake of World War I. As the writer Karl Polanyi points out in his classic,
The Great Transformation, World War I destroyed the foundation of 19th
century Europe, unleashing a long period of crisis. Versailles only resulted in
deepening this crisis and culminating in the tragedy of World War II.
1.4 THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC AND LIBERAL

DEMOCRACY
The Weimar Republic refers to the political system that came into place in
Germany after World War I and continued till the Nazi take-over in 1933.
The name comes from the town of Weimar in Germany where the Republic’s
constitution was promulgated.
11
History of Modern The Republic was born in the background of defeat, and attempts by
revolutionary socialists to emulate the example of the Bolsheviks in Russia.
The early days of Weimar were marred by the brutal murder of noted
revolutionary socialists Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht by militia men
in Berlin. The threat from revolutionary socialism, which became the Communist
Party, was to be a constant feature in the Weimar period till the rise of the
Nazis.
The very fact that the Republic was established on the principles of universal
suffrage, formal political freedom and a democratic parliament was an important
step in European history. The old electoral clause which prevented the reformist
Social Democrats from expansion were now removed giving the party an
important voice. New laws on individual freedoms and social policy were
enacted in Weimar largely under Social Democratic influence.
However the German social democrats were never strong enough to form a
government on their own. In the event a coalitional culture resulted, giving
parties of the Centre-Right prominence, far more than their actual strength.
The major beneficiary of the peculiar situation was the People’s Party and
their leader Gustav Stresemann. Having become Chancellor with the elections
of 1924, so great was the weight of his presence that the short period was
called the Stresemann era in German polities.
Stresemann’s project was to unite the various fractions of the German elite
under the Weimar banner, while fighting off the more radical challenges from
the Communists and the Nazis. Internationally, Stresemann was committed to
rolling back the legacy of Versailles and paving the way for Germany’s re-
emergence as a world power. In order to regain the glory of Germany lost at
the treaty of Versailles, Stresemann did the following:
 He vigorously opposed the French occupation of Germany’s Ruhr valley.
 He got the Dawes plan of 1924 for the economic reconstruction of
Germany ratified in the Reichstag of Parliament.
 He gained German admission to the League of Nations in 1926, and
 He also encouraged and helped stimulate German economic recovery by
rationalising German industry through a series of cartels, and an aggressive
export drive to overcome the balance of payments crisis. By carefully
balancing the often contradictory interests of various fractions of the German
elite, Stresemann sought to preserve the cause of old style conservative
nationalism, now grafted to the liberal constitution of Weimar.
The Weimar experiment collapsed under the weight of the economic crisis
after different factions of Germany’s capitalists was destroyed with the collapse
of the economy. As the elites retreated from the culture of compromise that is
integral to any democratic politics, they saw the Nazi radical right-wing
programme as the only solution to the crisis. David Abraham, in his book,
The Collapse of the Republic, shows us in detail how this compromise
among elites worked in Weimar, and when the elites despaired of any other
solutions and fearing revolutionary change, opted for the Nazis.
12
Many discussions after the collapse of Weimar tend to attribute to German Liberal Democracy
“particularity”, or the distinctiveness of Germany vis-a-vis the experiences of
liberal democracy in England and France. Here German particularity (or
Onderwegn in German) was seen as Germany’s incomplete liberal
transformation because German industrialists allied with conservative Junkers
(an agrarian landlord class originating in Prussia) lacked the will to carry the
transformation to its full conclusion, hence the “backwardness” of Germany,
its propensity to lapse into undemocratic rule. The particularity argument has
been subject to strong criticism by many contemporary historians (see Eley
and Blackbourn, The Peculiarities of German History), who point to the
problems of using France and England as ideal yardsticks for liberalism.
Whatever the debate, it is clear that the Weimar regime was to be rep1aced by
an entirely new type of reactionary politics in Nazism with terrifying
consequences in Europe.
Notwithstanding its collapse, the Weimar period will stand out as one of the
most stimulating experiments in 20th century Europe. As the late German historian
Detlev Peukert pointed out, Weimar’s limited social experiments in public
housing and health were to be a model for the post-war reconstruction.
Intellectually, there can be little doubt about the critical energy stimulated by
the freedoms of Weimar. In the field of philosophy the Weimar period saw the
publication of brilliant works by Martin Heidegger, Georg Lukacs (who was
Hungarian himself), Karl Mannheim and a host of others. The Frankfurt School
for Social Research was set up bringing together some of the best minds of
the 20th century: Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Eric
Fromm. The critic Walter Benjamin published his important book on German
Tragedy, and Erwin Piscator and Bertolt Brecht introduced pioneering
experiments in the theatre. The critic Seigfreid Kraceuer wrote about the role
of the film audience in his essays on cinema. In cinema itself, the films of Fritz
Lang brought a new voice of German cinema to the world. In other areas, the
Bauhaus school of architecture was set up in Berlin pioneering new methods
in modern design using building materials like steel and glass. Bauhaus architects
like Walter Gropius and Mies Van der Rohe went on to the United States after
the Nazi take-over to earn a world reputation. In the fields of fine arts and
literature there was also considerable ferment and radical innovation, some of
Europe’s best modern painters and writers flocked to Berlin in the Weimar
period. The writer Walter Benjamin once called Paris the capital of the
nineteenth century due to its ability to attract literary talent and inspire
innovation. In a sense Weimar Berlin was the capital of the 1920s, the legacy
of which was to live on long after the collapse of the Republic itself.
Check Your Progress 1
1) How was Lenin’s vision of the modern state system different from Wilson?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
13
History of Modern 2) Write in brief about the main features of the treaty of Versailles.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
3) Why did the Weimer Republic collapse?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
1.5 SOCIAL STRUGGLE AND THE SEARCH FOR

STABILITY: BRITAIN AND FRANCE
Apart from the Weimar Republic of Germany, France and Britain were the
other two important democratic regimes. There were many similarities between
the two regimes but they were also different in some ways. Britain had been
an economic super power but had lost its superior economic status by the
beginning of the 20th century. France, on the other hand, had managed to
retain economic prosperity in the post-war period. Let us now discuss the
developments in the two countries in the realm of economy and politics.
1.5.1 Britain
The post-war position of Britain confirmed the long term decline of British
dominance in the world economy. British dominance, based on the free-trade
imperialism of the 19th century, was already in crisis towards the last decade
of that century. In the 1920s Britain slowly gave way to the United States
economically. At any rate the British dependence on the US during the war
had grown, since the UK, was in no position to organise the war effort by
itself. However, by 1924 a minor recovery did take place in Britain largely
through the financial intervention of the state. Industries like the automobile
and shipbuilding revived and by 1925 Winston Churchill was able to restore
the pound to its pre-war parity with the dollar and put Britain back on the gold
standard. However even this recovery was mixed. Industry never returned to
pre-war levels and Britain was increasingly challenged in the world market by
the US, Germany and Japan.
This process of long-term decline could not but affect the political scenario.
The Liberals, whose politics was based on 19th century free-trade doctrines,
began to give way to the Labour. The new tasks were to incorporate the
growing demands of social citizenship by the working class. This entailed a
certain re-structuring of the 19th century socio-economic system. The Labour
party as the main voice of the working class movement was the main beneficiary
of this new situation. There were coalitions between Labour and liberal in
1924 and 1929, with the Labour party in a dominating position.
14
In the 1920s Britain saw a series of prolonged working class struggles and Liberal Democracy
strikes which were a striking break from the relative social peace of the past
50 years. These began in the 1920 with a bitter miners’ strike involving a
million workers and almost snow-balled into a general strike. The miners were
the most militant section of the labour movement and their actions often played
the role of catalysing other labour struggles. In May 1926 a new miners’ strike
began and this time it led to a general strike. Iron and Steel workers, printers’
branches of heavy industry, builders and various other sections of industry
struck work. The situation soon grew to serious proportions with troops being
sent by the Conservative government. With newspapers absent from the streets,
government repression was severe. After nine days the Trade Union Congress
called off the strike. The attacks on the labour movement continued with the
Conservatives pushing legislation in 1927 which banned sympathetic strikes.
Despite the temporary victory by the Conservatives over the labour movement,
it was clear that the decades of social peace which was characteristic of British
19th century liberalism, were now over. The working class whose loyalty had
been purchased by colonialism and British dominance in the world economy
was now vocal in demanding a new social arrangement with the state. Here
Polanyi’s words about the decline of the 19th century order ring particularly
true, in Britain the Liberals were the first casualty of this new situation.
1.5.2 France
The French economic recovery after World War I was undoubtedly more
substantial than that of the UK. Pre-war France was never as advanced
industrially in terms of the world economy. French foreign trade was limited
in terms of its share in national GNP. French industrialisation and
modernisation of agriculture had been proceeding rapidly in the late 19th
century, but the steadiness of such growth meant that there were no
spectacular equivalents of the Industrial Revolution in England and
Reconstruction in the United States.
However, World War I did lead to a substantial rationalisation in French
industry to meet the demands of the war effort. This rationalisation continued
after the war, the return of Alsace and Lorraine boosted the industrial potential
available to France. In the war a decision was taken to develop hydro-electric
power to make up for the loss of the coal regions. This in turn led to industrial
growth in hitherto agrarian regions. From 1932 onwards there was a steady
increase in productive capacity. By 1925 the index of industrial production
was double that of 1919, the balance payments position seemed favourable.
Yet problems remained. One of the long term legacies of the Revolution was
high food prices and a protective agricultural policy towards the post-
revolutionary peasantry. The increase in industrial production accompanied
by the high ways (a result of high food prices) of French labour meant that
French exports were not always competitive.
On the political front French politics in the 1920s was decisively shaped into
the Left-Right divide- a feature which continues to this day. From the early
1920s onwards, the Left grew steadily — this included the new Communist
Party in addition to the older Socialist Party. The Left first made its presence
felt in the elections of 1924 when both the conservative Prime Minister
15
History of Modern Raymond Poincare as well as the right-wing President Millerand lost. A left
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) coalition (but without Communist participation) came to power for the first
time in France. But this coalition, like many of its ideological counterparts in
Europe, proved unstable and Poincare returned in the elections of 1926.
The main problem in France as the Left perceived it was the concentration of
power in the hands of a financial oligarchy linked to the bank of France. The
Left argued that France’s famous 200 families (composed of the 200 major
shareholders) constituted a political support for reaction. However in the
1920s social conflict in France remained at a manageable level- all this would
change after the economic crisis of 1929.
1.6 THE CRISIS OF DIPLOMACY

The League of Nations was Wilson’s great internationalist project for the new
era. The League was to provide the foundation for order in the post-war
scenario, to remark the international state system which had been successively
undermined by conflicts among European powers. The League’s main project
was ‘collective security’, but in the European scenario this was subject to a
number of twists and turns. Different countries in Europe perceived their
security needs differently. For instance, Britain perceived Soviet Russia to be
the main enemy, France saw the main threat from the neighbouring Germany.
The European scenario was complicated by a number of factors: the ‘problem’
of Germany and the unresolved legacy of the Versailles pact; the French clamour
for security in Europe, and the Russian revolutionary threat.
Both the French obsession with security and the German problem were linked,
since French intransigence often led to crisis in the reparations sought from
Germany. The French search for security also led them to try and push their
agenda in the League as well as conclude a series of independent pacts with
states surrounding Germany. The French agenda in the League often came to
naught, with the British expressing exasperation over what they saw as French
intransigence over issues of disarmament. This led the French to move towards
a policy of bilateralism.
The major consequences of this transition were the Locarno treaties of 1925.
Locarno was born out of a previous German request that France and Germany
conclude a pledge of not resorting to war between each other, something
which would also involve Britain and Belgium. By 1925 the British agreed to
guarantee such a treaty, which would also include the Belgian-German frontier.
The sum total of the Locarno treaties was as follows: Britain would guarantee
the frontier of Belgium against future (German) aggression while France would
do the same in the east—protecting Poland and Czechoslovakia. Germany
would join the League of Nations. The Locarno treaties were followed up by
the Kellog-Briand Pact of 1928 also known as the Pact of Paris. The pact
was universal in scope and the signatories renounced the use of war as an
instrument of international relations. Sixty Five States ultimately signed the
treaty.
This multitude of pacts and intensive diplomacy created a mood of quietude in
Europe. The mood was soon to be broken.
16
Liberal Democracy
1.7 THE ECONOMIC CRISIS
The immediate post-war period saw the rationalisation of European industry
on the lines of American experiments. Ford’s assembly line and horizontal
integration methods along with a new regime of labour standards had vastly
improved productivity in the United States. The success of the United States
(which by the end of’ World War I had become the world’s premier industrial
nation) was held out as a model for emulation by Europe. Leaders as varied
as Lenin and Mussolini praised American factory reforms and labour regimes
as worthy of emulation.
In fact, from Germany to Russia, and France to Italy, variants of American-
style reforms took place. All this was often backed up by cheap American
credits, by US machinery, and capital goods. In fact it must be underlined that
the post-war revival of world trade was largely due to the huge volumes of
credit pumped into the world-economy by US lenders.
In a sense the ‘recovery’ in Europe in the years after World War I was built
almost entirely on US loans. The process also ensured a constant supply of
liquidity back to US lenders. To take an example, the US lent money to
Germany in the 1920s for her recovery. In turn Germany passed on money to
the French and the British as part of reparation payments. The French and the
British for their part re-routed money back to the US as part of repayment for
war loans. The world economy was flush with money supply, most of it US-
dominated. The atmosphere was ripe for speculation: a host of new fly-by-
night players entered the scene. The period was in fact full of’ financial scandals
and mismanagement, all of which would come to a head at the end of the
decade.
The crisis actually began over the rapid drop in agricultural prices in North
America. With European recovery the world agricultural surplus began to rise
and the North American producers (who had vastly increased production during
the war period) were convulsed by a rapid drop in prices. Bankruptcies began
in US agriculture and saw a rapid drop in expenditure. It was only a matter of
time before the stock market would be affected.
The actual events began to unfold in October 1939. On 24th and 29th of October
1920, thirteen and sixteen and a half million shares were sold. In that month
US investors lost 10 billion dollars, a huge sum at that time. The meltdown
had begun. The crash was followed by the world-wide fall in agricultural prices.
Given the fairly advanced integration of the world- economy for agricultural
products, millions of primary producers were affected. As prices of sugar,
cotton, tobacco, wheat, rice and a host of other products fell, all monetised
export-related parts of the world felt the effects. Plantations and farms closed
down, and millions were thrown out from work. The purchasing power of
millions of’ working people the world over crashed and demand for other
commodities began to fall. Trade between nations began to dip. Factories
closed down, workers were on the streets and incomes showed no signs of
stabilizing. The world felt the effects of US hegemony in the global economy.
Once American banks stopped lending money (they were the only ones who
risked long-term loans) the credit squeeze was felt on a world scale.
17
History of Modern This crisis had earlier been predicted by writers like Karl Marx who had
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) spoken about the cyclical nature of capitalism: how its chaotic and unplanned
character would lead to periodic crises of over-production. In fact, the
tendency towards over-production in capitalism (coupled with low wages at
home) had led some writers to deduce a theory of imperialism linked to under
consumption at home. However none of the previous downturns of the world
economy had had such serious consequences as that beginning in 1929. The
downturn of 1871 was significant in that it undermined British hegemony in the
world-economy, but in no way did world-wide depression occur. The Great
Depression of 1929 surpassed all the previous downturns in the world economy
by its scope and depth of penetration. In a sense this was inevitable. The
world-economy had expanded tremendously in the period after I871, and
vast areas of the globe had been incorporated and monetised. As such the
world was more vulnerable to crisis.
The only country that was relatively unaffected by the crisis was the Soviet
Union, building “socialism in one country.” The Soviet economic model was
now built on two inter-linked thrusts. The first was an agricultural
collectivisation campaign aimed at destroying rural private ownership and
channelling the surplus into industry. The second was a programme of
industrialisation directed by a series of five-year plans. The First Five-Year
Plan was launched in 1928,was characterised by a frenetic pace of quota
fulfilment, in fact it was claimed that many of the quotas were over fulfilled by
1932 itself, a year early. Russian industry was reorganised, and agriculture
was transformed through collectivisation. However, it must be stressed that
the agricultural transformation was quite savage with large-scale deaths and
dip in productivity.
Soviet planning tended to focus on heavy machinery and engineering goods to
the detriment of consumer goods. The results here, though impressive in terms
of official figures, were mixed. While production did increase, it did so at a
tremendous cost in terms of quality, and large scale waste was not uncommon.
The lop-sided development of Soviet industry was not however felt at that
time: it would show prominently in the post-war era.
The frenetic pace of Soviet planning was partly a result of the threat perception
of the Soviet leadership. Stalin said publicly that the Soviet Union needed to
catch up with the West in 10 years or “they will finish us.” At any rate, in the
background of the severe economic crisis that had gripped the capitalist world
the Soviet Union did not seem to do so badly. Planning seemed to protect the
Soviet Union from the severity of the Depression. At that time anyway, the
flaws of Soviet planning were not apparent, and radicals in many parts of the
world looked to the Soviet Union for hope.
1.8 UNDERSTANDING THE 1920s

As pointed out earlier Karl Polanyi argued that the First World War destroyed
the foundations of nineteenth century Europe. In every sense the economic
crisis completed this process. The crisis was the final nail in the coffin of 19th
century economic liberalism based on British notions of a self-regulating world
market and a free-trade regime. After the crisis the role of the state began to
18
take on a new prominence. The heart of this transformation was a reading of Liberal Democracy
the seminal works of the economist John Maynard Keynes, which would
become a recipe for economic revival in Europe and the US. Keynes had
argued that state intervention was needed in order to stimulate demand for
commodities. Thus the state would now intervene to begin public works, take-
over sick industries and provide an unemployment allowance to those without
work. Here lay the crucial transition from 19th century liberalism: the state, as
opposed to free trade and private capital, would now play a crucial role in
demand stimulation. Keynesianism became active ingredient of centre-left
politics in Europe and North America ranging from the Labour Party in Britain
to Roosevelt’s New Deal in the US.
From the Right there were also critiques of the crisis. Most originated from
Germany. Oswald Spengler wrote his Decline of the West in I918, widely
distributed in the 1920s. Here Spengler argued that Western civilisation,
characterised by industrialism had reached a period of decline in the 20th
century. Spengler’s alternative which drew from strands of lebensphilosophie
(philosophy of life), was to attack the rational strains of classical modernity
and to pose ‘life’ as an alternative. The political theorist Carl Schmitt wrote
his critiques of parliamentary democracy in the 1920s arguing for a plebiscitary
dictatorship. The philosopher Martin Heidegger penned his important attacks
on Western modernity which he identified as compromised by technological
violence and contempt for being. In various ways, the philosophies of the right
were to become justifications for the Nazi regime in the 1930s.
The relative success of the Right pointed to the fragile nature of the settlement
after the First World War. If the War signalled the first major crisis of 19th
century liberalism, the collapse of the settlement in the 1930s would pave the
way for the second.
1) Discuss the main features of politics and economy of France and Britain in
the post-war period.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) Write ten lines on the economic crisis of 1920.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
1.9 LET US SUM UP

This Unit explained major developments in the period between the end of the
First World War and the depression of 1929. An important feature of Europe
19
History of Modern in the post-war period was its division along ideological lines into regimes of
right, left and the centre. This Unit concentrated mainly on the ‘centre’, i.e.,
liberal democratic regimes of Germany, France and Britain. The three regimes
had very specific problems to tackle. The treaty of Versailles had imposed
humiliating conditions on Germany. The Weimar Republic of Germany,
essentially a right-of-centre formation, attempted to restore the pre-war
economic status to Germany. But the experiment failed, giving way to an extreme
right-wing formation in the form of Nazism. Britain tilted towards a left-of-
centre position with the Labour party replacing the Liberals as the dominant
political force. France which had considerably improved its economic position
after the war, opted for a right-left divide without any coalition, with both the
forces alternating.
Apart from the triple ideological division, the other development of consequence
was the unprecedented economic crisis that gripped Europe and the rest of
the world. The economic boom of the post-war period, over-production of
agricultural commodities and the US’s domination of the world economy
created conditions for the worst ever crisis to have hit world capitalism. Soviet
Russia was perhaps the only country unaffected by the world crisis.
The 1920s was a turbulent period in the history of Europe. If the World War
destroyed the foundation of 19th century Europe, the depression completed
the process of Europe’s transformation. Europe had changed irreversibly.
1.10 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
1) See Section 1.3
2) In your answer you should mention the harsh terms that were imposed on
Germany like cutting down the size of German army, and depriving
Germany of all her colonial possessions. See Section 1.3
3) You should refer to the impact of the economic crisis and the subsequent
loss of elite support enjoyed by the Weimar Republic. See Section 1.4
1) Whereas in British polity, the liberal domination gave way to control by
the Labour party; in France, polity was divide more sharply between left
and right. You should also mention the relationship between economics
and politics. See Sub-sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.2.
2) See Section 1.7. Mention specially the emergence of US as a super
economic power and its impact on world economy.
20
Liberal Democracy
UNIT 2 EARLY SOCIALIST THOUGHT
AND MARXIAN SOCIALISM
Structure
2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Origins of Socialist Thought
2.2.1 Early Socialist Thinkers
2.2.2 St. Simon
2.2.3 Charles Fourier
2.2.4 Robert Owen
2.2.5 Proudhon
2.3 Marxian Socialism

2.3.1 Economic and Social Analysis
2.3.2 Political Theory
2.3.3 Theory of Revolution
2.3.4 Impact of Marxism
2.4 Let Us Sum Up

2.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this Unit, you should be able to:
 explain the concept and central ideas of socialism;
 analyse the historical conditions that gave rise to socialist ideas;
 trace the main stages of the development of socialist ideas;
 distinguish between utopian and what came to be called scientific socialism;
 discuss the contribution of Marx to social and political theory;
 have an idea of the variants of socialist thought;
 list some of the important names associated with socialist thought and
their ideas; and
 assess the impact of socialist ideas across the world.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
You would have noticed in your readings of European history that changes in
economy and society brought forth changes in ideas and in culture. The
emergence of modern economy is inseparably linked with modern politics and
birth of new concepts like liberty, equality and fraternity encapsulated in
Enlightenment thought. The rise of modern industry and its repercussions on
21
History of Modern society brought new intellectual and emotional urges to the fore. Socialist ideas
and a yearning for an equal society as a whole became the preoccupation of a
number of thinkers to begin with, and then went on to inspire movements that
were characterized as socialist movements. They were oppositional movements
in the context of nineteenth and twentieth century societies and polities.
Although some of the elements that we find in socialist ideas can be traced to
earlier periods, modern socialist ideas and movements arose in the context of
capitalism and industrialization and were a response to the inequalities and the
injustice in capitalist societies. Since capitalism first developed in Western
Europe, its opposition in the form of socialist ideas also first emerged in Western
Europe. The first revolution based on socialist ideals and the first attempt to
transform society in keeping with socialist ideals was the Russian revolution of
1917, which you will read about in a later Unit.
The historical setting for the emergence of socialism was modernity and its
discontents. The ideas of socialism therefore made a critique of both capitalism
and modernity, but it was a critique that did not hark back to an utopian past,
but rather looked towards an equal and just future built on the foundations of
all that was positive and valuable in modern societies. In short, socialist thought
did not reject or negate the achievements and values of modernity, but rather
to enhance that which modernity had promised or envisaged.
Equality, freedom and fraternity were to be extended to those that
modern capitalist structure of society had excluded from its benefits.
That was the motivational aspiration and goal of socialist ideas and
movements. The socialist ideas and movements were varied, diverse and
quite differentiated within themselves, a fact that has not been much
commented upon. Not only did they differ in time, in the different settings
of the 19th and the 20th centuries, and over different terrains from Europe
and in the colonial countries, they were quite distinct from the 19th century
itself and within Europe too. The pursuit of social justice led to intense
debates, a flowering of ideas and strategies and of the definitions and
projections of socialism as a system and society.
Broadly, however, as Sharon Kowalsky has pointed out in a seminal essay,
“modern socialism developed two distinct strands.”…“One branch focussed
on working within established systems to promote and implement socialist-
oriented reforms that would improve the conditions of the laboring classes”,
while the “other avenue focussed on the necessity of revolutionary change”,
emphasizing the limited possibilities in the existing bourgeois institutions of
state and power, and to argue for destroying these through a revolution.
(Kolowsky in Vandana Joshi p. 190). Modern socialism was also
internationalist in spirit, and leaders of socialist movements never tired
emphasizing that the interests of the oppressed people all over the world
were linked and similar, and those of the ruling classes everywhere were
also similar, lying in defense of privilege as opposed to extension of benefits
to all. They were the first to form organizations that were international in
nature or internationally linked, even as they worked within their national
boundaries (ibid.)
22
Socialist ideas and movements played an important role in modern societies, Early Socialist Thought
And Marxian Socialism
creating significant historical junctures of challenges to capitalism and its
injustices. In this Unit we will first introduce you to the origin of early socialist
ideas and some prominent early socialist thinkers, and then we will discuss
various aspects of Marxist ideas and its impact in the form of socialist
revolution.
2.2 ORIGINS OF SOCIALIST THOUGHT

It is not known who first used the words ‘socialism’ and ‘socialist’. About the
year 1800, in both England and France, the ‘evils’ of capitalism were written
about and brought into the public domain in pamphlets, books, and speeches.
But the word ‘socialism’ was noticed to make its appearance in print in a
French periodical known as Le Globe, in 1832. Critiques of injustices in
societies and aspirations for a better world can be traced from ancient times,
but socialist thought as we know it is a product of capitalism and its forms of
oppression. A specific analysis of capitalism is crucial to and seminal in socialist
ideas. For example, Aristotle and Plato were important critics of their societies,
but Aristotle justified slavery and for Plato equality was envisaged only within
the range of the privileged in Greek society. In medieval times, there were
millenarian urges for equality and freedom, and in early modern society
Anabaptists represented protests against established Church and society
sanctioned by it, but it was only in the modern world that there grew a concept
of equality that was secular and spoke for all the oppressed of the world, and
drew blueprints for establishing states and polities that ensured justice and
equality.
Why, you may wonder, did socialist ideas become feasible and took strong
roots only at a particular stage in history, despite the fact that urges for a
better world were quite old? Marx and Engels were quite clear that the
conditions for ideas and a feasible socialist society were created only by
capitalism. Mankind can think about a problem only when a problem exists:
only the workings of capitalism could give rise to ideas of how to challenge
and overcome its injustices, they pointed out. For example, going to the moon
could only be a dream, until knowledge and technology and resources could
make it a realizable possibility. Thus socialist ideas could become pervasive
only in the context of increased production and resources in the first place,
although for them to find fruit other factors too are necessary, as they pointed
out again and again. How else can education, health and leisure be possible
for all, without the abundance of production and knowledge?
In short, ideas for betterment of mankind existed almost as long as man himself
has existed and been capable of thought, but the ideas of socialism could
emerge only in the 19th century with the growth of factory production and
increased agricultural production. The socialists built upon the preceding legacy
of ideas of freedom to a vision of an equal and just society.
2.2.1 Early Socialist Thinkers

The first modern socialistic stirrings can be traced to the revolutionary era of
the French Revolution when Francois Noel Babeuf (1760-1797) organized,
what he called, the ‘Conspiracy of the Equals’ to overthrow the Directory
23
History of Modern which had put an end to the Constitution of 1793. He was inspired by the
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) Enlightenment advocacy of natural rights and even argued social harmony and
happiness could only emerge from social equality and the elimination of private
property. He was among the first to make a distinction between notions of
freedom that still allowed for exploitation of the laboring poor and equality
that would put an end to it. he was executed by the government in May 1797.
Robert Owen in England and Charles Fourier in France can be termed the
pioneer socialists of the early 19th century because around each of them there
developed movements that tried to implement their ideas. Claude Henri de St
Simon, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Etienne Cabet, Louis-Auguste Blanqui were
other well known names. Their books were widely read and their ideas
disseminated through pamphlets and debated in the press. Their speeches
drew large audiences, and were seen to have some influence even in the United
States. Their advance, beyond the activities of what Babeuf had envisaged,
lay in that they also pioneered a comprehensive critique of capitalist society,
and, consequent upon that, each of them worked out in detail, his own vision
of how society should ideally be. Unlike for the French Enlightenment thinkers,
for them equality had necessarily to encompass social and economic equality:
equality before law and freedom of religion and speech for everyone were not
enough for a just society. They were not satisfied that everyone should be
considered citizen, they desired the abolition of class distinctions as they existed
in their time.
They also had a ‘long duree’ sense of history and saw capitalism as one stage
of history that need not be permanent, and would not be permanent precisely
because it was unjust and exploitative and because it was characterized by
irreconcilable contradictions and conflicts. They saw private property as
foundation of profit and exploitation and were consistent in advocating common
or social ownership of all resources that were productive. It is for this reason
that we consider them as socialists, despite their not advocating revolutionary
overthrow of the system by popular violence or revolt.
They, however, belonged to the period when capitalism was emerging and its
full contradictions were not developed, and the inevitable crises within it were
not so clear. Workers movement was still in its infancy and the bourgeoisie
had yet to reveal the many ways in which it could take hold of society and
politics. Therefore, they envisaged that transformative policies and a properly
representative system may allow for capitalism to become socialism as its
content changes. Their theories and programs were, thus reflective of the
undeveloped stage of capitalism. And they laid great stress on change of hearts,
the power of argument and development of a new morality: through a new and
correct education, through sustained propaganda and by the example of model
experiments that they tried to implement during their lifetime. A major
assessment of their thought was made in the 19th century itself, by Marx and
Engels, who recognized the value of their concern for the oppressed and the
stirrings towards social and economic equality inherent in their thought, but
also made a critique of their failure to give credence to the material basis of
society, which created the conditions for equality to be realized. Without
sufficient development of productive resources, there would not be sufficient
resources to distribute among all sufficiently and equally. That is why, since
this critique they have been called Utopian Socialists.
24
Early Socialist Thought
2.2.2 St. Simon And Marxian Socialism
St. Simon recognized the different stages of history, through savagery to
capitalism, the inevitability of progress in society as a whole and the necessity
of socialism for a just society. He also wanted to study how society developed
and changed through history, and advocated restructuring of society and
redistribution of wealth, and the need for planning to ensure this. He analyzed
society as consisting of two main classes, the ‘idle proprietors’ and the ‘working
people’, which for him included not just the peasants and artisans, but also the
rich factory owners who exploited the workers. Not surprisingly, his emphasis
was not on abolition of private property in means of production, but only its
misuse, which he considered not just desirable but also feasible within the
capitalist system. In short, for him, change in heart could prevent misuse of
wealth and property and use of resources for all people.
2.2.3 Charles Fourier

Charles Fourier had a more comprehensive critique of capitalist society, including
on the position of women. He went a step further and argued that the wealth in the
hands of some few was the cause of poverty of the majority in a capitalist society.
His vision of the different stages of history was accompanied by the recognition
that every stage had its own period of rise and decline, and he aimed at discovering
“the laws of social motion” just as other scientists had discovered the “laws of
material motion” of the Universe. Most importantly, he linked each stage of history
to the state of production in that society, and by doing so paved the way for the
concept of socio-economic formations introduced by Marx.
2.2.4 Robert Owen

Robert Owen gave more emphasis to the material conditions of society, arguing
that man is a product not only of inherited hereditary characteristics, but also
of his environment and the society around him as it has been developing. He
recognized the significance of industrial growth that will create the plenty on
which a whole society, not just some few, may thrive. His vision was that of a
society of plenty where property will be common and worked by all for the
good of all. He understood that in his day the worker was not getting much
out of the labour he put into production, while owners of factories were. To
him it all seemed the result of monetization. He did not analyze the mechanics
of how all this came about. He thought factory owners should create
co-operatives of their factories and ensure more just and equal distribution of
what came out of it. He himself was a factory owner and created one such
‘’model cooperative”, by which he sought to show that a certain standard of
living could be maintained for workers without losing out on profits. His goal
was “social harmony” rather than disruption of existing society. And his
followers too demanded the distribution of goods according to labour and
were critical of private property in resources.
2.2.5 Proudhon
Proudhon, on the contrary considered private property as “theft” that had
been usurped from common rights in earlier forms of society. He also
emphasized that inequality was created by unequal value of inputs into
25
History of Modern production: labour was devalued, while ownership of enterprise was
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) overvalued. He was sympathetic to the small property owner who did not
have potential to exploit the labour of others and distrusted state power which
he saw as aligned in the interests of the rich. There were other thinkers also
who advocated socialist ideas. Cabet did not support revolutionary methods
of struggle, emphasized equality which he believed could be achieved through
harmony in society and through small production of artisans. For him that was
a form of communism. Blanqui emphasized the necessity of revolution, and
overthrow of state power as a precondition for socialism, but believed this
could be done only through conspiratorial violent methods by bands of elite
committed groups, and he had no trust in popular struggles because they were,
according to him, uninformed and without knowledge and education.
These individual thoughts of the early socialists had the common threads
discussed above, which characterized them as being “Utopian socialists”, not
as termed by themselves but others who analyzed their thinking and actions.
1) Write in brief about the conditions giving birth to socialist ideas.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) What do you understand by ‘Utopian socialists’? Write note on early
socialist thinkers.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2.3 MARXIAN SOCIALISM

Marxism was the stream in socialist thought that gained public visibility in
mid 19th century and came into its own in the second half of the 19th century,
which influenced and soon became linked with the growing workers movements
and organizations, and with those of various other sections of society in late
19th and early 20th century. Its first public manifestation was The Communist
Manifesto published in 1848. Today it is “among the texts most widely read
and disseminated in the world”. Just as in the case of Utopian socialism, this
trend came to be known as Marxism only later in the analyses of various
social scientists and political thinkers, after the most prominent and path
breaking individual who represented this trend and gave body and coherence
to the various ideas of the time, upholding some and rejecting and critiquing
others, Karl Marx. Karl Marx (1818-1883) and his friend and collaborator,
Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), were the founding fathers of the revolutionary
socialist trend, known thereafter as Marxism. Their books came to be translated
in many languages.
26
Marx and Engels did not develop up their ideas out of the blue. They Early Socialist Thought
incorporated and developed further, and also integrated in a new way the
teachings and ideas of the greatest representatives of German philosophy,
English political economy and French socialism. They took from Ludwig
Feuerbach, from Hegel and from the Utopian socialists, and paid great attention
to the writings of Ricardo, the Physiocrats and Adam Smith.
In 1848, Marx and Engels gave a “popular form to their understanding of
philosophy, history, economics and politics” in The Communist Manifesto,
and on the basis of this comprehensive understanding framed a practical political
programme of emancipation.
The Communist Manifesto came like a thunderbolt in the world of 19th century
politics. Its immediate contact was the storming of the barricades by the workers
during the 1830 revolution and the realization soon after by socialists that the
European bourgeoisie would support the established regimes rather than those
who fought for a just and more equal society. It was a call for revolution. It
was a political pamphlet, written for the Communist league, a party of German
workers. Not a complete document of Marx’s thought during his lifetime, it
nevertheless is an embryo and contains in capsule form the core of his thought
and a blueprint for revolution and historical development. It takes as its starting
point the analysis of capitalism in mid 19th century, underlines the trends of its
future development, argues for the immediacy and necessity of revolution and
the leading role of the workers, and the nature of class struggles and the eventual
overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of socialism. It also offers a
critique of other socialist trends and advocates the importance of a political
party of the working class. It makes three very significant formulations: that all
history has hitherto been the history of class struggles and will continue to be
so; that the workers of the world need to unite (international nature of the fight
for equality and emancipation); that workers are the most revolutionary among
the existing classes because they have absolutely no stake in the established
system (“nothing to lose but their chains); that socialism is the vision of future
society and historical development; that the purpose of human beings’ critical
thinking is not just to ‘interpret’ the world but to ‘change’ it for the betterment
of all.
The Communist Manifesto was an outcome of these ideas worked on by
Marx in the first half of the 19th century, and in turn became the foundation for
their further refinement and development post 1848 revolution. The Manifesto
“both built on older socialist traditions and broke with them, establishing
communism as a distinct political movement and setting out its political agenda.”
(Kowalsky, p. 200) In this sense Marx’s ideas played a central role in defining
the scope and direction of the modern socialist movements.
For Marx, the evolution of material life was the basis of understanding history
and dialectical materialism was the philosophy. Materialism plus dialectics was
at the core of Marxism. From that perspective, Historical Materialism and a
new analysis of political economy became the central and singular contributions
of Marx to the understanding of the peopled world.
27
History of Modern 2.3.1 Economic and Social Analysis
Marx’s starting point in the formulation of historical materialism is the key idea
asserted by German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach that: “reality shapes ideas
and ideas reflect material conditions”.
Philosophically, Marxism adopted a materialist outlook on life and history.
Marx explained it thus: that the way in which people produce their requirements
of life and the way in which they organize their labour to do it, determines the
way they build their society and political structure, and ultimately also the way
they think. In short, it was being that determined consciousness and not vice
versa, because a thing existed independently and prior to what people thought
about it. For example, a tree existed, therefore people saw it, recognized it,
studied it and gave it a name. Had they not done so, it would still have existed.
Applied to human history, Marx argued that what decided the particular stage
of history was, therefore, the prevailing mode of production and the relations
of production in society. Slavery, feudalism and capitalism represented different
socio-economic formations, different class relations, different dominant ways
of thought. For him, these developments were not mechanical and
predetermined, (unlike in Feuerbach’s thought). At the centre of this material
development were human beings who determined outcomes in history through
their labour, their force of ideas and their activities.
It is not just being that determined consciousness is a one way process; human
actions were central to and an important equation in the material life of any
society. Therefore, even when circumscribed by limits of the development of
their society, it is men who made and moved history. And when he said “men”,
he used it for human beings, both women and men, it must be noted. Women
were equal in his scheme of thought. Fire, tools, domestication of animals, and
agriculture were intrinsically linked with what people did with nature. Family,
tribes, clans and other social organizations were linked with labour and how
humans interacted through labour. Change was thus a constant and continuing
feature of history, aided by developments in material life. A change necessarily
changed equations with nature and with each other. Change was thus the only
permanent fact of reality.
But what contributed to creating the conditions for change and for people to
act as agents of change? It was, he argued, the conflicts and contradictions
within societies that came with every major change. History never developed
linearly; it was always a process of dialectical movement. Since the beginning
of history human beings acted within nature and in conflict and partnership
with nature; and, with time, within societies, in cooperation and opposition to
other human beings. Progress was thus a “dialectical process”.
Change was engendered by contradictions which led to class struggles. Class
struggles were, thus, the pivots of historical development. They were, in turn,
the result of the hard reality that in every society since primitive communism,
some sections of people became privileged and ruling classes, and others
were unprivileged, oppressed and ruled classes. Inequality was the logical
ground that gave birth to class struggles. The inequality derived from their
relationship to the sources of income or wealth — whether they owned them
and employed others to work on them and for them, or whether they worked
on them and produced profit or surplus for others. Naturally the interests of
28
the two kinds of people were opposed and irreconcilable, which made class Early Socialist Thought
struggles inevitable, though not its outcomes were not necessarily so at all
times and in all stages, because relative strength varied through history.
Engels has an important work titled ‘Origin of Family, Private Property
and the State’, which describes the process in the early phases of historical
development. These observations came to Marx from his comprehensive
analysis of capitalism in his times.
2.3.2 Political Theory

Marx himself expanded his ideas on politics in his major work Das Kapital, in
three volumes written over a number of years. The major themes in these
volumes was the analysis of capitalism and the elements intrinsic to it: class
exploitation that was built into it; class struggle that was the logical outcome of
this exploitation; the tendency of accumulation and crisis, both of which
emerged out of it; and the history of capitalism based on these elements inherent
in the system. Engels contributed to this study in his ‘Condition of the Working
Class in England’.
These works were a thorough and scathing criticism of capitalist society,
particularly of the manner in which it resulted in the exploitation of the working
class, its dehumanization and alienation of the worker from his own creativity
and self. They showed how under capitalism a worker spends one part of the
day covering the cost of maintaining himself and his family (wages), while the
rest of the day he works without remuneration, because now he is spending
time producing over and above what he would be paid for. It is through this
that he creates surplus value, which is the source of profit for the capitalist and
the means whereby the worker is denied the full fruits of his labour. This the
worker cannot circumvent, because what he sells is his labour power, but
what his labour collectively with that of his co-workers produces at the end of
the day sells for much more than the cost of producing the product, including
investment in raw material, machinery, maintenance and the running costs of
the enterprise, and the wages that he is paid. Thus, capitalism is not just an
economic system but also, as Marx showed, a specific set of relationships
between the capitalist and the worker, which is against the interests of the
worker and is socially unjust and exploitative. Labour is the necessary part of
the production system, because without labour nothing can be produced: land,
machinery, capital (money) would lie idle without the worker to work them.
And in a capitalist factory system a worker cannot produce alone, nor can he
sell what has been collectively produced through use of the machinery and
capital investment of the factory owner. So, as Marx pointed out, there is
necessarily a certain social organization of labour. But this social organization
of labour is dominated by capital or wealth (also a major and basic component
of production), which is owned by the capitalist and not the worker.
With an increase in scale of capital utilized and the mechanization and
machinery used the production also increases by leaps and bounds. But the
worker is paid by the hour, he sells his labour for a certain number of hours,
no matter however much gets produced in that time. He gets paid by the hour
even as value in the market (i.e. what it sells for) of what has been produced
is many times more than what he has been paid for plus the costs incurred in
producing the product. It was Marx, with his discovery of value and surplus
29
History of Modern value being enabled by the labour of the worker, who laid bare the mechanics
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) of the capitalist system and how exploitation of the worker was intrinsic to it.
If worker was to be paid the full value of his labour there would be no profit
for the capitalist.
This brings us to the second aspect, uncovered by Marx and Engels: the crises
that inevitably occurred from time to time as the contradictions disturbed its
balance, particularly the unending requirements of capital and market without
which the profits would remain at one level but not expand. While capitalism
produced more and more, the people became more and more poor and were
unable to purchase all that is produced. This leads to what Marx has called
the crisis of over production and under consumption and underlined the
irreconcilability of the interests of the capitalist and the workers. One needed
to sell, but the very system restricted people from buying what they needed.
In order to retain maximum profit, the capitalist pays as little as possible to the
worker, but in order to sell his products the workers must have more money
i.e. he needs to pay them more because they have no other source of income.
Obviously, he cannot maintain a balance that takes care of both at optimal
level. For a time those crises can be temporarily overcome by searching for
new markets, for example in colonies (for obtaining cheaper raw materials or
selling produced goods), or by waging wars for the re-division of markets, or
by taking some welfare measures for the workers to appease them. But there
is no permanent solution, given the basic contradiction between the capitalist
(property owners and holders of resources) and wage workers (“nothing to
lose but their chains”). So there was poverty amidst plenty, which is the second
ongoing feature of capitalism (and any class society with gross inequalities).
To understand better we need to look at a third aspect, also essential to
capitalism: the initial and continuing inputs into capitalism from outside the
system, some of which is referred to above. Marxists asked themselves two
questions: where did the initial capital and private property come from? How
did the system allow replenishments and enhancements of investment to meet
every crisis? Marx and Engels wrote copiously on these aspects. The rapacious
plunder and robbery of the colonial system was a running thread in their
writings, for example the famous articles on India by Marx in the New York
Daily Tribune, which showed the systematic drain of wealth to England, which
as later researches showed played a significant role in the industrial revolution
in England. So also the colonies of other advanced European countries. You
would have learnt something about this in the Unit on colonialism.
Marxism also engages with how the small artisans’ economy and agriculture,
land and peasant economy figure within the capitalist system. The separation
of agriculture and manufacture, the transformation within agriculture from
small peasant economies to large scale agriculture (as with Enclosures in
England, one example), market relations and the various types of rent (from
payments on crops to ground rent etc.) shaped the emergence of capitalism
within agriculture, transforming agricultural economies into capitalist
economies. Through provision of raw materials, markets for finished goods of
industry and agricultural products, through loss of ownership of land by
small peasants, by production of market by big farmers and rent by big
landlords, agricultural economy and rural society in general became part of
30
capitalism. This process constituted one aspect of primary or primitive Early Socialist Thought
accumulation of capital for capitalist industry. (By primary or primitive
accumulation is meant the initial wealth that was converted into capital)
Colonies and de-industrialization in colonies that were mainly agricultural but
also rich in small artisan based production led to shift of wealth that constituted
a second source of primary or primitive accumulation for capitalism.
Marx and Engels pointed out very clearly that wealth became capital only
when it was converted into investment for earning more wealth or profit, and
when what is produced became a “commodity”, that is something that could
be sold for profit. Market then became the crucial aspect of capitalism and
“labour power” or the worker’s work itself became a commodity to be sold
for survival and living. The exploitation of nature, of resources from the earth
(minerals, water, forests) nothing remained uncommodified. According to
Marx, then: “It is always in the relationship between the owner of the instruments
of production and the real producers….that we can find the inner secret, the
hidden basis of the whole structure.” (quoted in Kolowsky, p.199)
And this, he pointed out does not change despite improvements in wages or
higher standards of living: the essential relationship remains exploitative and
permeates through all aspects of life, from the political and cultural to the
personal and even within families. The position of women, gender relations in
society and within families, their lack of or unequal control over resources
both outside and within families, their role in society and politics became
permeated through how family and society in general developed through the
ages. The forms of many of these features have changed through history since
then, and these have been studied from time to time by political leaders and
academicians, but as major Marxist thinkers have pointed out, the essential
features remain through all the stages.
2.3.3 Theory of Revolution

From an analysis of the economic systems through history, Marx and Engels
drew the political conclusion that the overthrow of capitalism is necessary and
inevitable, and the second conclusion that it is something that would not happen
on its own, it would need a revolution by people to do so.
The class that would play the major role in this would be the working class. As
capitalism develops the production becomes more social in character, that is
collective (a worker does not produce a whole product, he does only one or
two functions within a factory) and the profit from it is individual, that of the
owner. The class of workers has no stake in maintenance of the system,
including private property in means of production, because it owns nothing
except its ability to work, and no interest in sustaining a system that prevents
him from leading a meaningful life and in which what he does for the whole day
goes in enriching not himself but the capitalist whom he may have never seen.
Only the collective fight of the workers could lead to shorter hours of work,
better working conditions, higher standards of living, more leisure and cultural
and educational access. With the emancipation of the workers would become
possible the emancipation of all other sections of society. Marx and Engels,
31
History of Modern on the basis of their roles and place in capitalist society also analyzed and
somewhat outlined the likely behaviour of peasants, women, small bourgeoise,
the big bourgeoisie, landlords etc., those who would be for revolution and
socialism and those who would oppose it, and also those who would come
part of the way.
In this way, capitalism created the conditions for the growth of the very elements
that would or could overthrow it!
Marx asked the question — will the capitalists voluntarily and of their own
give up their profits? History showed that apart from little charity, this did not
happen, and that whatever the working people had gained was through struggle
and fighting for it. A reform could be won through strikes, collective bargaining
and unionism, but for overturning the entire edifice of exploitation nothing short
of a revolution would suffice. As wealth became concentrated in fewer hands
(a tendency under capitalism), and more and more people suffered sections of
middle classes and peasantry would raise their voice and movements against
the ruling dispensation, but could withdraw once they felt the fight was for
going too far, because the fight would be against the governments, against the
judicial systems, against unequal social norms and old ways of thinking which
upheld the rule of the profiting ruling classes and the edifice of in inequality.
The first such broad movements emerged during Marx’s lifetime, the first being
the 1848 revolution that made Marx think of the leading role of the working
classes and the “betrayal” of the bourgeoisie, which came out in support of
the established governments, despite the autocratic rule of some of them, and
the denial of democratic constitutions they had themselves demanded. The
Communist Manifesto encapsulated this experience for the workers and
strengthened the support for socialism among them, leading to the formation
of working class organizations and parties all over Europe. The first attempt
to capture state power by the working class was made in Paris in 1871.
Hundreds of workers were killed defending the first workers government,
and the workers were defeated. Some more lessons were learnt, essentially
that it is necessary to destroy the machinery of the capitalist state and create a
new socialist state. Women’s organizations and women’s emancipation became
a popular movement after the rise of socialism and socialist organizations. In
fact the first mass organizations of women were started by socialists. Issues of
working women were also first taken up by them, while they formed the main
inspiration and support base for women’s vote campaigns.
2.3.4 Impact of Marxism

While Marx and Engels wrote extensively about the capitalist society, they
presented only some kind of a blue print of what socialism in practice would
be like, as there was no existing socialist society in their lifetime.
a) From a study of capitalism and its mechanics they derived the
understanding that it was necessary to extend political and legal rights into
the realm of economy and society: there could be no real equality without
social and economic equality.
32
b) A socialist society would thus be a classless society, with the means of Early Socialist Thought
production and resources owned by the State of the people and public
expenditure equally and sufficiently on health, education and culture for
all, and an assurance of gender equality.
c) An overthrow of state structure and state machinery was necessary as the
old machinery would be in the hands of the old ruling classes and would
defeat the revolution.
d) For sometime ‘dictatorship of the working class was necessary, to lay the
foundations of the new socialist state and to formulate and implement
policies in favor of the general populace, the working people. This would
in fact be more democratic than the earlier bourgeois regimes because it
would be a real rule of the majority over a minority of former ruling classes.
e) He emphasized the creation of organizations of the working people and
formed the first International Working men’s Association, which recognized
that interests of the working people everywhere were similar, with the
slogan, ‘Workers of the World Unite!’
Marxism did not imply prediction like astrology, but on the contrary laid bare
the interests that would create a drive towards socialism: whether they
succeeded or not would depend on the nature of struggles and their outcome.
It is people who make history; not destiny. Human life contained a lot more
variables than did nature; and history was open to these variables within the
general tendencies of social development. He visualized struggles and debates
even within socialist societies which would work towards the creation of
communist societies. While socialist societies, free of exploitation would make
possible ‘to each according to his/her work’ the communist societies at a
higher level of development could make possible ‘to each according to his/her
need’, where people would be content to share with each other and let each
one have what he or she needed and not be personally greedy for more. He
visualized a shorter working day and more time for leisure and culture. He
visualized a more humane consciousness. He even wondered whether the
peasantry would not play a major role in societies where industry was a smaller
sector, and whether revolution may not occur first in countries where capitalism
was most developed and consequently the bourgeoisie more strong. A weak
bourgeoisie and a different kind of alliance between the working classes and
the peasantry may yield better results. In fact, it did so happen that way.
The first successful revolution by the working class was in Russia in 1917,
rather than in Germany or England. Not only did the new Soviet state abolish
private property in resources and means of production in industry, it nationalized
all land in alliance with the peasantry. It created a new state and established
socialist democracy. The story of this first socialist experience is the subject of
a later Unit.
2.4 LET US SUM UP

Socialist ideas emerged in the immediate context of industrialization and capitalist
society, were diverse in their expression and advocacy of methods for social
transformation. Essentially, there were two trends: those who thought that
socialism could emerge gradually through the transformation of capitalism and
far reaching reform, others who argued that revolution and overthrow of
capitalist regimes was a necessary precondition for socialism.
33
History of Modern In the initial years of emerging capitalism, the dominant trend of socialist ideas
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) were those characterized as ‘utopian’ because they thought a change of hearts
and reforms were sufficient for socialism, in contrast to which Marx emphasized
that the contradictions within capitalism were intrinsic to the system and would
not allow any reconciliation or resolution of the basic roots of exploitation.
The Communist Manifesto and the political emphasis on revolution gave a
new dimension to socialist thought, as did the uncovering and dissection of the
roots of exploitation and the place of different calluses in the defense of
capitalism and also its overthrow.
The emphasis on women’s emancipation and the anti-colonial thrust of many
of the writings was crucial in the recognition of capitalism as a world system,
the emphasis on internationalism and building of workers organizations and
national liberation movements.
Most important, Marxism gained popularity as a tool of analysis rather than a
static doctrine and saw contributions of many political leaders and intellectuals
in applying the Marxist ideological perspective to analyzing and changing
societies all over the world. It became an ideological vehicle for revolutions in
the 20th century, beginning with Russian Empire in 1917, through Eastern
Europe, China and Vietnam to Cuba, and liberation of colonies. Socialism
and socialist ideas remain an inspiration in today’s unequal and unjust world,
more so as production increases rather than increasing access of all to the
earth’s resources are leading to greater exclusions.
1) Explain in about 100 hundred words major tenets of Marxism.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) Discuss the Marxist theory of revolution.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................

EXERCISES
1) See Section 2.2
2) See Sub-section 2.2.1
1) See Section 2.3
2) See Sub-section 2.3. 3
34
Counter Revolution-I :
UNIT 3 COUNTER REVOLUTION-I : Fascism to Conservative
Dictatorship
FASCISM TO CONSERVATIVE
DICTATORSHIP
Structure
3.0 Objectives
3.1 Introduction
3.2 General Features of Fascism
3.3 The Political Antecedents of Fascism
3.4 Foundation of Fascist State in Italy
3.4.1 The Emergence of Fascist Movement and Conquest of Power
3.4.2 Consolidation of the Regime
3.4.3 Major Types of Fascist Mass Organizations
3.4.4 Nature of the Fascist State
3.4.5 The Fall and Solo Republic
3.5 Right Wing Dictatorship and Movement in Spain

3.6 The French Right and Vichy Government
3.7 Right Wing Movements and Dictatorship: Eastern, Central Europe and
Baltic States
3.7.1 Poland
3.7.2 Hungary
3.7.3 Czecho-Slovac
3.7.4 Baltic States
3.8 Let Us Sum Up

3.9 Key Words
3.0 OBJECTIVES
This Unit introduces you to the development of extreme right wing movements
and regimes in the Inter-War period in Europe. After reading this Unit, you
will be able to explain:
 some general features of fascism and the nature of its mobilisation;
 the ideological forms and the organisational style of fascism in various
countries of Europe;
 nature of fascist regimes in countries like Italy and Spain; and
 the spread of semi-fascist regimes and organisations throughout Europe.
35
History of Modern
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) 3.1 INTRODUCTION
It is important to bear in mind the growth of politics of mobilization of people
institutionalized through elections, parties and representation in 18th and 19th
centuries. This led to a whole range of political choices from left to right. The
latent social cleavages also came into open. The growth of monopoly capitalism
and resultant intense imperialist rivalries fuelling extreme nationalist ideologies
and militarism after 1870 should also be seen as the background of the growth
of right-wings fascist dictatorships in Europe after the first phase of World
War I. In this new context, appeal for political support was made on the basis
of new, seemingly non-class identities especially outside the workplace. As a
result, unique mass-constituencies such as ‘war-veterans’, ‘tax-payers’,
‘sports fans’ or simply ‘national citizens’ were created. In the post-war period
we witness the triple ideological division of Europe into regime of left, right
and centre. In Unit 1 you were familiarised with the liberal democratic regimes
of Britain, France and Germany in the 1920s. In Unit 2 you had been
introduced to socialism. This Unit focuses on the ‘right’, i.e., the fascist
movements and regimes primarily in countries like Italy, Germany (in the
1930s and early 1940s under Hitler) and Spain. The Unit begins with a
discussion on some of the general features of fascism. It then takes up the
story of fascism in specific countries except Germany. Germany will be
discussed exclusively in the next Unit.
3.2 FASCISM : GENERAL FEATURES

Fascism has been interpreted in multiple ways. Some important interpretations
explain it as:
 a violent, dictatorial agent of finance capital — a favourite Marxist position,
 the unique expression of Middle Class Radicalism,
 the product of a cultural and moral breakdown,
 the result of Extreme Neurotic or pathologist impulses,
 the product of the rise of amorphous masses with the breakdown of
traditional identities based on kinship, church, guild and residence, etc.,
and a form of Bonapartism or an autonomous authoritarian government
independent of specific class-domination.
Many more points may be added to this list. But these multiple interpretations
are sufficient to point to the heterogeneous ingredients of fascism. Fascism
emerged in Europe as a synthesis of organic nationalism (a belief in the
harmonious collectivity of Nation superseding all other forms of human
identification) and anti-Marxist socialism. Its organic nationalism accounts for
its deep-rooted hostility to inter-nationalism and organization and movements
based on internationalism such as communism, freemasonry, the League of
Nations, finance capital and the multi-national Jewish community. Fascism
emerged as a radical movement based on the rejection of notions of liberalism,
democracy and Marxism. The Fascist synthesis symbolized the rejection of a
political culture inherited from the Enlightenment and its ideas such as rationalist
36
materialism, individualism and pluralist autonomy. The other major cultural Counter Revolution-I :
Fascism to Conservative
variables of fascism were: activism, vitalism and social-Darwinism. Social Dictatorship
Darwinism believed that people in society compete for survival and only superior
groups and races succeed.
Fascism was rooted in the 19th century critiques of liberal democracy,
parliamentarianism and Marxist socialism. However, it differed from the
conservative authoritarian groups. The basis of conservative authoritarianism
was generally religious ideology whereas fascism based itself on a new cultural
mystique such as vitalism, non-rationalism or secular neo-idealism. The
conservatives invoked traditional legitimacies whereas fascists wanted a radical
institutional change.
The war did provide sociological and psychological conditions for the
crystallization of Fascism. It revealed the capacity of nationalism in the
mobilization of masses and economic resources. It further demonstrated the
importance of unity of command, of authority, of moral mobilization and of
propaganda in the service of the modern state. After the war, Fascism emerged
as a vision of a coherent and reunited people, mobilized on the basis of a
whole communal liturgy of songs and torch-light procession, highlighting the
cult of physical strength, violence and brutality, its perfect expression being
the quasi-sacred figure of the leader-the Duce (as in Italy) or the Fuehrer (as
in Germany). The fascist opposition to the democratic-bourgeois institutions
and values did not rule out their use of mass, plebiscitary forms of politics, but
they opposed the notion of democracy based on respect for pluralism in society,
the freedom of the individual and the existence of civil and political liberties.
Its attempted mass mobilization featured the militarization of polities, and the
use of military insignia and terminology. A party militia was often used to
reinforce the sense of nationalism and constant struggle as well as to wipe out
opposition. Specifically related to this militarization of political relationship
with followers was their extreme stress on the masculine principle or male
dominance while espousing an organic view of society. In their organic view
of society, the structural relationship of various organs to each other only served
to define and delimit their roles, taking precedence over the identities and
rights of individuals. The exaltation of youth and the specific tendency towards
an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command (whether elective or
non-elective) were other features related to this militarization of politics.
Another significant feature of fascist ideology was the organisation of some
kind of regulated, multi-class, integrated national economic structure (variously
called national corporatist, national socialist or national syndicalist). The goal
of empire or at least a radical change in the nation’s relationship with other
powers was also a crucial factor.
3.3 THE POLITICAL ANTECEDENTS OF FASCISM

The growth of fascist ideas, in embryonic form, can be traced to the late 19th
and early 20th centuries. The ideas of’ corporatism (as a community of’ people,
of producers free from class strife) emerged in reaction to individualism, social
atomization and new centralizing states. Initially, it was a residue of the feudal
ideology of a mystical ‘community’ of personal ties. But gradually it acquired
modern reformist, class-collaborationist forms. Its two distinct forms were
37
History of Modern societal corporatism (based on autonomy to corporations) and state
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) corporatism. At the second level, we may discern a tendency from conservatism
towards neo-authoritarianism. Action Francaise (founded in 1899 in France)
represented this new authoritarian, neo-monarchist nationalism. Its core
principle was legitimate and corporate representation. It also made use of
anti-semitism and an embryonic militant group of young activists (as a
precursor of the fascist militia).
The third trend toward the crystallization of the fascist right was symbolized
by an instrumental, modernizing radical right which combined domestic
modernization with militant nationalism. Its political manifestation was the
Italian National Association (AN1 - founded in 1910). Its ideology of state-
corporatism demanded a co-ordination of modern industrial production to
make Italy a strong imperial country and its militia Sempre Pronti (Always
Ready) countered leftist violence with its own street violence. The other
political precursors of radical, semi-collectivist nationalism which anticipated
the fascist goal of broader mass mobilization were Paul Deroulede’s League
of Patriots in France and the Boulangist Movement in France in the1880s.
Pan-Germanism and the racial nationalism of the Austrian leader Georg Ritter
von Schenerer in the late 19th century, Maurice Barres socialist-nationalism
embodied in the Czech National Socialist Party (1904) and the German
National Socialist Workers’ Party (DNSAP) and its leaders Dr.Walter Riehl
and Rudolff Jung came much closer to the later Hitlerite ideas and programmes.
1) In what way did the war contribute to the development of fascist movement?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) What are the general features of fascism?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
3.4 FOUNDATION OF FASCIST STATE IN ITALY

By now you must have acquired a general awareness of the features of fascism.
It is now time to do a case study. Germany, Italy and Spain are some of the
examples of’ fascism. German fascism will be discussed in the next Unit. Let
us now look at the specific form that fascism took in Italy and Spain.
3.4.1 The Emergence of the Fascist Movement and Conquest

of Power
Fascism in Italy was created by the convergence of certain existing trends.
The split in the radical syndicalist Confederation of Trade Unions took place
38
in 1914 over the issue of Italian participation in the war. The syndicalist believed Counter Revolution-I :
in the ‘self-emancipation’ of the ‘producers’, which could be achieved through Dictatorship
‘regulation at factory level’, and not through ‘seizure of state power’. The
state would be replaced at an appropriate time by worker’s syndicates or
associations, which would act as the instruments of self-government of the
producers. The Syndicalist wing which moved towards fascism embraced
extreme nationalism, and nations were described by it as proletarian or
plutocratic (i.e., in class terms). The futurists who rejected traditional norms
and existing institutions and exalted violence, and were fascinated by speed,
power, motors and machines, or all the modern technological possibilities,
were a second major ideological factor. Mussolini’s socialistic views and ideas
on leadership, mass-mobilization and national revolution contributed the third
major strand.
The initial programme of fascists, launched as Fasci di Combattimento (1919)
in Milan called for the installation of a republic and reflected demands for
radical democratic and socialistic reforms including confiscation of the huge
war-time profits of the capitalists, the suppression of’ big joint-stock companies
and land for the landless peasants. These leftist elements of the programme
were dropped in 1920 and only, an emotive mixture of strident patriotism,
justification of the war and a concern for national greatness and growing
aversion to the socialist party were retained. The growth of fascist squads led
by ex-military personnel and supported by the local police and army especially
in northern and central Italy — the Po valley and Tuscany — was directly
linked to the actual or perceived threat of the left. The Fascist Militia was
created in January 1923 by Mussolini in order to discipline the squads and
curtail the powers of local squad leaders.
The poorly organized fascist march on Rome (October 1922) suggests that a
revolutionary insurrection could not have succeeded but for the indecisiveness
of the King and the passive support of a section of army. The King appointed
Mussolini as the prime Minister on 29th October 1922, who temporarily
observed all the constitutional norms after the assumption of power. Mussolini,
however, realized that even a multi-class nationalist movement would need a
compromise or a coalition of right forces to stay in power. In February 1923,
a fusion of Fascist Party and Nationalist Association of Italy (ANT) took
place. This fusion with a conservative, elitist, monarchist right-wing became
essential to gain broader support among army officers, academics, civil servants
and businessmen. This and other steps to seek accommodation with the
traditional elites left its imprint on the fascist party and the state. The traditional
right groups co-operated with fascists in passing the Acerbo Bill in 1923 which
proposed that the party receiving a-quarter of votes in an election, should be
automatically two-thirds of seats in the parliament.
3.4.2 Consolidation of the Regime

Using force and fraud, Fascists swept the 1924 election and after temporary
discomfiture over the murder of Socialist Deputy Matteotti in 1924, Mussolini
went ahead with his institutionalization of dictatorship. In October 1926, all
opposition parties were banned. The press was shackled, and the Public Safety
Law (1926) made the security of state take precedence over personal liberty.
39
History of Modern The Syndical Law (1926) brought labour under the control of state, in the
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) interest of production. The law confirmed the fascist unions in their monopoly
of negotiations, set up tribunals for compulsory arbitration and banned strikes
and go-slows. The Fascist Party itself was bureaucratized. The new party
statute in October 1926 introduced rigid centralization of powers, all posts
being appointed from above. In 1927, Mussolini resolved the question of the
relationship between the party and the state, in favour of the latter. Between
1926 and 1929, over 60,000 squad members were expelled from the party.
Attempt was made to control syndicalist ideas among fascist trade unions and
Edmondo Rossoni, the leader of syndicalists, was sacked in 1928. The
productivist and modernizing goal of early fascism led to a compromise with
private capital in the 1920s and 1930s, without formally renouncing syndicalist
projects of semi-collectivism. The ‘Corporate State’ was formally created in
1934 with 22 new combined corporations of employers and employees, but
they lacked real powers to take economic decisions.
Mussolini also tried to appease the Church. Large grants were made for the
repair of war-damaged Churches. In 1923, religious education was made
compulsory in secondary schools. The Roman question was finally settled in
1929 with the signing of the Lateran Pacts. The Vatican became a sovereign
state and a large sum was given to it for the loss of papal territories in 1860
and 1870. The Church’s main lay organization, Catholic Action, was guaranteed
freedom provided it stayed out of politics.
3.4.3 Major Types of Fascist Mass Organizations

At the top was the Grand Council of Fascism created in 1922 as a consultative
body which was converted into an organ of state by 1928. But, grass-root
organisations were more important. The military type Militia developed out of
the fascist squads. It was trained to use all kind of weapons and centred
around a core of professional soldiers. Its cadres were indoctrinated and used
against opponents. The semi-military propaganda-type organization included
Balilla, young vanguards and the young fascists. These organizations were
bureaucratically controlled by the Party. The regimented fascist unions for
workers were another major mass organization. Fascism’s most effective
experiment in consent-building was creation of the Opera Nazinale
Dopolavoro, set up in 1925, its main concern being the organization of leisure-
time. It ran a huge network of local clubs and recreational facilities with
libraries, bars, billiards halls and sport grounds. The Dopolavoro circles
arranged concerts, plays and film shows, organized outings and provided
extremely cheap summer holidays for children. By the 1930s, there were about
20,000 such circles in Italy.
3.4.4 Nature of the Fascist State

Though some characterize it as a ‘totalitarian’ state, the preeminent authority
of the state remained only in the areas of conflict, it was never total. Unlike the
Nazi German state, it never achieved even an approximate day-to-day
institutional control. The bureaucratic structure was never able to intervene
in all avenues of life. It was primarily a dictatorship that presided over a
pluralistic or semi-pluralistic system, pluralist not in ideological but in an
institutional sense. Big business, industry, finance and even army retained their
40
autonomy to a large degree while labour interests were more and more Counter Revolution-I :
regimented. The administrative machinery was preserved. The bureaucracy
Dictatorship
was never subjected to a systematic purge, and was dominated, as before, by
career officials. The police and Carabinieri were similarly unpoliticized, i.e.,
they were not taken over by party officials; however, a new political police,
the OVRA was created in 1932. Fascism came to power on the basis of a
tacit compromise with the established institutions and elites and never fully
escaped the constraints of that compromise.
The state intervention in the economic life of the nation was marginal in the
early part of regime. The Direct state investment during the Depression was
only an emergency measure. In 1933, after the foundation of IRI (Institute
for Industrial Reconstruction) and IMI (Instituto Mobiliare Itiliano), state
intervention increased. But even in 1940, IRI possessed only about 17.8 per
cent of the capital assets of Italian industry. The state in particular fostered the
growth of chemical, electrical and machine industries and gave impetus to
modernization through electrification of railways and growth of telephone and
radio industry. Another significant feature was the lack of economic militarism
or major investments in military production despite the regime’s rhetoric of
Italy being ‘in a permanent state of war’. Related to this was the predominance
of the humanistic intelligentsia in Italy which was not reduced in favour of
technical experts.
The Fascist State also introduced certain welfare schemes for workers in
1930s. Family allowances were given in1934, largely to compensate the loss
of income resulting from the imposition of a forty hour week. Insurance against
sickness and accident was incorporated into wage agreements, and in later
1930s Christmas bonus and holiday pay were introduced.
The Italian state also lacked any policy of racial anti-Semitism, at least up to
1937. There were only about 45,000 Jew families and they were well
assimilated. Even in 1938, the Party had 10,125 Jewish members. In
November 1938, however, under the influence of Nazis, racial Laws were
passed which banned marriages with Jews, denied jobs to them in public
services, debarred them from joining the Fascist Party and from owning more
than 50 hectares of land.
3.4.5 The Fall and Solo Republic

The overthrow of militarily underprepared Mussolini’s regime in 1943 was
effected by an adhoc coalition of the old conservative right represented by the
monarchy, army and the upper propertied classes led by moderate fascist
leaders. The Solo republic which appeared ‘as a German satellite, divested
of its former right-wing allies attempted to introduce certain mechanisms for
workers’ councils and profit-sharing and envisaged increasing nationalization
of industries. But this radicalism proved to be the gesture of a dying organism.
1) What ideological strands contributed to the growth of fascism in Italy?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
41
History of Modern 2) How did the nature of fascist state change after seizure of power by
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) Mussolini?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
3.5 RIGHT WING DICTATORSHIP AND MOVEMENT

IN SPAIN
The first phase of authoritarian government in Spain was established between
1923-30 by General Miguel Primo de Rivera. It emerged as a kind of military
reaction to the socialist pressure for democratic reforms and above all the
attempt of Spanish Parliament to fix ‘responsibilities’ for disastrous military
campaign in Morocco, where 9,000 soldiers were killed by Abed-el-Karim
Rifian rebels after the collapse of its military command. Initially the overthrow
of the Spanish Cortes or parliament was intended to be a temporary step. But
a dictatorship was institutionalized gradually. This dictatorship, which some
call ‘Fascism from above’, was based on economic nationalism, protectionism
and militant advocacy of a ‘strong’ and ‘hierarchic’ executive for restraining
‘social chaos’ and attempted mobilization of people from above. It was
particularly hostile to the activities of Anarcho-Syndicalist labour union,
Confederacion Nacinal de Trabajadores (CNT) and Socialist Union UGT
(Union General de Trabajadores). The dictator created Union Patriotica Party
for a controlled popular mobilization. The Party was based on a militant Catholic
ideology and found support of agrarian interests. Similarly, Rivera
institutionalized Somaten, a traditional Catalan militia which protected capitalists
during crisis and strikes. But the new militia remained an auxiliary of authorities
in their endeavour to preserve order and never acquired the status of a radical
fascist militia.
The demise of Rivera’s dictatorship inaugurated a new phase of mass
democracy and led to the radicalization of Spanish politics - along both left
and right lines. CEDA or the Confederation of Spanish Right groups was the
main conservative authoritarian party during1933-36. Its youth movement
(JAP) underwent a certain vertigo of fascistization but remained ambivalent.
The neo-traditionalist Carlist and Alfonsino Monarchists represented another
strand of right-radicalism. The Alfonsino neo-monarchists were especially
influenced by the Action Francaise — a rightist-French group as well as the
Right Nationalist Wing of Italian fascism. Their journal Accion Espanola,
and their main ideologue JoseCalvo Sotelo envisioned establishment of a new
authoritarian dictatorship preceding installation of monarchy with the help of
traditional elites-army, landowners, church, etc. and wanted to replace literal
parliament by an indirect corporate chamber representing social and economic
interests. Later, Franco regime approximated the structure and policies of
Sotelo ideas.
The open fascistic groups, however, remained small and insignificant in the
Spanish Politics. Between 1931 and 1934, a small band of students organized
as Juntas de ofensiva Nacional Syndicalista (JONS). Their programme
resembled Italian fascism.
42
In October 1933, Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, with financial assistance Counter Revolution-I :
from the Basque businessmen formed Falange Espanola (or Spanish Phalanx) Dictatorship
to give form and ideological content to the national authoritarian movement.
JONS merged with Falange in early 1934.
However, it remained politically insignificant and relied heavily on student
clientele in the absence of a broader lower or middle class support. By 1935,
it assumed more radical tones of national syndicalism and criticized Italian
fascism as too conservative and capitalistic. Falange advocated nationalistic
ideology, believed in ‘authority, hierarchy and order’ and its 27 Point
Programme included development of a national-syndicalist state, nationalization
of banking and credit facilities and the confiscation of large landed estates.
This programme resembled early radical programme of Italian fascists.
Falangism, however, retained a basic Catholic religious identity, despite being
politically anti-clerical. Large sections of Spanish right became ‘fascistized’
but Falange itself failed to acquire a mass-following. In 1936 election, it received
only 44,000 votes or 0.7 per cent of all votes cast. The failure of militant
nationalistic ideology in Spain stemmed partially the influence of intense regional
nationalism (or sub-nationalism) of Catalans and Basques, directed against
the unified Spanish nation-state. Moreover, Spanish Civil war (1936-39)
produced a polarized revolutionary-counter revolutionary conflict in which
leadership passed completely in the hands of the insurgent Nationalist Army
which created the Franco regime and subordinated Falange to military
dictatorship. In 1937, Franco took over the Falange movement and created a
syncretic, heterogeneous state party on the basis of Falangism. This new party
was a union of Falangists, Calists and all other members of various rightist and
other groups willing to join it. Falange’s programme was raised to the status of
official state doctrine but it remained modifiable according to future
requirements. Only a marginal role was played by the old Falangist in the new
dictatorial Franquist state and even in the administration of new state party,
the Falangei Espanola Tradicionalista. The early Franquism contained a
major component of fascism, but it was so restricted within a right-wing,
Pretorian, catholic and semi-pluralist structure, that the category of ‘semi-
fascist’ would probably be more accurate. Franquism resembled Italian fascism
in its use of subordinated state fascist party and in its limited pluralism under
executive dictatorship. By 1945 non-mobilized, ‘bureaucratic’ authoritarianism
replaced a partially mobilized semi-fascist state.
3.6 THE FRENCH RIGHT AND VICHY GOVERNMENT

France had many fascist groups but none of them was able to cross 2 per cent
votes, the minimum required to gain representation in the French electoral
system. Action Francaise, founded in 1899, was a kind of proto-fascist
reactionary movement. George Valois Le Faisceau (founded in 1925) tried
to wed syndicalism with nationalism. The Jeunesses Patriots (1924-28), was
also organized on military pattern and believed in street-violence. Some other
groups developed a broader appeal. Among these were the Solidarite
Francaise (1933) and Croixde Feu. The latter gained support from the big
business and finance. Politically, it leaned towards Catholic conservatism.
Banned by the Popular Front ministry in 1936, it soon reorganized as the
43
History of Modern Parti Social Francais. The Francistes, organized in 1933 by Marcel Buccard,
was another right-wing group.
The Parti Populaire Francaise, led by an ex-Communist, Jacques Doriot,
represented a kind of half-way house between socialism and nationalistic class
collaboration. Marcel Deat, a deviant from socialism, also propagated need
for national planning and integration of all productive forces. However, during
the German occupation, Deat moved towards fascism and his Rassemblement
National Populaire (1941) formed the extreme left-wing of French fascism.
The Parties committed to democratic republic (i.e. Socialist, Communist and
Radical) created a Popular Front against fascism (1934-35). The real or
perceived threat of fascist seizure of power receded after electoral gains of
the left (1936) and formation of a coalition government with the support of the
Popular Front till 1940.
The Vichy Government
The devastating defeat of French forces in the Battle of France in which 92,000
army men were killed and 18,50,000 were taken as prisoners of war by the
German troops, led to a growing demand in France for an armistice voiced
by Deputy Prime Minister, Marshal Petain and new Commander-in-chief,
Wegand. The French Prime Minister Paul Reynaud resigned on 16 June 1940,
and Marshal Petain concluded the terms of armistice which included reduction
of French army to 100,000 men equipped only to maintain internal order,
demobilization of Home Fleet, German occupation of a substantial part of
France, an enormous levy to meet the cost of occupiers, and retention of
French prisoners of war practically as hostages until the final conclusion of a
peace treaty. Marshal Petain established his government on 1 July 1940, in
the cramped and unsuitable hotel rooms of Spa town of Vichy. A demoralised
National Assembly gave the right to draft a new constitution and granted ‘full
executive and legislative powers’ to the Marshal. Petain outlook can be summed
up by the formulae ‘Work, Family and Homeland’ (Travail, Famille and
Patriein French) which substituted the familiar republican device Liberty,
Fraternity and Equality. The Vichy government represented the conservative
elite groups’ desire to maintain social-hierarchy and order. Rather than Fascism,
the dominant feature of new government was traditionalism associated with
movement like Action Francaise. The Vichy government stressed proper moral
instruction as a means of protecting social order. There were attempts to glorify
the roles of housewife and mother and to reduce the number of women working
outside the home. As a result, the regime received widespread support of the
clergy. The economy however was increasingly subordinated to German
interests. By 1943, 15 per cent of the agricultural and 40 per cent of industrial
output was exported to Germany as the occupation cost. The peasant
corporation, created in December 1940 as a means of producer’s self-
regulation, was rapidly turned into a bureaucratic machine for official
intervention in the market. In industry, growing German demands called for a
degree of planning which heralded the development of post-war technocracy.
The paternalistic rhetoric and corporatist structures became effectively a cover
for policies overwhelmingly favourable to businessmen. Trade unions were
banned and any sign of labour resistance was brutally repressed. At local
level, appointed mayors replaced the elected councils. Mediation between
44
the masses and Vichy was fostered through an inflated civil service. This led to Counter Revolution-I :
sway of an unelected social and administrative elite, imposing its control through Dictatorship
the bureaucracy and corporations.
In return for collaboration, Vichy had expected concessions on the armistice
terms and a favourable peace treaty. However, with the German entry into
unoccupied zone in November 1940, Vichy was reduced to the status of a
dependent satellite. Initially, however, only few fascists were associated with
the government. Marcel Deat and Joseph Darnad were given ministerial berths
only in December 1943.
Vichy’s anti-semitism also tended to be nationalistic and Catholic rather than
racialist. The armistice obliged Vichy government to repatriate Jewish refugees
of German origin. In October 1940, a piece of legislation debarred Jews from
the electric offices, civil service and teaching and journalism besides imposing
quotas on the entry to most professions; although war-veterans and the fully
assimilated Jews were exempted. Jewish property was confiscated with Vichy’s
cooperation in the occupied zone and foreign Jews were repatriated. These
policies were extended to the unoccupied zone also after the summer of 1941.
Allied forces landed on the Coast of Normandy on 6 June 1944 and Paris
was liberated on 25 August 1944. By the end of 1944, most of France was
free of German troops. Vichy government was forced by the German authorities
to shift to eastern France, and finally, as virtual captives, into German itself.
3.7 THE RIGHT WING MOVEMENTS AND

DICTATORSHIP: THE EASTERN CENTRAL
EUROPE AND BALTIC STATES
Quite apart from the established regions of Italy and Spain, fascism also existed
in the form of brief political experiments and organisations in certain other
countries of Europe. Not all these organisations possessed the basic ingredients
of fascism. The degree and extent of fascism practised also varied. Let us
look at the examples of Poland, Hungary, Baltic States and Czecho-Slovac.
3.7.1 Poland
Poland had a weak fascist movement. Pilsudski’s coup d’tat in 1926 resulted
in a strong authoritarian regime. It functioned as a moderate semi-pluralist
system up to1935. National Democratic Party of Western Poland was a mass
parliamentarian party, advocated anti-Semitism and a more repressive policy
towards other national minorities. Its radical youth wing split off as national
radicals in 1930s and gave birth to two more explicitly fascist like organizations
— ABC and Falanga. Falanga’s ideology was of extreme Catholicism and it
insisted on elimination of private sector of the economy in favour of some-sort
of national socialism.
A new corporative, authoritarian Constitution in 1935 reduced the sphere of
tolerated pluralism. Pilsudski also died in 1935 and the Colonels who succeeded
him created a new proto-fascist state party — the Camp of National Unity or
OZN. Colonel Koe, its first director, came to rely heavily on Boleslaw Piasecki,
the head of Falanga, and the radical implications of this relationship led to
Koe’s ouster and the severing of the Falanga’s connection. Some have
45
History of Modern described this system as ‘directed democracy’, but by 1939, the regime was
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) moving towards a mobilized state organization and a controlled one party
system.
3.7.2 Hungary
Hungary had the largest assortment of various fascist, fascist type, right radical
and simply authoritarian nationalist groups. A large unemployed bureaucratic
middle class contributed to fascist growth in the aftermath of Communist
Bela Kun revolt (1919). During most of the Interwar period Hungary was
governed by the conservative authoritarian regime of Admiral Horthy. It valued
nineteenth century social hierarchy and was governed by a restrictive
parliament based on limited suffrage. The official state party was National
Unity Party. A Fascist group, ‘Szeged fascists’, led by Gyula Gombos lacked
popular support, but Gombos was offered prime ministership by Horthy in
1932 on the condition that he would moderate his programme and abandon
anti-semitism. He tried to transform the official National Unity Party and state
towards national socialism. This transformation, however, remained partial
due to his sudden death in 1936.
‘Arrow Cross’ of Ferenc Szalasi achieved more substantial mass support.
The Movement believed in Hungarian racism and proposed a drastic Hungarian
expansion that would incorporate the greater Danube-Carpathain area. But
there was proposal of autonomy to regions inhabited by a strong majority (of
about 80-90 per cent) of a single non-Magyar people. Another anomaly was
Szalasi’s theoretical eschewal of violence. His movement was not anit-semitic
but ‘asemitic’, advocating that all Jews leave Hungary for elsewhere. ‘Arrow
Cross’ further advocated a revolutionary economic corporatism that would
overthrow big landlords and capital in the interest of greater collective well-
being. It acquired a broad mass-base among workers and peasants in the late
1930s but its popularity was waning during the war. The movement itself became
more Nazified and was placed in power briefly in 1944 as a puppet of
German military.
3.7.3 Czecho-Slovak
It had two overtly fascist organizations: The National Fascist Community
(NFC, organized in 1926) and the Czech National Socialist Camp which
developed in 1930s. These remained weak as workers clung to socialism and
the middle classes remained under the influence of some variants of liberalism.
There was partial fascistization of the Slovak People’s Party, the principal
political force in Slovakia during the Inter-war period. It was originally a
moderate conservative authoritarian Catholic-populist nationalist party
oriented towards corporatism. It was influenced by Nazification after 1938
when anti-Semitic policies were adopted that excluded Jews from business
and the professions. Later, many Jews were deported to Poland under Nazi
pressure.
3.7.4 Baltic States

A rightist moderate dictatorship was established in Lithuania by a military coup
at the close of 1936 after major gains by the left in the domestic elections.
Antanas Smetona remained the head of the state till its disappearance in 1940.
46
Some degree of pluralism was tolerated. However, the state was moving Counter Revolution-I :
towards one party regime in 1940. The State Party National Union (Tautnin Dictatorship
Kai) found social support among the intelligentsia and the rich peasants.
By contrast, the more moderate regimes of ‘authoritarian democracy’ in Latvia
and Estonia were instituted simply as preventive authoritarianism in 1934 by
the moderate forces. Konstantin Pats, the leader of Farmers Party in Estonia
established a more authoritarian government to check the influence of the right-
radical Association of Estonian Freedom Fighters. In Latvia, the new Ulamanis
government was directed against both the left and the Thunder Cross, a vigorous
Latvian fascist type party influenced by Nazism, thought politically strongly
anti-German. However, pluralism was tolerated in both Lativia and Estonia
and in neither case did a well institutionalized dictatorship develop.
1) Write five sentences about Falange’s ideology?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) What was the role of ‘Arrow Cross’ in the political life of Hungary? Write
in about 100 words.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
3.8 LET US SUM UP

In this Unit you have learnt the following:
 the basic features of fascist movement;
 the role of war in preparing sociological and psychological conditions of
fascism; and
 the basic ideological strands that contributed to fascism and its
organizational styles.
We should understand fascism as distinct from conservative right wing
movements, as a radical attempt to restructure society and its institutions. We
also traced the political antecedents of fascism. It is not correct to see the
fascist movement as a kind of catastrophe which erupted suddenly with the
Great Depression. Although the Depression provided ideal conditions for
growth of fascism, its roots lay in the 19th century Europe and the World War.
You also studied the specific variations in fascist movements using examples
of Italy, France and Spain, etc. The emergence of Italian fascist regime was
analysed in greater detail and the nature of State was specifically dealt with.
The example of France, Spain, the Eastern Central Europe (Poland, Hungary
and Czechoslovakia) and Baltic States will further help you to understand the
47
History of Modern growth of fascist politics during the inter-war period. However this Unit has
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) left out of its discussion the most extreme right wing regime of Europe-Germany
under Hitler. The next Unit takes up the story of fascism in Germany.
3.9 KEY WORDS

Anti-semitism : Prejudice against Jews, its modern variant was based on
the ideology of racialism and social darwinism.
Corporation : A semi-collectivist creed that attempted harmonious relationship
between employees and employers by binding them in a common organization.
Elite : Any socially privileged group.
Liberal Democracy : A political philosophy of participatory politics which
respected social pluralism and freedom and created modern elective institutions.
Militia : A semi-military organization.
Mobilization : Preparation of people for action around a particular idea.
Nationalism : A people or community’s sense of belongingness including pride
in its culture and history.
Social-Darwinism : Application of Darwin’s ideas to the development of
society, a belief that people in society compete for survival and only superior
individuals, groups and races succeed. This belief directly fed into the anti-
Jewish politics practised mainly under German fascism but also elsewhere.
Socialism : Political belief in the collective ownership of a community’s
resources.
Syndicalism : The belief in the self-emancipation of the producers through
regulation at factory level by workers’ syndicates or associations.

EXERCISES
1) See Section 3.2
2) See Section 3.2
2) See Sub-sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.4
1) See Section 3.5
2) See Section 3.7, especially Section on Hungarian right-wing movement.
48
Counter-revolution II:
UNIT 4 COUNTER-REVOLUTION II: National Socialism in
Germany
NATIONAL SOCIALISM IN
GERMANY
Structure
4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Background
4.3 German Politics in the Aftermath of War
4.4 Formation and Early Years of Nazi Party
4.5 Crisis of Parliamentary Republic
4.6 Political Consolidation of the Nazis
4.7 State and Society in the Third Reich
4.7.1 Subordination of Judiciary
4.7.2 Gestapo
4.7.3 Workers and Peasants
4.7.4 Women
4.7.5 Ban on Art and Literature
4.7.6 Press
4.7.7 Policy on Education
4.7.8 Religious Intolerance
4.8 Genocide of the Jews

4.9 Let Us Sum Up
4.0 OBJECTIVES
This is in continuation with the previous Unit which explained to you the
general features of fascism as an extreme right-wing political formation. It
also narrated the story of rightwing regimes of Italy and Spain. This Unit
takes up the story of the rise of Nazi party in Germany as the classic fascist
regime. After reading this Unit, you will:
 learn the historical antecedents to the rise of fascism in Germany;
 get an idea of the circumstances which led to the formation of Nazi party;
 discover the changes that came about in the German society after the
Nazi take-over in 1933; and
 be able to discuss the essence of German fascism.
49
History of Modern
It is important to understand the ideological range that is covered by the
right-wing regimes. All of them are not similar, and can cover a broad spectrum
starting from conservative regimes to extreme fascist ones. The regime that
took over in Germany in 1933 represented the most extreme form of fascism.
This Unit gives you information about the roots of German fascism in the 19th
century history of Germany. It then discusses the crisis of parliamentary
democracy in Germany in the 1920s which created conditions for the rise of
fascism. It also elaborates the nature of German fascism and the fundamental
changes that it brought about in German society.
4.2 BACKGROUND
The German state associated with the name of Adolf Hitler earned for itself
the distinction of being the most criminal and destructive regime in world history,
a status linked not only with the provocations which launched the Second
World War, but also with the use of industrial techniques for the performance
of mass murder. The first resulted in the deaths of at least 55 million people,
the second in the genocide of between 4 to 6 million European Jews and
gypsies. In decades to come historian will still be looking to answers to how
and why such deathly energies could have developed and been unleashed
upon the world. This Unit will set forth an outline of the formation and main
features of the Nazi regime.
We may not assume that the ideological and structural features of Nazism
were unique and had no roots in Germany’s past. Many precursive elements
were present in the late nineteenth century. The period of Kaiser William II
(1890- 1914), a convinced German imperialist, was marked by a sea change
in German politics, beginning with his dismissal of Bismarck, and by rapid
economic development. These changes marked crucial problems such as the
financial dependence of the central government upon the states; the paralysis
of imperial policy because of the discrepancy between the conservative Prussian
system and that of an Empire founded upon universal manhood suffrage.
Since the chancellor was not responsible to the Reichstag, parliamentary life
seemed to be outside the sphere within which real decisions were made. The
lack of constitutional reform deprived political parties of’ responsibility, leading
to sectarian and doctrinaire tendencies and the alliance of landed and industrial
interests precluded the success of socialist revisionism, with its attempts to
integrate the working class into the state. Furthermore, the existence of
militaristic tendencies within the state bureaucracy was conducive to a culture
of obedience, even in domestic life. In 1893 the strength of’ the Army was
increased by 83,000, and by 1913 it had grown to 780,000 men. The internal
tensions in the system were only forestalled by the outbreak of the First World
War.
In the realm of ideology too, there were strong precursors to the doctrines of
the Nazi era. Racialism and imperialism were powerful themes in the aspirations
of the German elite, for whom the phrase Weltpolitik signified their search for
great-power status and a world mission. As he despatched his troops to China
in 1900 during the Boxer Rebellion, the Kaiser exhorted them to behave as
50
Huns. Then again, from 1880 onwards, there developed in the German- Counter-revolution II:
National Socialism in
speaking world the growth of anti-Semitic politics, concurrent with what was Germany
happening in Russia. In Vienna, the Christian Socialist mayor combined social
and administrative reform with virulent scapegoating of the Jews for all social
ills. In Berlin the Protestant Christian Social Movement was led by the court
chaplain, Adolf Stocker, who combined anti-semitism with puritanism in his
attacks upon the emergent economic order.
The outbreak of the First World War saw the mainstream German socialist
movement identifying with the government’s war aims, declaring that Germany
had to be protected against reactionary Russian aristocracy, and uniting behind
the Kaiser in a solemn civil truce. With the exception of an extreme-left faction,
German socialism fell in with the patriotic euphoria of the times. This is
noteworthy if only to underline the fact that chauvinist sentiment had a popular
base, providing a context within which the ultra-nationalist demagogues of the
post-war period could find resonance and support for their programmes.
4.3 GERMAN POLITICS IN THE AFTERMATH OF WAR

The Weimar Republic about which you have read was born amidst military
defeat and administrative collapse. Germany’s war enemies insisted on a change
of government as a pre-condition for an armistice, which was signed on
11 November 1918, after the Kaiser’s abdication two days earlier. Political
systems in terminal crisis tend to hand over to their most bitter critics, and it is
not surprising that the Social Democrats (the SPD) were the only political
tendency with the legitimacy to defuse the acute social unrest that accompanied
the end of the war. Meanwhile, inspired by the events in Russia in 1917, the
extreme-left of German social democracy was implicated in efforts to organize
a seizure of power. Their faction, known as the Spartacists, organised an
insurrection in Berlin in the winter of 1918-19, during the course of which
the leading Social Democrat in charge of government, Chancellor Ebert, came
to an agreement with the army as his only bulwark of survival. For their part
the Army saw an understanding with the former as a means of negotiating
peace and quelling working class upheaval. A consequence of the alliance
was the continuing stability of one of Germany’s most conservative institutions.
The accession to power of the social democrats and the subsequent murder
of the Spartacist leaders Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht by the
Freikorps (which consisted of demobilised soldiers), forever embittered the
relations between the right and left wings of German social democracy.
Germany was gripped by a revolutionary situation in 1919, with workers and
soldiers’ councils in Hamburg, Berlin, and a wave of unionisations. There
was even a brief soviet republic in Bavaria. Thereafter the Communist Party
was founded which made several attempts at an insurrectionary overthrow of
the hated “social-democratic” republic. In 1923 there was a severe round of
inflation, along with the occupation of the Ruhr by France and Belgium. There
was an attempted putsch in 1920 and a communist rising in Hamburg in
October 1923, after which martial law was declared for a while. The repeated
attempts by the communists to bring about a soviet-like seizure of power
sharpened tensions, spread fear among the middle classes and conservative
elements, and contributed to an atmosphere of extreme polarisation. The
51
History of Modern situation was compounded by the tendency on the part of demobilised soldiers
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) to attribute defeat in war to betrayal in the rear by communists and social
democrats alike (this was the notorious “stab in the back” theory); and the
crippling war reparations imposed on Germany by the victorious powers under
the Treaty of Versailles, which included heavy monetary payments, curbs on
the size of the armed forces, and a temporary occupation of Germany’s most
heavily industrialised and mineral rich provinces.
4.4 FORMATION AND EARLY YEARS OF THE NAZI

PARTY
Anton Drexler in Munich founded the German Workers Party in 1919.
Ideologically speaking, it combined socialist radicalism with extreme
nationalism, a hatred of Slavs and Jews and a desire to find scapegoats for
defeat. Hitler was first discovered by Drexler and acquired notoriety as a
beer-hall demagogue. Among his earliest collaborators was the army officer
Ernst Rohm, who was later to lead the Stromtroopers (SA). In 1920-21 Hitler
emerged as the leader of the party, which soon after became the German
National Socialist Worker’s Party (NSDAP). Its programme was radical and
chauvinist. It called for:
 a Greater Germany with land and colonies,
 the annulment of Versailles,
 profit sharing in big firms,
 the abolition of unearned incomes,
 land reforms, and
 the lease of department store of small traders. It even called for the
enhancement of the authority of Parliament. As these were radical slogans
which were forgotten after they came to power in 1933.
The Weimar Republic underwent a crisis in 1922-23. The collapse of the
monetary system resulted in hyper inflation, with one pound exchanging for
15 million marks in September 1923. In January 1923 the French army
occupied the Ruhr in response to Germany’s defaulting on reparations
payments. Gustave Stresemann became the new Chancellor in September
and followed a policy of keeping the terms of the Versailles treaty, a step that
angered the Right. Meanwhile the success of Mussolini’s March on Rome in
1922 has inspired Hitler, and he attempted a seizure of power in Munich in
November 1923, with the co-operation of senior army officers such as Field
Marshal Ludendorff. However the Reichwehr as an institution remained loyal
to Weimar and sixteen Nazis were killed in street clashes. Hitler himself
underwent a (somewhat lenient) trial for someone accused of high treason,
and was jailed for most of 1924, during which period he wrote Mein Kampf.
The book was published in 1924, and is significant for explicit statements on
his concept of Lebensraum (living space for the German people), an Eastern
Empire, the struggle between races and nations, and an international Jewish
conspiracy responsible for both capitalism and communism. Parliamentary
democracy, wrote Hitler, “sins against the basic aristocratic principle of
Nature”; “all human culture” was “almost exclusively the creative product of
52
the Aryan”, who alone “was the founder of all higher humanity”; and “in Russian Counter-revolution II:
Bolshevism we must see the attempt undertaken by the Jews in the twentieth Germany
century to achieve world domination”.
The Nazi Party was banned during Hitler’s incarceration, which ended in
December 1924. The ban was lifted in 1925, and the party was re-organised,
with Hitler as its first member. He quickly established his control over the
‘left’ wing controlled by Gregor Strasser in the north, where Goebbels became
his new and longest lasting ally. New Grauleiter (district leaders) were
appointed, the SA was given a new head, and the authoritarian role of the
Leader formalised. ‘In February 1926 Hitler met leading Hamburg
industrialist and won them over with his radical anti-communist rhetoric. The
Nazis contempt for democracy could not have been more explicitly put than
by Goebbels in 1928, “We become Reichstag deputies in order to paralyse
the Weimar democracy with its own assistance. If democracy is stupid enough
to give us free travel passes and per diem allowance for this purpose that is its
affair…. We come as enemies! Like the wolf tearing into the flock of sheep,
that is how we come…”
4.5 THE CRISIS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY

REPUBLIC
Ebert was the first President (1919-25) of Weimar, under whose constitution
the Reichstag had considerably more powers than before. Nevertheless, it
was the president who appointed the chancellor and possessed emergency
powers to issue decrees. The principle of proportional representation resulted
in the formation of splinter parties, which along with the provision for
plebiscites and imitation on provincial rights undermined constitutional
functioning. The SPD and the Centre Party upheld the republic. After the
death of President Ebert (1919-25), came the presidentship of Field Marshal
von Hindenburg, 1925-34; the avowed monarchist and Junker general, whose
incumbency was to prove disastrous for democracy in Germany.
The Republic weathered the crises of 1922-23. The Stresemann government
obtained the withdrawal of French troops from the Ruhr, stabilised the
currency, negotiated the Dawes Plan with the Allied Powers which reduced
reparation payments to acceptable levels and provided much needed foreign
currency loans and signed the Locarno Pact with Britain and France in
December 1925, under which Germany recognised her western borders as
final. In March 1926 Germany was admitted to the League of Nations. Under
the Young Plan of 1929, reparations were scaled down again, the payment
period extended, and France and Britain agreed to withdraw troops from the
Rhineland in 1930, five years ahead of the agreed schedule. On the other
hand, there was high unemployment, far too great a dependence on foreign
investment and stagnation in German agriculture. Political instability was
endemic, with no single party majorities, as many as 15 ministries between
1919 and 1928, and a growing attractiveness of the radicalism of both Right
and Left. Moreover, right-wing populism was becoming influential among senior
army officers, with their intense dislike for the disarmament provisions of the
Versailles Treaty.
The Wall Street Crash of October 1929 had a terrible impact on Germany,
with the withdrawal of American loans, loss of export markets, and collapse
53
History of Modern of industrial production. Unemployment rose to 5.6 million in 1932. The
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) government struggled to meet the financial burdens caused by a fall in tax
receipts and a rise in unemployment benefits. The election to the fourth
Reichstag in May 1928 yielded hopeful result, with the Nazis kept to a low 12
seats out of 491 and the SPD gaining 22 seats to reach 153. The KPD had
54. (The SPD& KPD had a total of 42% of the seats). A coalition of moderate
parties led by Muller was formed, which proved incapable of agreeing on
economic policy. The crisis of the state remained unresolved. Muller’s
resignation in March 1930 marked the end of the parliamentary period of
Weimar. Heinrich Bruning of the Centre Party became the next Chancellor,
and began to implement unpopular financial policies by invoking Article 48,
which allowed for legislation by presidential decree. The constitutional crisis,
which resulted, was dealt with by dissolution of the Reichstag. Thereafter
several important deflationary measures reducing unemployment benefits,
raising taxes, etc. were implemented by decree. Wages fell further, and so did
purchasing power. In September 1930 Bruning put his policies to the test.
The election to the fifth Reichstag resulted in massive gains for the Nazis, who
now held 107 seats. Their share of the vote had risen by 800%. With his
moderate allies losing support, Bruning had to rely on the lukewarm support
of the SPD.
Meanwhile political tensions were on the rise, with street clashes between the
SA and the communists. It was clear that the old conservative alliance was
being reversed, with Hitler now in a dominant position. The government’s
attempted ban on the SA in April 1932 angered Nazi sympathisers in the elite,
which included Kaiser William’s son. President Hindenburg replaced Bruning
by the end of May 1932 by Fritz von Papen, an aristocrat with strong right-
wing leanings, who became the first Centrist politician to collaborate with
Hitler. The ban on the SA and SS was lifted, the SPD provincial government
in Prussia dismissed, and the Reichstag dissolved yet again. The election
campaign was extremely violent, with the SA taking to the streets against real
and perceived enemies. There were 99 deaths and over a thousand cases of
injury. The sixth Reichstag saw the Nazis gaining 230 seats, with 37% of the
vote. The SPD had 133 seats, and the KPD 89. Hindenburg was still reluctant
to make Hitler the Chancellor, as was the latter to accept anything less. During
the next few months Hitler canvassed support among industrialists and bankers
such as von Thyssen and Hajlmar Schacht, as well as members of the
Reichslandbund, an organization of Prussian landholders. Papen soon decided
to gamble on another general election, to be held in November 1932. The
elections to the seventh Reichstag resulted in a decline of the Nazi vote and a
loss of 34 seats, down to 196. The SPD had 121 seats, and the KPD 100
seats. Soon afterwards, Defence Minister Schleicher replaced Papen as
Chancellor for a short period during which he attempted to obtain dissolution
of the Reichstag ad a proclamation of a state of emergency. A series of political
intrigues in January 1933 led to an agreement to a conservative coalition to be
led by Hitler as Chancellor. There were to be only three Nazis in a twelve-
member government, and the conservatives believed that they could use Hitler
to suppress the left. In a series of ruthless political moves Hitler proved them
disastrously wrong, as he consolidated his hold on power, crushed all real and
potential opposition, and created a highly centralized state. In March
1933, elections took place for the eighth Reichstag. The Nazis won 288 seats,
the KPD 81 (they were all immediately disqualified), and the SPD 120.
54
There had been five general elections from 1928 to 1933. The ‘NSDAP had Counter-revolution II:
grown from a membership of 27,000 in 1925, to 49,000 in 1926, 72,000 in Germany
1927, 108,000 in 1928, to 178,000 in 1928- an increase of 559% in just five
years. What were the reasons for this phenomenal growth? Essentially, it was
the failure of republicanism and the unwillingness of political parties to
compromise for a common cause. The ultra-left posture of the Stalinist KPD
also worked in tandem with rightist attacks against the “system”, and the
ideological climate was deeply affected by the economic crisis, the degeneration
of state organs, and the steady corrosion of the judiciary which increasingly
began to protect right radicals. (An example of this was the Leipzig trial of
spring 1930, during which three army lieutenants were tried for high treason.
Hitler appeared in their defence, threatening the court in his deposition. The
sentence was to last for only eighteen months). David Abraham stresses Marx’s
point that Germany suffered “not only from the development of capitalist
production, but also from its incompleteness”. He analyses the disproportionate
influence over state policy of the East Elbain Junkers, who occupied vital state
positions as a virtual ruling class; although the agricultural contribution to
national GNP was less than 15% and the agrarian population only a quarter of
the total. The increased political importance of the peasantry under universal
suffrage altered relation in the countryside. Moreover there were severe
conflicts between fraction of the elite classes, between agriculture and industry
as sectors, between grain estate owners and the electorally influential dairy
and livestock peasants; the older cartelized heavy industrialists vs the new and
dynamic capital intensive industries, etc. While these fractions adopted different
positions towards political coalitions, organised labour, trade and fiscal policies,
and reparation, the state proved unable to produce a balance between them
workable within democratic institutions. For their party, the Junkers combined
their control of the state and army bureaucracy with the advantage of avoiding
the fragmentation of the bourgeoisie. After 1929 the locus of decision making
narrowed, with parliament, the parties and finally even cabinet ministers were
becoming irrelevant and corporate interests like the RDI (the League of German
Industry) exercising increasing influence over the state.
With the onset of the Great Depression the bourgeoisie had become alarmed
by the SPD’s programme of integration and representing the interest of the
working class. The economic and fiscal crisis made the costs of social
collaboration coupled with the payment of reparations intolerable for the
dominant classes. The capitalists abandoned their own programme of
compromise and competition with the SPD, a policy that had provided the
basis for stability between 1925 till 1930. The frequency of elections was a
manifestation of a crisis in state legitimacy and served to further destabilise
the situation. Once it was clear that the Nazis would support the social order,
the leading industrial circles accepted the idea of splitting the party and
co-opting its mass base, and then calling upon them to take charge of the state
to provide the state a popular base which it lacked since 1930. The crisis of
the last years of the Weimar Republic stemmed in large part from the inability
of the state to organise the interest of the members of the dominant classes in
an autonomous fashion, going beyond partial interest. The Republic was unable
55
History of Modern to safeguard existing social relations, not because of any revolutionary threat,
but rather because of the conflicts and contradictions within, the bloc of
dominant classes, together with the results of the policy indeterminacy of the
preceding years.
1) Write in brief about factors which may be said to have laid the foundation
of German fascism.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) Write ten lines on the foundation and Programme of the Nazi Party.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
3) What were the circumstances under which the Nazi party captured power?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
4.6 THE POLITICAL CONSOLIDATION OF THE NAZIS

The Enabling Act (Law for Removing the Distress of People and Reich) was
passed on 23 March 1933. This became the legal basis for Hitler’s dictatorship.
Legislative power was transferred to the executive, politically undesirable and
‘non-Aryan’ civil servants dismissed. The age-old federal character of the
state was destroyed through the institution of Reichs Governors. The Act
was used on 31 March to dissolve all Diets, save the Prussian, and to
reconstitute the assemblies on the basis of votes polled in the elections.
Communist seats were not to be filled. Basic constitutional rights were
suspended by decree on 4 February 1933. After the Reichstag fire of 27
February 1933, a state of emergency was proclaimed the following day. A
witness at the post-war Nuremburg trials stated that “it was Goebbels who
first thought of setting the Reichstag on fire”, and the ex-chief of the Gestapo
stated that Goering prepared a list of victims before the fire was started.
Despite all this, and the May seizures of party buildings, shutting down of its
papers, etc. the SPD voted in May 31 to support Hitler’s foreign policy. On 2
August 1934 Hindenburg died and Hitler assumed the office of President.
Hence forth all armed forces personnel were required to swear an oath to the
Fuehrer and the Chancellor.
56
Hitler’s attitude to the autonomous radicalism of the Storm Troopers (SA), Counter-revolution II:
was another demonstration of his aim of fusing Party and State. Once the Germany
Fuehrer, as he was known, achieved absolute power, Ernst Roehm’s warnings
(from mid-1933) of stagnation in the revolution, his efforts to maintain the
dominance of the 500,000-strong SA and the antipathy to it of the conservative
army elite, sealed his fate. Roehm had proposed that the armed forces, the SA
& SS and all veterans groups be given equal status under a new ministry of
defence, which should integrate them all into a new People’s Army. At the
end of June 1934 Hitler ordered the SS to physically eliminate the SA
leadership, and personally supervised the arrest of Roehm, who was later
shot in his cell. The decisive curbing of dynamic tendencies being unleashed
“from below”, marked the transformation of the party into a machine for
engendering total obedience to the supreme leader of the state. There were
other indications of this transformation. Whereas 5.1% of employed workers
and 3.8 % of farmers were Nazi party members in 1935; 20% of all civil
servants and 30% of all teachers were already members by 1933-34. On 1
January 1933 the Law for Ensuring the Unity of Party and State was passed.
On 14 July 1934 the NSDAP was declared the only political party in Germany,
with attempts at forming other parties punishable under criminal law. During
the next few years with its radical element fully subjugated, the Hitler state
seemed to be influenced by the traditional conservative notions of order at
least as much as by the dynamic force of the Nazi movement.
4.7 STATE AND SOCIETY IN THE THIRD REICH

In the first eighteen months of Nazi rule a tense and unstable balance existed
between three centres of power: the Party monopoly, centralised governmental
dictatorship and personal absolutism. Radical forces in the Party/SA had helped
Hitler overcome the ‘containment’ policy of the conservative. In between he
switched sides and used the state to prevent the radicals from completing the
process of seizure of power. It was his absolutism that was strengthened by
the conflicting processes of revolution and counter-revolution. But this very
absolutism, far from resolving conflicts of interest within the state, tended to
create an internally riven and brittle structure. Thus, the virtual separation and
elevation of the Gestapo (the Geheime Staatspolizei) from the internal
administration meant institutional independence from the ministry. The removal
of military and economic experts such as Blomberg, Fritsch and Beck (senior
generals who differed on military adventures such as the occupation of the
Rhineland) and Schacht, organiser of the four-year Plans, reflect this internal
fragmentation of the state. Hitler often used blackmail to destroy conservative
critics such as Blomberg and Fritsch. His own indifference to the minutiae of
administration and his abrupt and whimsical style, which obscured the meaning,
and effects of his decisions, had a crippling impact upon legislation and
administration. The cabinet was divided into ministers with more or less access
to the Fuehrer. Government disintegrated into a polyocracy of separate
departments, and departmental decrees and policies replaced the collegial
style of governance. We give below a brief outline of the main characteristics
of the new dispensation.
57
History of Modern 4.7.1 Subordination of Judiciary
The Weimar Republic was never formally abrogated by its worst enemies.
Ironically, its own constitution was used as an instrument to subvert it beyond
recognition. After the Enabling Act was passed, major changes were introduced
which rapidly altered the juridical basis of the state. Thus, the legal lights of
the Third Reich proudly proclaimed that “Hitler is the Law”, and produced
theories transforming the principle of the legal state into that of the leader
state, or Fuhrerstaat. The extra-legal notion of the Leader, to whom the civil
service and the Army swore “unconditional obedience” by “sacred oath”,
assumed crucial importance in administrative functioning and signified a decisive
break with constitutionalism. The democratic notion of the ‘general will’ was
supplanted by that of the will of Leader, which became the basis for the
legitimacy of law. All jurists were required to join a Nazi jurist organisation,
and dismissals for unreliability were frequent. After three of the four communist
defendants in the Reichstag fire case were acquitted for want of evidence,
treason cases were taken away from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
and transferred to a new People’s Court, whose seven man bench was to
have five Nazis. Most under trials received death sentence from this tribunal.
The Special Courts took over from ordinary ones all cases of political crime.
4.7.2 Gestapo
The Secret State Police Office or Gestapo, was created in 1933 under the
Prussian Interior Ministry, and rapidly attained autonomy from the provincial
government. From 1934 Heinrich Himmler became the head of the nation-
wide Gestapo. Its Prussian section was headed by Reinhard Heydrich, who
was also in charge of the SD, a party intelligence organisation affiliated to the
dreaded SS. The SD had over 100,000 informers spread over the country,
and among other activities it used to investigate the “no” votes in Hitler’s
plebiscites. The SS had originated in the early 1920’s as Hitler’s personal
guard (since he was never completely sure of the loyalty of the SA) and had
become an internal disciplinary executive of the Nazis in 1931. In 1935 the
Prussian Supreme Court declared the decisions of the Gestapo to be beyond
judicial review. In short, Heydrich acquired the untrammelled power of life
and death over, every German. In 1936 Himmler became the Reichsfuhrer-
SS. The unification of command, over state police and party intelligence
organization resulted in the independence of the domestic terror machinery
and was the germ of the SS state, which in the course of following year
developed its own political administration and bureaucracy, army units and
machinery for mass murder. Its central agency was the RSHA, or Reich
Security Office, under Heydrich. The SS was especially active in the occupied
territories of Eastern Europe.
4.7.3 Workers and Peasants

Working people’s lives were deeply affected by the policies of the new regime.
The Nazis’ militarist version of the Keynesian doctrine of state intervention in
the economy drastically reduced unemployment figures, which declined from
6 million in 1932 to less than a million in 1936. National production rose by
102% by 1937. The regime began to define the economy as a “war economy”,
with the aim of preparing for total war. In a secret Defence Law passed on 21
May 1935, Hjalmar Schacht was appointed the economic Plenipotentiary for
58
the War Economy, whose job included camouflaging violations of the Versailles Counter-revolution II:
Treaty. Businessmen, who had welcomed the Nazis now, were subjected to
Germany
heavy taxes, “Special contributions” and compulsory membership of the Reich
Economic Chamber. But heavy industry, especially the armaments sector, made
good profits. The wage bill-declined (in real terms) and strikes ceased. These
changes were effected at the cost of the total obliteration of the trade union
movement and left-wing political formations, in particular the Social-
Democratic party and the KPD.
Wages were fixed by “Trustees” appointed by the owners (workers were not
consulted about their appointments). Piece-rates and intensification of labour
were announced as the only means to increase incomes. Though unemployment
declined, the share of the German workers in the National Income fell from
56.9% in 1932 to 53.6% in 1938. Income from capital rose from 17.4% to
26.6%. Because of near total employment, total income from wages and salaries
rose by 66%. But income from business and capital rose by 146%. A Labour
Front was created in October 1934 to function as the “organisation of creative
Germans of brain and fist”. It operated not as a trade union but as a propaganda
machine, and included employers and professionals as members. Its stated
aim was the maximisation of work, and its officials had to be Nazis. Feudal
values were inscribed in its rules-employers were enjoined to look after the
well-being of their workers who in turn were asked to be faithful to their
employers. Workers’ freedom of movement was severely restricted by
government decrees and subject to controls by bureaucracy and employers
alike. The “Strength through Joy” movement provided regimented leisure to
millions, and millions of embezzled deutschmarks to its swollen bureaucracy
which included the Labour Front leader, Dr Ley.
In 1933, agricultural income was at its lowest since the war, and indebtedness
stood at 12 billion marks. Much of Hitler’s populist demagoguery was directed
at the peasants. But the Nazis never dared disturb Junker landholdings. The
Farm Law of 29 September 1933 declared all farms of up to 125 hectares to
be indivisible hereditary estates. Peasants were virtually bound to the soil, but
gained slightly in the prices of agricultural commodities.
4.7.4 Women
The new regime’s attitude to women and the family was an admixture of
ultra-conservative patriarchal sentiment and the racialist characteristic of Nazi
ideology. One of the earliest party ordinances excluded women from all leading
positions in the organization. The slogan “Kinder, Kirche, Kuche” (kids,
church, kitchen), became the favourite mode of referring to the social role
of women, even as economic and sociological necessity diversified their lives
and forced them into the labour force. In 1933 women formed 37% of the
total employed labour force in Germany. (Skilled women workers earned
only 66% of the wages of males for the same jobs). In 1933 women formed
one fifth of the student force in the universities — the Nazi regime passed
regulation restricting this proportion to not more than one tenth — a measure
which was revoked at the outbreak of war. Women had “the task of being
beautiful and bringing children into the world”, stated Goebbels, who also
announced that the regime’s “displacement of women from public life occurs
solely to restore their essential dignity..”. The production of “racially pure”
babies became the Nazi’s obsession, and various financial and ideological
59
History of Modern incentives were offered to females to give birth to more children. These
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) incentives ranged from marriage loans and child subsidies to parents with large
families, to awards such as the Honour Cross of the German Mother in bronze,
silver and gold, for mothers of four, six, and eight children. These policies
were juxtaposed to compulsory sterilization for mentally retarded, physically
deformed, deaf or blind person, abortions of half-Jewish embryos, etc. For
all their ideological talk of elevating the family, the reality was an increasing
divorce rate in the peacetime years, an increase in juvenile delinquency, and
once the war began, a growing reliance on female labour, the decimation of
large numbers of men in the battlefields and the bizarre phenomenon of
Himmler’s officially sponsored illicit impregnation of unwed women by SS
men and other “racially valuable” German men in order to produce children
“for the Fuehrer”.
4.7.5 Ban on Art and Literature

The Nazis were highly antipathetic to liberal and cosmopolitan culture. From
May 1933, book burning began under Goebbel’s supervision. The German
writers whose writings were proscribed included Stefan Zweig, E.M.
Remarque, Albert Einstein and Hugo Preuss, who had drafted the Weimar
Constitution. Banned foreign authors included H.G. Wells, Sigmund Freud,
Andre Gide, Emile Zola and Upton Sinclair. The regimentation of culture was
unprecedented for any western nation. Chambers whose decisions had the
validity of law were set up for every sphere of cultural life, including the fine
arts, music, theatre, literature, press, radio and films. Jews were hounded out
of cultural life, and 6500 paintings of painters such as Cezanne, Van Gogh,
Gaugin and Picasso were removed from art galleries and museums. A House
of German Art was set up. An interesting measure of the public response to
this vandalism lies in the fact that an exhibition of “Degenerate Art” had to be
shut down because of its popularity.
4.7.6 Press
The Press was completely controlled by standing directives and oral instructions
issued by Goebbel. Editors had to be politically and racially ‘clean’. Liberal
and Jewish–owned newspapers were forced to close down. From 1933 to
1937 the number of dailies declined from 3607 to 2671. The ex-sergeant
Max Amann became the German Press financial dictator, and two-thirds of
the daily circulation of 25 million came under direct Nazi control. Radio and
motion pictures also became organs of propaganda. Hissing at films became
so rampant that the Interior minister had to warn against “treasonable behaviour
on the part of cinema audience.”
4.7.7 Policy on Education

It is a sign of the destructive impact of Nazism on social life that the educational
policy of Germany was entrusted to a storm trooper. On 30 April 1934
Bernhard Rust, a local leader of the SA became Minister of Science, Education,
and Popular Culture. Rust had been dismissed from a schoolmaster’s position
in 1930 due to mental instability. All education from primary school curricula
to university instruction was Nazified, and the educational jurisdiction of local
authorities and provincial governments was eliminated. Text books were re-
written and Mein Kampf was elevated to the statues of unfailing pedagogical
60
guiding star. Teachers were required to join the Nazi Teachers League and Counter-revolution II:
swear allegiance to Hitler. A vast majority of university and school teachers
Germany
had, in any case, held deeply conservative and anti-Semitic views, and had
helped undermine the Weimar republic by influencing a huge mass of students
of the virtues of Nazism. A small number of liberal professors left, some
being murdered where they had fled. Most others succumbed, including the
famous philosopher Heidegger, who remained a member of the Nazi party till
the end of the war. A contemporary observer characterized these developments
as “a scene of prostitution that has stained the honourable history of German
learning.”
Jews were forbidden to teach. “Racial Science” was introduced in curricula,
which required teaching the racial theories of the Aryan-German master race
and the Jews as the breeders of all evil. (From 1905 to 1931, 10 German Jews
had won Nobel Prizes in science) Great teachers such as Einstein and Franck
(Physics), and Haber and Warburg (Chemistry) were dismissed or retired or
forced to emigrate. Those who remained began to teach “German” physics,
mathematics, etc. One professor declared Modern Physics to be “an instrument
of World Jewry for the destruction of Nordic Science”. Relativity (an invention
by Einstein, a Jew) was denounced as a plot. After six years of nazification
the number of university students dropped from 127,920 to 58,325; and the
numbers studying technological course fell from 20,474 to 9554. Academic
standards fell abysmally. Youth leagues by 1937 had 7.7 million members of
all ages from 6 to 21. Parents who resisted were warned with the loss of their
children. Promising young Nazis were recruited into the “Order Castles”.
4.7.8 Religious Intolerance

Given the deeply emotive nature of Nazism’s ideological appeal, it is not
surprising that the regime sought to control popular religious affiliations. Hitler
was nominally a Catholic. However, his stance toward the churches of various
denominations was hostile, and at best utilitarian. The Nazi party programme
spoke of the need for a “positive Christianity”. On 20 July 1933 a Concordat-
with the Vatican was signed, which spoke of the Church freedom to regulate
her own affairs-a pledge which was systematically violated. But the agreement
gave the Third Reich much-needed respectability, and in the perceptions of its
leaders, it was the signal to launch an offensive. The Catholic Youth League
was dissolved on 30 July 1933. Over the following years thousands of Catholic
priests, nuns and lay preachers were arrested and a prominent leader murdered
in 1934. On 14 March 1937 Pope Pius XI issued the encyclical entitled “With
Burning Sorrow”, charging the Nazi government with violations of the concordat
and accusing it of sowing the seeds of hatred, calumny and “fundamental hostility
to Christ and His Church”. He warned against the “threatening storm clouds
of destructive religious wars which have no aim other than that of extermination.”
As things turned out this was one of the most prescient insights into the nature
of the regime.
Within the Protestant tradition too, there was conflict, but Nazism fed upon
the anti-Semitic prejudices of the Lutherans. (Martin Luther was ferociously
anti-Jewish and a staunch believer in absolute obedience to authority). Fanatical
Nazis organised separate congregations such as the “German Christians’ Faith
Movement”. Hitler personally intervened in the elections to the Synod, which
elected the Reich Bishop, although privately he spoke of Protestants as
61
History of Modern “insignificant little people, submissive as dogs”. The German Christians’ Berlin
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) leader advocated the abandonment of the Old Testament “with its tales of
cattle merchants and pimps” and a re-writing of the New Testament, with
Jesus’s teaching revised to “correspond entirely with the demands of National
Socialism”. Congregations demanded “One People, One Reich, One Faith”,
and the exclusion of converted Jews. Pastor Niemoller, who had welcomed
the events of 1933, was disillusioned within a year and organised the resistance
of the “Confessional Church”, which denounced anti-Semitism and demanded
an end to state interference. Hundreds of pastors were arrested, murdered, or
sent to concentration camps. On 1 July 1937, Niemoller was arrested after
his last sermon, where he uttered the memorable words, “No more are we
ready to keep silent at man’s behest when God commands us to speak”. He
remained in concentration camp till 1945. On the whole however, the Churches
remained loyal to the regime and fulfilled its needs by ordering all pastors to
swear allegiance to the Fuehrer. During the war the 30 point programme for
the national Reich Church of Germany outlined church policy, which included
the elimination of Christian teaching, the cessation of the publication of the
Bible and the placement on altars of nothing except a copy of Mein Kampf
and a sword.
4.8 GENOCIDE OF THE JEWS

The most oppressive aspect of Hitler’s regime was a systematic persecution
of the Jews. The ideology of the Nazi Party was formed by a strong hatred of
the Jews and an obsession with maintaining the Aryan purity. The Nuremburg
Laws of 15 September 1935 deprived Jews of German citizenship, confining
them to “subject” status. Marital or extra-marital relations between Jews and
‘Aryans’ were forbidden. Three more laws over the next few years outcast
them completely. In the year of the Berlin Olympic half of all Jews were
unemployed. Social ostracism included blatantly vicious signboards and
hoardings. Between 1933 and 1938, (the year of the infamous Crystal Night
9 November, 1938), about half the Jewish population of about half a million
had emigrated. “Metaphysically as well as materially, the roots of the German
heaven were deeply embedded in the Jewish hell” (Grunberger, 579).
The first concentration camps came up in 1933 under the S.A. After the Roehm
purge of June 1934, the camps were turned over to the SS; with guard duty
being assigned to the Dearth’s Head units. Thus the names of obscure villages
and towns such as Dachau, Auschwitz, and Buchenwald acquired notoriety.
The actual process of extermination was begun with the so called euthanasia
practised on 70,000 mentally infirm German between 1938 and 1941. In late
1941 this method was applied to concentration camp victims unfit to work—
camouflaged gas vans were employed to gas 150,00 Jews. Mass extermination
in gas chambers began in Belzec, in Lublin district of Poland in March 1942.
Jewish slave labourers were also systematically machine-gunned. The largest
camp was Auschwitz-Birkenau, where between 2 to 3 million Jews, along
with gypsies, Poles and Soviet prisoners of war were murdered. As Bracher
argues, “the genocide of the Jews was not the result of either war or terror.
Neither individual guilt, nor internal conflicts, neither a deterrent function
nor the necessity of war was the determining factor. The extermination grew
62
out of the biologistic insanity of Nazi ideology, and for that reason it is Counter-revolution II:
completely unlike the terror of revolutions and wars of the past: Here we are Germany
faced by the completely impersonal, bureaucratic “extermination of a people
classified as a species of inferior subhumans, as ‘vermin’, a problem which the
farmer Himmler handled as though it were a biological disease”.
In his well-known biography Hitler, Joachim Fest suggests that “Hitler’s rule
should not be regarded in isolation, but viewed as the terrorist or Jacobin
phase of a widespread social revolution that propelled Germany into the
twentieth century and that has not reached its end to this day”. It was only
with Hitler, he believes, that the nineteenth century in Germany came to an
end. Despite has anachronisms; he was more modern than his conservative
opponents, because he grasped the necessity for changes.
Under the demands of the totalitarian leader state, venerable institutions
collapsed, people were wrenched out of their traditional slots. Privileges
were done away with, and all authorities that were not derived from or
protected by Hitler were smashed. At the same time, Hitler succeeded in
muting those anxieties and fears of uprooting that generally accompany any
breach with the past.
For Fest, Hitler’s rule has served to denude the terms revolution of its moral
or progressive connotation. He contradicts himself here, for his notions of
modernity, the need for changes, and the end of the 19th century are linked
to a positive notion of ‘progress’. He also attempts a comparison between
Nazism and Stalinism in his citation of “Ceasaristic tendencies stretching all
the way from the totalitarian cult of personality in Stalin’s Soviet Union to
the autocratic style of President Roosevelt.” Addressing the problems inherent
in this kind of juxtaposition, J.P. Stern stresses the fundamental difference
between Marxism, which in howsoever degenerate a form was still based
upon a belief in human equality, and the Hitler regime’s racial imperialism
which ascribed congenitally irremediable defects and sub-human qualities to
Jews, Gypsies and other people, rendering them suitable for mass extermination.
Ultimately the dark history of the Third Reich defies a completely rational
analysis in terms of functional and material causes. As Stern remarks, “not
conquest but indiscriminate annihilation” was Hitler’s aim. And, in the words
of another scholar of the Nazi regime, “The Third Reich could be compared
to a double-ended gun trained both on the twentieth century and Treaty of
Versailles, with nostalgia for a pre-industrial past speaking out of one barrel,
and streamlined preparation for war out of the other”. (Grunberger, 328).
1) What was Nazi Party’s attitude towards education and religion?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
63
History of Modern 2) What according to you are the basic features of the Nazi regime?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
4.9 LET US SUM UP

Extreme centralisation, subordination of institution like church, army and the
judiciary, complete loyalty towards the leader and hatred for the Jews and
gypsies on biological grounds, belief in the superiority of the Aryans were
some of the features of German fascism. It was a product of the specific
context of the post war Europe, even though it had historical roots going
back to the 19th century. The humiliation for Germany at Versailles, the
political uncertainty during the 1920s and the depression of 1929 created
conditions for the rise of the Nazi party, organisation of German fascism. It
had a particular appeal for those German whose nationalism had been wounded
by the events of the 20th century.
Once in power, the horrors of fascism became visible. Any dissent was
suppressed ruthlessly. Judiciary was subordinated. Absolute power was
concentrated in the hands of Hitler. A Secret Police (GESTAPO) was used to
identify Hitler’s political opponents. The Nazi notions of racial and biological
superiority of the Aryans were now carried into the realm of policy. Women
were debarred from position of responsibility. As a part of Nazi ideology,
Jews were subjected to unprecedented discrimination. They were deprived of
German citizenship. Jews along with gypsies were frequently put in concentration
camps and killed. Two to three million Jews were killed in one single
concentration camp.

EXERCISES
1) See Section 4.2.
2) See Section 4.4.
3) In your answer you should mention the crisis of the Weimer Republic, the
impact of the economic crisis and the subsequent political instability. See
Section 4.5.
1) See Sub-Sections 4.7.7 and 4.7.8
2) A totalitarian regime, complete subordinate of society to state and to
one party, all power in the hand of the Fuehrer, a conservative and
discriminatory attitude towards women, total state control over art,
literature and other forms of culture, education to be used only as
Nazis propaganda, religious intolerance and above all, an attitude of
utmost contempt for the Jews leading to their genocide. See Sections 4.7
and 4.8
64
The Socialist World-I
UNIT 5 THE SOCIALIST WORLD-I
Structure
5.0 Objectives
5. I Introduction
5.2 First Socialist Revolution — Why in Russia?
5.2.1 The Political Structure
5.2.2 Peasantry and Working Class
5.2.3 National Self-determination
5.2.4 Ideas and Organisations
5.3 Stages of Revolution and Bolshevik Victory

5.4 Socialist Construction or Building Socialism
5.4.1 The Nature of Change — Early Legislation
5.4.2 The Nature of Change — Popular Initiatives
5.5 War Communism

5.5.1 Economic Initiatives and Policy Decisions
5.5.2 Political Aspects of War Communism
5.6 New Economic Policy

5.6.1 NEP as a Strategy for Transition to Socialism
5.7 Cultural Aspects of Socialism

5.8 Comintern
5.9 Let Us Sum Up
5.0 OBJECTIVES
You have been introduced to liberal democracies, socialism and right-wing
regimes. As you are aware, socialism as an idea had been in vogue throughout
the 19th century. But it was translated into a concrete polity only in 1917 in
Russia through a revolution. This Unit talks about the Russian revolution and
gives you some information about the years following the revolution till 1928.
The development after 1928 will be taken up in the next Unit. After reading
this Unit, you will learn about the :
 conditions in Russia which led to the first socialist revolution;
 process of building socialism in Russia after the revolution;
 details of ‘war communism’ and the New Economic Policy as significant
stages in the building of socialism in Russia; and
 attempt by the socialist state in Russia to spread socialism in the rest of the
world through the formation of ‘Communist International’ (Comintern).
65
History of Modern
You have already read something about the socialist vision of society. The
linkages that socialist parties developed with the workers’ struggles in the
early 20th century added a new dimension to popular struggles in Europe.
Both, the workers’ struggles and the activities of the socialist parties became
powerful mass movements in the 20th century. Their association generated
new symbols of revolution and working class power such as demonstration,
general strikes, the workers theatre, the red flag, May Day as workers day, 8
March as International Women’s Day. Though their activities were spread
throughout Europe, their greatest impact was, however, in Russia where the
radical movements assumed an overwhelmingly anti-capitalist stance and a
socialist vision. The late 19th and early 20th century was marked by a succession
of revolutionary waves culminating in the first socialist revolution. In this Unit
we will talk about this first socialist revolution in history, known also as the
October Revolution or the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. We will also talk
about the first experience of socialist construction and see the ways in which
its policies were distinct from those of a capitalist state.
5.2 FIRST SOCIALIST REVOLUTION — WHY IN

RUSSIA?
What exactly was happening to Russian society to make all this possible?
Karl Marx, in his later years, had appreciatively commented on the rise in
revolutionary temper in late 19th century Russia, but the entire thrust of the
socialist thought had been towards arguing for revolution in the countries of
mature and most developed capitalism. It was envisaged that the capitalist
system would be most vulnerable where it was most mature because its’
contradictions’ or conflicts and tension, in the form of private ownership and
socialised production were starker in those countries. The working classes
there would truly have nothing to lose but their chains. In actual fact, the first
socialist revolution was made in ‘backward’ Russia, a society that was capitalist
with strong remnants of feudal social and economic power intact, a working
class still linked with land, and a peasantry that primarily aspired to individual
land ownership. Essentially, it was the increasing contradiction of late and
growing capitalism that created the social premises for the revolutionary
outbreak in Russia.
5.2.1 The Political Structure

In Western Europe the growth of capitalism had led to the evolution of liberal-
constitutionalism and parliamentary democracies. In Russia right up to 1917
there existed an autocratic form of government, ruled by the Tsar. All the
individual, civil and fundamental rights which the citizens of Europe took for
granted, and all democratic forms of collective expression such as the right to
form organisation, strikes and election were not permitted in Russian territory
and the Russian speaking people. It also consisted of a number of non-Russian
groups and nationalities, such as Ukrainians, Siberrians, the Baltic States,
etc. The Russian autocracy oppressed all the other nationalities of the Empire,
and stood firmly against all democratic movements in Europe, earning for
66
itself the label ‘Policeman of Europe’. The nature of the Russian state, The Socialist World-I
therefore, became increasingly incompatible with the new demands that the
new changing social and economic forces engendered.
5.2.2 Peasantry and Working Class

Traditionally Russian agriculture was characterized by the practices of bonded
labour attached to the land and the landlord. This practice, known as serfdom,
was abolished in 1861 and the ‘serf’ was now replaced by free and mobile
peasantry. But the 1861 agrarian reforms did not resolve the ‘agrarian question’
in the Tsarist Empire. Even as capitalism developed in agriculture, the landed
aristocracy remained dominant, the peasant poor, and agriculture still
backward. Even as peasant agriculture became commercialised and there
emerged a ‘kulak’ rich peasant strata, the fundamental conflict in the
countryside on the urgent question of land, rents, wages and rights over
commons remained that between the landed aristocracy, which still held the
major portion of the land, and the peasantry as a whole.
The continuing social and economic dominance of the landed aristocracy
helped retain the political aristocracy, while the conflict within the post 1861
rural structure led to the creation of a modern peasant movement that grew
increasingly political. Expropriation of landed estates and land for the peasant
was a demand that neither the Tsarist autocracy nor any other political group,
except the Bolshevik, was prepared to endorse. This enabled peasant uprisings
and land take-over by them to become the motive force of the Bolshevik
revolution in October 1917, as well as for the consolidation of the socialist
regime.
The timing and nature of Russian industrialization created scope for a workers
movement that was both very militant and political, while the specific features
of Russian society and politics contributed to its assuming a revolutionary
rather than a reformist character. Late industrialization and the necessity to
‘catch up’ with Western Europe meant large enterprises in the early stages of
industrialization, unlike England or France where it was a gradual and steady
development. In turn this resulted in an early and rapid growth of class
consciousness and an organised mass movement before the bourgeoisie could
assume social and political dominance. In Russia the thrust of the workers
movement was as much against the bourgeois as against gentry rule, as much
against capitalism as against the autocracy. Besides, in the absence of effective
legislation on trade union rights even struggle over economic demands tended
to assume political forms because the very act of strike meant breaking the
law. The weakness of representative institutions led the working class
movement to adopt the revolutionary alternative of overthrowing the system
rather than seeking to control it through greater representation for the socialist
political groups, as was done in England, France and Germany. Trade-unions
were in fact born in midst of the revolution of 1905. The location of big
factories in the countryside, outside the limits of city and urban boundaries,
and a varied and differentiated working class (skilled artisans, skilled and
unskilled factory workers, those engaged in the kustar or the domestic system,
apart from telegraph, railway, construction workers) a very great percentage
of whom retained their links with the land enabled this movement to have a
appeal and reach than in just the big urban centres.
67
History of Modern 5.2.3 National Self-determination
Freedom from national oppression in the Tsarist Empire coincided with the
victory of the socialist revolution. Apart from the alienation felt by the peoples
of the Baltic region, Central Asia, Transcaucasia and other areas as a result of
political and cultural discrimination, the economic backwardness that Tsarist
economic policies entailed for these regions ensured that they remain
predominantly agricultural with a strong stake in the land question. There
emerged strong movements for national self-determination, demanding right
for their own languages, culture, equal opportunities and even a separate
political identity. The Bolsheviks supported land for the peasant as well as the
right to secession and a voluntary union. The peasantry in these areas, therefore,
played a crucial role in the victory of the socialist alternative to the tsarist
autocracy, completely bypassing all liberal solutions to nationalist aspirations.
5.2.4 Ideas and Organisations

In the early 20th century the main political tendencies were the Socialist
Revolutionaries who represented the class interests of the peasantry and looked
on the peasantry as the motive force of revolution, liberals of various hues
whose blueprint for Russia was the parliamentary democracy of Western
Europe, and the Marxists or social democrats (communists) whose inspiration
and strategy derived from Marx’s Communist Manifesto and his critique of
the Gotha Programme. Most radical intelligentsia were moreover, strongly
influenced by Marx’s critique of capitalism and the experience of the 1848
revolution in Europe in which the bourgeoisie had ‘betrayed’ the revolution,
and the workers had been the most consistent revolutionary force. Therefore,
overwhelmingly Russia imbibed from Western Europe its most radical thought
rather than liberalism in retreat.
Bourgeois-liberalism was, from the beginning, weak in Russia, and the socialist
orientation of the radical intelligentsia and revolutionary leadership a key factor.
The Bolshevik victory represented the victory of socialism as state policy of
the post-revolutionary regime.
Lenin was the most important leader of the Bolshevik party. The Bolsheviks
did not simply transfer Marxism to Russia. They found viable answer to their
specific revolutionary problematic in Russia within the framework of Marxism.
They argued that in the condition of Russian backwardness and the relative
weakness of the bourgeoisie, its role would be vacillating even in bringing
about a bourgeois-democratic revolution. The Russian bourgeoisie, faced with
the workers movement would not duplicate the role of the French or the English
bourgeoisie. The ‘hegemony of the working class’ was, therefore, necessary
in the first bourgeois-democratic stage of the revolutionary, as well as its second
socialist stage. Their second major contribution to revolutionary strategy was
the ‘alliance of the working class and the peasantry’ in the context of a
numerically small working class and a peasant majority. Thus they preserved
the idea of a two stage revolution and the leading role of the working class,
while transforming their strategy to bring them about. The revolutionary
upsurges from the early 20th century largely vindicated their strategy.
68
Check Your Progress 1 The Socialist World-I
1) How was the political structure in Russia different from that of European
countries? Answer in five lines.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) Write five lines on the different political groups active in Russia.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
5.3 THE STAGES OF REVOLUTION AND

BOLSHEVIK VICTORY
The Russian Revolution may be said to have gone through three distinct stages
and took almost twelve years to complete. The first stage led to the creation
of a parliament, called the Duma. The second stage, known as the February
revolution in 1917, led to the establishment of a Provisional Government at
the centre though the rule of the tsar still prevailed. Finally, the Revolution
completed its third and final stage in October 1917 when the rule of the tsar
was overthrown and a peoples’ republic was established. Let us look at the
three stages in detail.
The first major assault on the autocracy occurred in 1905, sparked off by
firing on peaceful demonstration of workers on 9 January 1905. This day
came to be known as Bloody Sunday. The workers and peasants began to
demand a ‘democratic republic’. They also created the first soviets, grass-
root, elected political organisations of workers, peasant and soldiers, which
Lenin later called the ‘embryos of revolutionary power’ and which eventually
formed the basis of the post-revolutionary state, and from which the socialist
state derived its name USSR. World War I which adversely effected the
economy and livelihood of the Russian working people, also created greater
opposition to the existing regime and contributed to the Russian Revolution.
The final assault on the autocracy came with the February Revolution of 1917.
Beginning with a demonstration of women workers over shortage of bread in
Petrograd, it spread to other cities and to the countryside. Strikes by all sections
of society, peasant uprising, and revolutionary action by the soldiers sealed
the fate of the autocracy. The Russian autocracy was overthrown and replaced
by a Provisional Government dominated by the liberal bourgeoisie.
The February 1917 Revolution achieved political freedom for the first time.
Fundamental and civil rights were created. Hundreds and thousands of
pamphlets were distributed by thousands of little organisations, and found
their way into factories, barracks, villages, streets. Factory committees, village
councils, soldiers, groups became the forum through which the people sought
69
History of Modern to shape their destiny. Soviets were once again elected — in towns, in villages,
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) at the front, and the Central Soviet one again (as in 1905) emerged as the
alternative source of revolutionary power opposed now to the Provisional
Government.
The liberal bourgeoisie represented in the Provisional Government had
completed its revolution; the working people were only beginning theirs. That
was the major contradiction in the new post-February revolution regime, and
it could not continue for long. The peasants were disappointed that they did
not get any land, the entire working people and soldiers were disappointed
that the war still continued.
Discontent expressed itself in the form of strikes and demonstrations, peasants
spontaneously taking over lands, riots over high prices and shortage of food,
and desertion by soldiers who wanted an end to war and to partake of the
land distribution. The Bolsheviks easily emerged as closest to the popular
mood with their slogans of:
 land for the peasant,
 immediate end to war,
 workers’ control over industries,
 right of nationalities to self-determination, and above all
 bread.
Peace! Land! Bread! Democracy! became the immediate demands. The
Bolsheviks gained majority in all the mass organisations, and had the majority
of the workers and soldiers on their side. Contrary to general impression later
created by a hostile press, the revolution thus had a popular character, and
was almost bloodless. The army — largely peasants — simply went over to
the side of the revolutionary forces. The provisional Government was
overthrown. The first socialist revolution in history had become a reality. The
new state declared itself a workers state. A very vivid account of this October
1917 revolution appears in ‘Ten Days That Shook the World’ by John Reed,
an American journalist.
5.4 SOCIALIST CONSTRUCTION OR BUILDING

SOCIALISM
Building socialism in the country of revolution was in many ways as heroic a
struggle as making revolution was. There was no model of an actually existing
socialist society for the Bolsheviks to model their experiments on. Neither did
there exist a detailed blue-print of what socialism in practice entailed,
comparable to Marx’s analysis of capitalism. The early Russian revolutionaries
had only their ideals to rely on and certain broad principles worked out by
socialist thinkers. Russia was still backward in terms of economic development
as compared to other European countries, and it was not so easy to chalk out
a strategy of economic growth that would outpace capitalist economy. Besides,
socialist Russia had to face the united assault of the capitalist countries, hostile
and in actual war against the new state, and civil war from former landlords
and capitalists within Russia.
70
Rapid economic growth, social justice, and guarantee of individual fundamental The Socialist World-I
rights were not as easy to combine in real life as it was in theory. There were
bitter political differences, debates over strategies and goals, and experiments
with successive policies over building socialism. Many dreams remained
unfulfilled, many ideals fell by the wayside, many aspirations were denied in
the face of the harsh realities of backwardness, hostility of the entire capitalist
world and civil war. The revolution in the other countries of Europe did not
materialise, although the Bolsheviks predicated many of their policies in Russia
on a ‘socialist world revolution’. The workers state had to be defended in
many ways, and many more people died defending the revolution than in making
it. But they succeeded in presenting to the world an alternative model for
development and modernity and their achievements were in some respect quite
remarkable.
5.4.1 The Nature of Change — Early Legislation

The early legislation aimed at destroying the legal and economic bases of
capitalism and in laying the foundation for socialism. It almost meant a reversal
of the earlier foreign policy and the entire capitalist ethic of private profit,
individualism and consumerism.
Among the earlier measures were the abolition of private resources in industry,
and the establishment of workers’ control. The factories were taken over by
the workers to keep a check on the production processes through their
representatives, while also ensuring the right of workers in their factories. While
state ownership of industry remained a consistent and continuing feature of
socialist planning in the USSR as well as in other socialist countries, workers
control came under-severe strain in the conditions of war, and centralised
planning in later years.
A second major intervention was in agriculture. By the Land Decree of
November 1917 landlordism was abolished, and the entire land was
nationalised and given over to peasants for hereditary use under individual
production. The amount of land given to a peasant family depended on the
number of family members. The income from the land and from the labour on
this land continued to be individual or private i.e. of his family members, the
only limitation being it could not be sold by them or used in any way to exploit
the labour of others. The exploitative relationships that characterised the
agrarian sector were thus ended, along with the abolition of private property
in land, although production and ownership were not socialised.
On 28 December 1917 all private banks were nationalised, and in February
1918 all shareholders in banks expropriated and all foreign debts repudiated.
The Russian Revolution also destroyed class society as we know it. The
differences in salary were still there and people did not get as much as they
worked and deserved, because of war condition and limited productivity but
the demands of social justice were met to a greater extent than under capitalism
because physical labour was no longer devalued, the wage differential between
workers and ‘white collar’ remunerations were much less, and no one could
derive income without working or by making someone else work for him.
Politically the new state characterised itself as ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’,
i.e. a socialistic democracy. By this was implied the domination of the interest
71
History of Modern of the majority over the minority, as the working people constituted the majority
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) of the population. Secondly, through it the revolution expressed the
political domination of those who work, as opposed to these who, under
capitalism and a bourgeois democracy, live by their private control over the
nations resources. Thirdly the new state sought to apply a more positive
concept of democracy where state was responsible for a lot more of an
individual’s needs-incorporating the French heritage-rather than the ‘laissez
faire’ concept where freedom for the individual comes from non-interference
by the state, and individual is largely left to fend for himself.
Within a few months of the revolution the government published all the secret
treaties of the old government, and proclaimed that all treaties and agreement
between Soviet Russia and other counties will be open and public. With the
same Decree on Peace they offered peace without any annexation, conquests
or indemnities, and withdrew their claims over areas the Tsarist government
and also the Provisional government were fighting over. They took a public
stand against colonialism, and in support of all national liberation struggles.
Without the Russian Revolution there would have been no Wilson’s Fourteen
Points at the end of World War I. In all the areas that had constituted the
Tsarist Empire, the Bolsheviks recognised the rights of all nationalities to
self-determination, including the right of secession.
5.4.2 The Nature of Change: Popular Initiatives

Even as the Bolshevik leadership tried heroically to fulfil its promised mandate
of destroying the institutional frame work of the old regime and creating a new
one, the workers and peasants were lending their own substance to the
revolutionary transformation. The early years carry the imprint of their
spontaneous and organised activity at local levels. The land communes, the
village gatherings and peasant soviets acted as autonomous organs of social
and political transformation in the countryside. The agrarian revolution
sanctioned by the Bolsheviks was in actual fact effected by them, and they
formed the nucleus of the post-revolutionary rural structure. Within the space
of a few years millions of acres of land changed hands and was divided among
the peasants. The old state apparatus in the countryside was completely
destroyed.
In the cities there was a similar tendency to put into effect the slogan ‘All
power to the Soviets’ and workers control, with two-thirds of the
nationalisations of particular factories being local decision, a workers control
being identified as workers take-over of factories and production. The vast
network of trade union factory committees, workers soviets, and partly
organisations achieved the real expropriation of capital.
The trend in general was toward democratisation, de-centralisation, local
initiative and popular decision making. These became the bases of the new
institutional framework emerging out of the legislation of the Bolsheviks and
the dynamics of the revolution all over the former Tsarist Empire. The
Bolsheviks were intrinsically linked with this process, although there were
numerous pushes and pulls between these initiatives and the attempts by the
central leadership to consolidate the gains of the revolution through the creation
of an administrative network, a public distribution system and the
institutionalisation of the peasant- worker alliance for the entire country.
72
The Socialist World-I
5.5 WAR COMMUNISM 1918-1921
This entire process of revolutionary change was brought to a crisis by mid-
1918. The revolutionary forces were confronted by Civil War in the form of
armed hostility of the forces of the former landed aristocracy and the
bourgeoisie, which merged with an equally determined armed intervention by
the capitalist countries to dislodge the new socialist regime. Production
collapsed, distribution was disrupted, vast economically significant territories
fell outside the control of the Soviet government and Soviet held areas were
cut off from essential sources of materials and food. There was wide spread
hunger and starvation, inflation, disease, disruption of transportation, and
near anarchy as peasants and workers locally interpreted their new found
power in their own way and acted spontaneously, intensifying class conflicts
on all fronts.
The Bolsheviks responded in June 1918 with a series of economic and political
measures that have subsequently been designated as War Communism. The
term derives from the fact that the measures were adopted during the War and
to meet the exigencies of the war situation on the one hand, and because in
many ways they reflect some of the characteristics that Marx and other
Communists identified with developed socialism or communism.
5.5.1 Economic Initiatives

The problem of food was no doubt intensified by the war situation, but it was
equally linked to the structural arrangements created by the revolution.
Distribution of land to the peasant reduced agricultural production to small
scale peasant production where the peasant would strive for optimum
production only if he could convert his labour into higher income and consumer
goods that would enhance his standard of living. Loss of economically rich
resource areas during war, and the emphasis on production for war effort and
machinery to broaden the production base, led to decline in production of
consumer goods. The peasant in this context withdrew from the market by
producing only for his own needs, resulting in severe food shortages in urban
areas and on the war fronts. This threatened the very survival of the regime, a
much from its potential for conflict between town and country, the peasant
and the worker, as from hunger.
The Soviet Government responded with forced requisition of grain surplus
from the peasants in order to feed the urban poor and soldiers, and state
control of all enterprise in order to revive industry. Requisition of grain, and
later all foodstuffs, at fixed government prices, through organised food
procurement campaigns by urban brigades were accompanied by a ban on
private trade, rationing and a public distribution system. The peasant, in turn,
lowered his production even more. The volume of grain procured after the
initial thrust steadily declined, further aggravating the food crisis that culminated
in the famine of 1920-1921. There was, by then, massive hoarding by the
peasantry, a flourishing black market causing higher prices, and a virtual
breakdown of the state infrastructure of the procurement process. Once the
Civil War was won, the peasantry came out openly in revolt against the Soviet
Government: until then it stood by the Bolsheviks as the only safeguard against
73
History of Modern the return of landlords. Experiments were made with setting up of co-operative
and even sate farms to promote the spirit and economic of collectivism, but
this formed a very tiny component of the agricultural sector.
Nationalisation of industrial enterprises was accelerated for maximum
mobilisation of resources. By a March 1918 decision the railways were taken
away from ‘workers’ control and placed under semi-military command. By
September 1919 about 80-90% of large scale industry had been nationalised,
by November 1920 even small workshops with less than five workers were
placed under state control. This extreme nationalisation created its own chaos,
as allocation of material, production and marketing became virtually impossible
through centralised decision-making and administrative organs. Most transfer
and accounting began to assume the form of paper accounting in this anarchy,
and as the Rouble collapsed, most exchange became simple barter. The gross
output of the manufacturing and mining industries in 1920-21 was less than 1/
6th of the pre-war output. Consumer goods production declined even more.
The conflict between the peasant and the worker loomed larger.
5.5.2 Political Aspects of War Communism

War Communism is too often identified solely by its economic measures, and
the reaction to them. In actual fact, it had much larger dimensions. Opposition
to it came not only due to the hardships it entailed. Notions of democracy,
the relationship between the individual, the state and popular organisations
were debated. War Communism created a very real dilemma between reliance
on the specialist or the revolutionary (the ‘Red’) as incharge. Between needs
as experienced by the workers and peasants and the requirements of socialist
construction, between the needs of the peasants on the one hand and that of
the workers, all of which assumed the form of class struggles that effected the
composition and nature of the Soviets and party organisations. While the failure
on the economic front led to peasant wars and urban disaffection, the growth
of black market encouraged an ethos inimical to socialist ideals. The spirit of
voluntarism came under severe strains even as the ‘world socialist revolution’
in Europe failed to materialise. Recruitment for the Red Army became a
problem. Workers opposition to the principle of state control and the upspring
of kronstadt sailors in February 1921 was the final straw after the wide spread
peasant rebellions. Lenin was forced to announce that change of policy has
become necessary. But not everything that was resorted to as a temporary
measure in a critical situation could be reversed, as many Bolsheviks were to
realise later – particularly the institutional structures modified or evolved to
implement their policies. The crisis for socialist democracy in its political form
dates to this War Communism experience and the let down that the Bolsheviks
were to realise later – particularly the institutional structures modified or evolved
to implement their policies. The crisis for socialist democracy in its political
form dates to this War Communism experience and the let down that the
Bolsheviks felt from the revolutionary movement in Europe.
1) What led to the Russian Revolution? Write in 100 words.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
74
.................................................................................................................. The Socialist World-I
..................................................................................................................
2) What were the new measures taken by the socialist state in USSR? Write
in ten lines.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
3) Why did the socialist government resort to war communism?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
5.6 NEW ECONOMIC POLICY

The New Economy Policy (NEP) was a response to a political and economic
crisis even though at its core was economic changes that marked a change in
the strategy of transition to socialism. NEP, as it came to be known, involved
a change in the socio-economic balance of forces.
The decisive change that brought this about began in March 1921. Grain
requisition was replaced by a fixed tax on income to be paid in kind, what was
much lower than the requisition targets, and the peasants could keep for
themselves and trade privately in whatever else surplus that remained with
them. Since agriculture was still based on individual production this amounted
to allowing ‘profit’ through exploitation of the labour of others.
In 1924 the tax in kind was replaced by a money tax, followed by legalisation
of private trade. In 1925 the restrictions on leasing of land and hiring of
labour were eased, and the agricultural tax further reduced. The tax now,
levied on the net income, varied from a minimum of 5 % for those holding
less than a quarter of an hectare to 17 % for those holding more than three
hectares. In spite of this differential rate, the other aspects such as freedom
to trade and choose one’s customer once the tax had been paid, and to lease
more land and hire labour, encouraged differentiation, and the emergence of
a significant and rich or ‘Kulak’ strata within peasantry. It also meant
re-introduction to market links between different sectors of economy, greater
role for money as medium of exchange, the curtailment of the sphere of
centralised distribution system, and individual contracts.
There were accompanying changes in the industrial sector and its organisational
forms. On 17 May 1921 the decree nationalising small scale industry was
revoked and smaller units were actually de-nationalised, some of them being
resorted to their former owners. Only banking, foreign trade and large scale,
heavy industry remained state controlled – those that Lenin called the
75
History of Modern ‘commanding heights of economy’. By July 1921 every individual citizen was
given the right to organise small scale industrial enterprises although on lease.
State enterprises were to operate on the basis of commercial accounting,
services and wages were to be paid in cash. Industrial enterprises were
supposed to make their own arrangements for acquiring raw materials and
marketing to their products through independent contracts with other industrial
enterprises or agricultural producers. All this entailed a degree of de-
centralisation of decision-making, competition, and commercialisation, and
the recreation of a new class of private entrepreneurs. It promoted a capitalist
ethos and ethic which affected even the cooperatives and the large scale state
structure that still controlled major production.
5.6.1 NEP as a Strategy for Transition to Socialism

Just as War Communism had enabled the Bolsheviks to tide over the immediate
difficulties and to consolidate the Revolution, the NEP (New Economic Policy)
changes made possible economic recovery in the ensuing years and also won
the confidence of the majority of peasants. Like the policies of 1918-21, it
carried over into the future much that was designed to be temporary.
The economic recovery which began after 1920 after an initial impact of famine,
reached 1/3 of the pre-war level by 1923. But if we compare with the War
Communism phase, agricultural productivity increased by around 40%, the
total sown area by 45% and the grain area by 39-43% by 1928. This rate of
growth was much higher than the rate of growth in industry, with the result that
prices of industrial goods went up, and there was a sizeable widening of the
gap between the price levels of industrial and agricultural goods in favour of
industry which, however, also created marketing difficulties. This potential
for conflict again between town and country, the peasants and working class,
was avoided by putting pressure on industry to reduce prices. The problem
however, remained in a long term sense, given the fact that the private sector
was predominant in agriculture throughout NEP, and a lot of industry was still
a state monopoly.
Secondly, the NEP changes could not resolve the problems and social
contradictions that derived not merely from the war situation or specific policies
but from the larger social contradictions that arise when the revolutionary
working class is called upon to build socialism in the midst of a vast peasant
majority. In individual peasant economy while there is little scope for class
exploitation, nevertheless it is an expression of bourgeois relations. As long as
land is held individually, worked on individually as a family and income derived
from it privately, there is little incentive for the peasantry to transform agriculture
along socialist lines. The NEP solution was that through cooperation peasantry
would voluntarily realise the benefit of collectivism. But cooperating to buy
tractors or work agricultural machinery collectively on land held together did
not resolve the problem, because cooperative and collective forms functioned
on the same principles of market and profit as the individual peasant did.
The introduction of market and the consequent stratification in agriculture,
and the emergence of the individual entrepreneur worked against the
egalitarianism inherent in communist ideology. Voluntarism was replaced by
economic incentive. Rather than see the fruits of his/her labour transformed
76
into collective social benefits, it promoted in the peasant individual solutions The Socialist World-I
to social problems.
Advanced socialism where each could derive goods/benefits according to
need, required increased industrial productivity. NEP provided little scope
for transfer of resources to the socialised sector from the individual or
private sector of economy. Given the fact that Soviet Russia was not open to
exploitation of colonies this was a major problem. From all evidence the
transformation of Soviet Union into an advanced socialist society, the
transformation of the quality of life of individual citizens, and creation of a
more human, scientific and equality oriented man was unlikely through the
NEP changes. When trade-units, soviets and other popular organisations gained
greater rights they were already dominated by the spirit of economic incentive
as opposed to voluntarism. It is in this larger context that we must see the
later debates within the Party, the collectivisation drive, and the conflicts
between party and popular organisations.
5.7 CULTURAL ASPECTS OF SOCIALISM

Socialist achievements in the early years were limited only in terms of their
own vision and the agenda they had set for themselves. Given what existed
before Revolution in Russia, and the priorities and ethics of the capitalist world
during the same years, their achievements were many. The early socialist state
heroically experimented with guaranteeing full employment, free and equal
education for all, free health care, equal access to culture and cultural advance,
and equality for women. In giving recognition to the legal right of every citizen
to a good life the Bolshevik socialist revolution enlarged the realm of freedom
to include also social and economic equality. In adopting the principles of right
to employment and ‘to each according to his or her work’, it guaranteed the
implementation of this equality. The area of freedom and rights now ranged
from freedom from hunger to freedom of access, in real terms, to leisure and
culture. The abolition of private property and the creation of welfare
infrastructure were meant to ensure its guarantee to all, including minorities
and women. By creating economic equality the Revolution also sought to bridge
the gap between elite and popular culture, and a revival of the music and
languages of the minorities. Much of the very high quality of artistic production
in the later year as well as the big scale of books production were a result of
this enlargement of the realm of freedom. The revolution presented an alternative
vision of modernity to the world.
It also experimented with a new relationship between party, individual and the
state, with new forms of collective political expression, made people the central
focus of national policies, achieved popular participation of people in local
and national affairs. It sought the abolition of ranks and privileges and changed
the very scale of participative democracy.
In all this their actual achievements over the years were mixed. The early
years were heady and hard. The civil war and allied intervention impinged on
all aspects of policy and political life. But in the early years the Revolution had
set for itself standards by which it was to be judged not merely by others, but
by the revolutionaries themselves and the entire Soviet people.
77
History of Modern
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) 5.8 COMINTERN
For the Bolsheviks the Russian revolution was always inseparable from the
world socialist revolution. Before they made their own revolution the
Bolsheviks and other Russian revolutionaries thought that the revolution in
Russia would follow the socialist revolution in Western Europe. Once they
made their revolution ahead of Europe, they expected Europe to follow suit.
This, together with the cardinal Marxist principal of the unity of the interest of
working classes all over the world, and their socialist vision of an oppression-
free world, was the basis of their internationalism. This internationalism was
given shape in the form of the Socialist International.
When the social-democratic parties of Western Europe refused to oppose
their own ruling classes in the interest of the working classes in Europe, as
the Bolsheviks saw it, the Bolsheviks broke away from them, changed their
name to communist party, and accordingly formed a new Communist
International. For the Bolsheviks their revolution had to spread elsewhere, as
backward Russia did not have the productive capacity to sustain advanced
socialism. The Communist International was envisaged as the vanguard of
this revolution.
Because of the atmosphere of international civil war in which the Comintern
came into existence, its conditions of membership as well as policies reflected
the Bolshevik position on national self-determination, the nationalities question
in former Russian territory and the strategy for world revolution. It also reflected
the experience of the Bolsheviks with the peasantry, particularly in relation to
national-liberation movements.
As soon as the Bolsheviks proclaimed in November 1917 the right to secession
as part of self-determination, the Allied powers made this issue a part of their
armed intervention. The Comintern, at this stage modified their right to be
that of the workers and peasants in the different areas. It developed the idea
of a United Front between national liberation movements and the Communist
Parties in Europe and Soviet Russia. The strategy of the communists in these
areas was strongly influenced by the Comintern, where the national-liberation
struggles were seen as not only against the imperialist powers and the feudal
landlords in their own country, but also against the bourgeoisie in their own
country. The agrarian revolution was seen as the basis of the national liberation
struggles with the workers playing the leading role. In the 1920s as the
Bolshevik’s struggle with their peasantry seemed muted with the NEP changes,
a similar accommodation occurred in the Comintern policy towards the co-
relation of social forces in the national liberation struggles. The Comintern
recognised and supported the ‘positive’ role of the bourgeoisie in these
countries against Imperialism. This policy continued well into the 1920s and
Communist Parties were formed in many Asian countries. The links with China
were particularly strong, and early strategies of the communist groups in
China, India, Turkey and Afghanistan were strongly influenced by Comintern
policies. Communist members of these countries were also represented in
Comintern.
78
Check Your Progress 3 The Socialist World-I
1) In what ways was the New Economic Policy different from War
Communism?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) Write a note on Comintern.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
5.9 LET US SUM UP

This Unit has focussed on three important aspects related to the creation of
the socialist world: the situation prior to the socialist revolution, making of the
socialist revolution, and the functioning of the socialist state with all its constrains
and problems.
As you are aware, socialism as a vision of human society had dominated the
thinking of many intellectuals in Europe in the 19th century. The socialist
revolution, the first of its kind, actually occurred in 1917 in the Russian empire
only. This Unit talked about the factors which created a revolutionary situation
in Russia and finally led to the revolution. The revolution occurred in three
stages- with the creation of a parliament in 1905 to the creation of a liberal
bourgeois regime in February 1917, to finally the capture of power by workers
soviet under the leadership of the Bolsheviks in October 1917.
The new socialist state was confronted with tremendous problems and
opposition — a hostile capitalist world and a civil war led by the old order in
Russia. It resorted to a phase of a War Communism which continued from
1918 to 1921. In 1921 began yet another phase called the New Economic
Policy, which was to last till 1928. But the consolidation of the new socialist
state was far from over. The story of the socialist state from 1928 onwards
will be taken up in the next Unit.

EXERCISES
1) You should mention the absence of liberal constitutionalism and
parliamentary democracy in Russia. See Section 5.2
2) You should refer to the socialist revolutionaries, liberals and social democrats
as some of the leading political groups in pre-revolutionary Russia. See
Sub-Section 5.2.4.
79
History of Modern Check Your Progress 2
1) You should emphasize the different stages from 1905 onwards through
which the revolution was carried out. See Section 5.3
2) You should mention the change brought about through legislation and poplar
initiative. See Section 5.4.
3) You should point out the challenges posed to the new regime from the
former landed aristocracy and the capitalist counties as well as the economic
crisis in the immediate post-revolutionary period, which forced the new
socialist state to resort to war communism. See Section 5.5
1) Read Sections 5.5 and 5.6 and point out the changes in government policy
on nationalism and agriculture and industry.
2) See Section 5.8.
80
The Socialist World-II
UNIT 6 THE SOCIALIST WORLD-II
Structure
6.0 Objectives
6. 1 Introduction
6.2 Background
6.3 Planning and Industrialization
6.3.1 The First Five Year Plan, 1929-33
6.3.2 The Second Five Year Plan, 1933-37
6.3.3 Results of Planned Industrialization
6.3.4 The Third Five Year Plan, 1938-41
6.4 Collectivisation of Agriculture

6.4.1 Weaknesses of NEP Agriculture
6.4.2 Grain Harvest and Marketing
6.4.3 The Peasant Resistance of 1927-28
6.4.4 Peasant Resistance to Collectivisation
6.4.5 Nature of Collectivisation
6.5 The Terror and the Purges

6.5.1 The Four Trials
6.5.2 Purges and the Communist Party
6.5.3 Purges and the Armed Forces
6.5.4 Purges and the Soviet Society
6.6 Let Us Sum Up

6.0 OBJECTIVES
Thematically this Unit is in continuation with the previous Unit. It takes up
the story of Soviet Russia from where the last Unit left. After reading this
Unit, you will learn about the:
 major political and economic developments in the USSR in the 1930s;
 nature of planned industrialization initiated from 1929 onwards;
 essence of collectivisation of agriculture and its impact on the Russian
peasantry; and
 political factors that led to the terror and the purges of the 1930s.
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The previous Unit narrated to you the story of the Russian Revolution and
the major developments in the post-revolutionary Russia. You learnt, for
81
History of Modern instance, that the period after the revolution was characterized by a phase of
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) war communism. Around 1921 the policy of war communism was replaced
by the New Economic Policy (NEP). Around 1928, the NEP gave way to a
policy of planned development of industry and agriculture in Soviet Russia.
This Unit tells you the story of the planned phase of Russian Economy. It
starts by telling you what is meant by planned economy. It then takes up three
crucial developments of the 1930s; planned industrialization in phases,
collectivisation of agriculture and the purges of the 1930s. All the three
influenced the history of USSR very significantly.
6.2 BACKGROUND
The brief period of rapid industrial expansion in the USSR between 1926
and 1941 did not initiate the modern industrialization of Russia. It was preceded
by the spurt associated with tsarist Finance Minister S.I. Witte in the 1890s,
the boom on the eve of the First World War, and the expansion of the armaments
and engineering industries during the World War. But the pace of the inter-
war development was so rapid and the scale so vast that the USSR was
transformed by the end of the 1930s into a great industrial power. This laid
the basis for its emergence as a super-power after recovering from the
devastation of the Second World War. Soviet economic development from
I926 to 1941 also constitutes the first global attempt at comprehensive state
planning and is therefore important in the history of world industrialization.
There was no disagreement within the Soviet government that a socialist
economy and society could be created only by the modernisation and expansion
of industry. This would also provide the USSR, the only socialist country till
1949, with the means of defence in a hostile capitalist world. Nor was there
any disagreement that industrialization could not proceed without the
modernisation of agriculture. Without a sustained rise in agricultural
productivity, it would be impossible to provide the food needed to support an
increase in the numbers and standard of living of industrial workers, to export
grain in order to pay for imports for technology and machinery, and to build
up reserve stocks in case of war and famine.
Marxists like the Soviet Bolsheviks had always believed in ‘planning’ of the
economy. Marx had argued that a socialist society would be free of the arbitrary
control of market forces, or the self-interested control of the capitalist class to
maximise profit. Instead socialist society would control resources directly and
plan production to meet the real needs of the people.
6.3 PLANNING AND INDUSTRIALIZATION

The idea of a long-term plan of ten to fifteen years dates from1920. Annual
plan forecasts were drawn up as Control Figures from 1925. From 1926
various drafts of prospective five-year plans were made both by the State
Planning Commission (Gosplan) and by the Supreme Council of the National
Economy (VSNKH). This had a dual significance. It marked the beginning of
a commitment to industrialization and state direction of that development
through a comprehensive plan. Secondly, it adopted a medium term period to
put it into operation.
82
By 1926, most of Soviet industry had been restored to 1913 levels of production The Socialist World-II
and some industries had even exceeded that level. Thereafter, the main strands
of government industrial policy were:
 rapid industrialization in a socialist manner, and
 a pattern of industrialization where large-scale industry manufacturing
machinery would dominate the national economy.
The construction of Socialism in One Country, surrounded by ‘a hostile
capitalist world, imperatively required that Soviet industry must become ‘self-
sufficient’, in the sense that it should not depend on the capitalist countries for
any major type of product . A vital objective was to achieve and surpass the
most advanced capitalist countries in a relatively minimal historical period.
This required the establishment of a capacity to produce capital-equipment,
chemicals, and other advanced products which were lacking in the industry
inherited from the tsarist period. Closely associated with the principle of self-
sufficiency was the further requirement that Soviet industry should be based
on the most advanced technology. It was also agreed that a substantial
proportion of new Factories should be located not in the traditional centres of
modern industry in northwest and central European Russia and in the Ukraine,
but in the Urals and Siberia, and in backward Central Asia. The needs of
defence required the construction of iron and steel, engineering, and armaments
industries in these relatively inaccessible areas of the Soviet Union.
6.3.1 The First Five Year Plan, 1929-33

Since 1928 was a successful year for industrial growth, earlier plan targets
were revised upwards. In reality no one had the statistical information or the
theoretical understanding to predict the workings of a whole economy. As
the dominant Soviet leader Stalin became more and more impatient with the
rates of growth within the market economy of the NEP, careful planning gave
way to the demands of politics. Instead of a planned economy running
according to carefully formulated estimates of economically practicable targets,
there appeared a ‘command’ economy running according to the political orders
and priorities of the government.
The first five year plan focused on iron and steel, but tractor plants also had
high priority. The machine tool industry was rapidly expanded in order to free
the country from dependence on machinery imports from abroad.
The Soviet leadership led by Stalin nursed certain obsessions that were
detrimental to planning as a process of balanced and realistic economic growth.
The first has been referred to as ‘gigantomania’, or the demand to build gigantic
industrial complexes on a scale beyond the available resources to construct
or operate. Consequently, they took longer to complete than was economical
and then were constantly subject to breakdowns, or were left unfinished. The
obsession with size was accompanied by an unrelenting insistence on haste,
captured in the slogan, “tempos decide the whole thing”. To illustrate this,
the first five year plan was formally adopted in mid-1929; simultaneously
backdated to October 1928, when it was retrospectively deemed to have
begun; and finally declared in January 1933 to have been fulfilled, not in five,
but in four and one quarter years.
83
History of Modern Plan targets were usually set in terms of volumes of production or
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) quantitatively. The Plan gave only the vaguest indication of where the real
material resources for increased production were to come from. Industry
was exhorted to over fulfil the Plan rather than simply to carry it out. This Plan
was not meant to allocate resources or balance demands but to drive the
economy forward. The quality of output dropped alarmingly, and there was
abundant evidence of the rapid deterioration of expensive new machinery.
The First Plan had mixed results. Although everything was sacrificed for metal,
the output of coal, oil, iron ore and pig iron fell short of expectation. The
targets were surpassed only in machinery and metal working, and this was
partly caused by statistical manipulation. The goals for steel production were
fulfilled only in 1940, for electric power in 1951, and for oil in 1955. Consumer
goods, agriculture and, temporarily, military strength were sacrificed to a rapid
growth in heavy industry.
The organisation of supply and distribution was possibly the most formidable
task assumed by the state during the first five year plan. As it had unsuccessfully
and temporarily done during the Civil War a decade earlier, the state took
over almost total control of the urban economy, distribution and trade. This
time the take-over lasted until the 1980s. Curtailment of private manufacturing
and trade began in the late 1920s and the process gathered speed with a drive
against ‘NEP’ men (private traders) – combining vilification in the press, legal
and financial harassment, and numerous arrests of private entrepreneurs for
‘speculation’ – in 1928-29. By the early 1930s, even the artisans and small
shopkeepers had been put out of business or forced into state-supervised co-
operatives. An alternative structure of trade and distribution had not been
established yet. With the simultaneous collectivisation of agriculture, the mixed
economy of the NEP, combining state and privet sectors, disappeared.
6.3.2 The Second Five Year Plan, 1933-37

The second five year plan was adopted in February 1934. Its three guiding
principles were:
 consolidation,
 mastering techniques, and
 improving living standards.
In this plan the principle of rational planning came closer to realisation. More
moderate and realistic production targets were set. In industry the watchwords
were now to be raising productivity and acquiring skills.
This plan envisaged a large increase in the output of, and investment in,
consumers’ goods rather than producer’s goods. Urban real wages were
expected to double as a result of an increase in money wages and a simultaneous
fall in retail prices.
The large number of new industrial enterprises built during the second plan
meant that by 1937 more than 80 per cent of all industrial products were
manufactured in new or entirely reconstructed enterprises. During this plan,
the heavy industrial targets were mostly met and the output of machinery and
electric power rose dramatically.
84
The production of consumer goods, however, rose less than expected and The Socialist World-II
per capita consumption of these essential items of household use in 1937 was
lower than in 1928. Completed metallurgical works in Magnitogorsk, Kuznetsk,
and Zaporozhye further reduced Soviet dependence on foreign capital goods,
relieved the strain on the balance of payments, and permitted repayment of
earlier debts. By 1937, the basic tools of machinery and defence were being
built in the USSR. During this plan there was a conscious effort to develop the
more backward national republics in Central Asia and Kazakhstan, although it
was not economically the best way of using scarce resources there.
6.3.3 The Results of Planned Industrialization
In the decade after 1928, Soviet industry developed at a rate and on a scale
entirely without precedent in world economic history. Industrial production in
1937 reached 446 per cent of the 1928 level according to official Soviet
figures, and 249 per cent according to the most conservative Western estimate;
the corresponding annual per cent rates of growth were 18 and 10.5.
On the basis of official Soviet figures, the Soviet share in world industrial
production amounted to 13.7 per cent in 1937, compared to 3.7 in 1929 and
2.6 in 1913. The USSR achieved these gains while the western countries
experienced a terrible depression and mass unemployment. In 1928 Soviet
industrial output was comparable to that of second rank capitalist countries,
such as Germany, France and Great Britain. By 1937, it was second only to
the United States. By then, the Soviet Union had twice the productive power
of the major European powers. Soviet industry became large scale industry:
while one-third of Soviet industrial production came from small-scale industry
in 1913, by 1937 the proportion had fallen to a mere six per cent.
Major new industries were established with the assistance of substantial imports
of machinery and know-how from the West. By 1937, the Soviet Union could
produce in substantial quantities its own iron and steel-making and electric
power equipment, tractors, combine harvester, tanks and aircraft, as well as
almost all types of machine tools; and the level of technology rose throughout
industry. Labour productivity (output per person employed) increased annually
on an average by six per cent, much more rapidly than in Britain or the USA at
any time in the nineteenth century.
6.3.4 The Third Five Year Plan, 1938-41
The period between 1938 and 1941, when the Germans invaded the USSR,
covers three and a half years of the third five year plan. The plan was interrupted
by the Second World War in June 1941 and never completed. In intention it
aimed at an impressive per cent increases over the five year period: 92 in
industrial output, 58 in steel, 129 in machinery and engineering. Priority was
once again given to heavy industry rather than consumer goods industries.
1) What do you understand by planned industrialization? Answer in five lines.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
85
History of Modern 2) How did the first two five year plans affect the Russian economy? Answer
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) in ten lines.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
6.4 COLLECTIVISATION OF AGRICULTURE

The previous section on industrialization has depicted the successful effort of
the Soviet leadership to rapidly transform the country into an advanced
industrial economy. Industrialization, however, could not have succeeded
without major changes in agriculture. In spite-of substantial improvement in
output after the Civil War, Soviet agriculture was more backward than that in
any other major European country, in terms of both yields per hectare and
labour productivity. While the state had succeeded in extending and
consolidating control over the greater part of industry by nationalisation, the
predominance of private peasant farms meant that production and marketing
decisions in agriculture remained beyond central planning and therefore state
control.
The Bolsheviks were convinced that socialised or collectivised agriculture had
to be promoted against private farms of capitalist agriculture. Larger farms
would be more productive because better machinery and fertilisers could be
used on them. They would generate the agricultural surpluses essential for
industrialization. In addition, larger farms would even out the differences in
wealth between peasant households by pooling productive resources within a
single farm. It was assumed by the Bolsheviks that converting the peasants to
this belief in collective or socialised agriculture would be a long and arduous
process. In one of his last articles, ‘On Co-operation’, Lenin had argued that
the government would have to gradually persuade peasants to give up their
private farms and join together in collective farms. This would have to be
done by providing peasants with modern equipment, credit and agronomic
support.
The advanced technology that would induce the peasant to choose
collectivisation was absent through the NEP. Until such time as Soviet Russia
acquired tractors, most Bolsheviks believed that a number of measures
preparatory to socialist agriculture had to be adopted. The peasants must be
led through a series of intermediate steps from simple co-operatives for selling
consumer goods, the marketing and supply of agricultural products, and credit,
to production co-operatives for machinery, seed, reclamation, construction,
and finally to collective farms.
During the 1920s agronomists and land-consolidation experts occasionally
succeeded in persuading the households involved in the consolidation of’
landholdings divided into strips to set themselves up as collective farms. But
such collective farms tended to be small and few. Hoping that co-operatives
inculcate collective habits in the peasantry, the Soviet state offered the co-
operative movement easy credit, tax exemptions and priority in the delivery of
86
scarce manufactured goods. But co-operatives too attracted small number of The Socialist World-II
peasant households.
The spread of rural capitalism, by the differentiation of the peasantry, was
worrying to the Soviet leadership. Rural capitalism would benefit a kulak or
rich peasant at the expense of the peasantry as a whole. Differentiation
occurred in three ways, namely the leasing of land, the loaning of money,
animals, implements and machinery; and, the hiring of labour. In defining the
kulak, the following criteria were adopted: the systematic employment of hired
labour; the acquisition of land by purchase or lease; extensive ownership and
the leasing of agricultural means of production; and, income from commercial
and financial activity. But no clear or convincing definition of the kulak was
ever produced.
6.4.1 The Weaknesses of NEP Agriculture

Peasant farming methods and technology under NEP had remained extremely
backward. In1927, 88 per cent of all arable land was in small peasant holdings,
and less than five per cent of farms were wholly or partly enclosed. The small
size and fragmentation of farms prevented modern farming methods and the
use of better implements. Three-field rotation systems predominated with
autumn-sown rye or wheat, spring-sown wheat or other grain, followed by
fallow; even more primitive two-field or shifting systems of cultivation were
found in many areas. This resulted in the fact that one-third of land was not
sown at any given time.
Improvements in technology were eagerly sought by the regime but not easily
brought into practice. Almost one-quarter of peasant households in the Russian
Federation had no horses or oxen in I927 and almost one-third of them lacked
ploughing implements. Most households owned or used no horse-drawn
machines. Machinery was concentrated in the major grain growing regions of
the country.
6.4.2 Grain Harvests and Marketing

Although grain production had recovered to pre-war levels by the mid-I920s,
much less grain was marketed in the 1920s than before the First World War.
This was partly a consequence of the increase in rural population: while this
was six million higher in 1926 than in 1913, percapita grain was I6 per cent
lower than it had been in 1913.
A real problem was that there was more than one market for the sale of
agricultural products. The state agencies and the co-operative network only
accounted for part of the overall market in grain and other crops, with the
private market offering dispersed and profitable alternative to producers. It
was more advantageous for peasants to sell on the private market, with its
higher prices, than to state collection agencies. The problem for the state was
to attract a greater share of the marketed harvest to its own collection agencies
rather than to private traders.
The term of trade, or the relationship between industrial retail prices and
state agricultural procurement prices, were much less favourable for peasants
than before the war. In addition to the unfavourable price ratios for his
products, the peasant also had less easy access to industrial goods than before
87
History of Modern the war. Throughout the 1920s, industrial goods were expensive, of poor quality
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) and scarce.
Prices paid by the state for procurements (zagatovki) of grain were low and
often failed to cover the cost of production. Prices for livestock products and
industrial crops were much more favourable for peasants and discouraged
grain marketing.
Another reason for the decline in agricultural marketing was the changed social
and economic organisation of the countryside after the agrarian revolution of
1917-20. The re-division of the large private estates removed those farming
units which were most oriented towards the market.
6.4.3 The Procurement Crisis of 1927-28

Despite a good harvest the autumn of 1927, peasant marketing and state
procurement of grain fell far below expectation to a level that was insufficient
to feed the towns and the army, and export grain in order to pay for the import
of machinery. If the state had chosen to raise its procurement prices for grain,
to match private market prices, funds available for industrial expansion would
have suffered.
The rapid rise in industrial investment during 1927-28 was a major factor
leading to the grain crisis from October 1927. Consumer goods became even
more scarce (the “goods famine”) as investment shifted to heavy industry;
and, they cost more to buy as state procurement prices for grain remained
low.
In answer to this goods famine, the peasants went on what the regime called a
“production strike” by refusing to market at state prices the quotas of grain
set by the state. Instead, the peasants chose either to sell to private traders at
higher prices or to meet their tax obligations by selling higher priced industrial
crops or livestock products.
In other words, the crisis of I927 was not an economic crisis in the sense of a
failure of market mechanisms or a decline of productive capacity. This is clear
from the fact that a high share of the harvest was marketed, but often to private
traders. The peasants were willing and able to produce a surplus if they could
buy industrial goods with the proceeds.
In December 1927 Stalin had argued that the process of consolidating the
peasants’ small, scattered strips of’ land must be carried out ‘gradually, steadily
eschewing forcible methods, through demonstration and persuasion’. By the
next month, in January 1928 he said that “We cannot allow our industry to be
dependent on kulak whims; (collective farms) must be developed to the full ...
so that within 3 or 4 years (by 1931 or 1932) they would supply at least one-
third of all the grain requirements of the state.”
The Party leadership decided on a policy of confrontation rather than conciliation
of the peasantry. From early in 1928, markets were closed and grain was
seized from peasants and traders alike. Those guilty of speculating in grain or
concealing it rather than delivering it could be imprisoned and their property
confiscated. As a result the state managed to procure a substantially greater
amount of’ grain.
88
In the summer of’ 1928 the Party launched an all-out drive to collect more The Socialist World-II
grain more rapidly than in any previous year. In November the authorities
called for the comprehensive collectivisation of the main grain-surplus regions
within five months. In 1928, there was a harvest failure in the Ukraine and
North Caucasus, important grain producing regions. The best harvests had
been in the distant, eastern parts of the country (Volga regions, Kazakhstan,
Uralsand Siberia), precisely where the state procurement apparatus was
weakest and the communications infrastructure least developed and especially
slow in winter. This crisis was compounded by manufactured goods shortages.
Grain marketing declined sharply and grain collections by state agencies were
a failure. The shortfall in state collections of rye and wheat, food staples,
forced the state to curtail grain exports and to reintroduce rationing during
peacetime.
Soviet leaders faced two alternatives. They could continue with the New
Economic Policy — balanced industrialization, gradual collectivisation, and
adjust agricultural delivery prices to induce the peasants to market more grain;
this was the policy advocated by leaders like Bukharin. Or they could institute
a radical new policy of accelerated collectivisation and forced industrialization.
Stalin opted for the second alternative.
Collectivisation policy was now aimed at the formation of large collective farms
covering whole villages and districts. In the spring of 1929 a scheme was
launched for the establishment of a few ‘districts’ of comprehensive
collectivisation in which all or a majority of households were collectivised. By
early July, eleven such districts were recognised.
There were no plans for mass collectivisation immediately prior to its
introduction. Even the first five year plan still marked no radical departure in
agricultural policy. It was envisaged that three out of every four peasant farms
would still be private farms in 1934, and their output would contribute more
than one-half of grain marketing. When the decision to introduce mass
col1ectivisation by force was made, it was done quickly and without legal
backing or party discussion. The kulak was to be liquidated as a class and the
collectivisation campaign was to sweep through the countryside in tandem
with a ‘dekulakisation’ campaign. No guidance was available about the structure
and organisation of the collectives; nor on how decisions were to be taken,
not even how payment should be made to the members. Within seven weeks,
by February 1930, about half the peasantry had been herded into collectives.
6.4.4 Peasant Resistance to Collectivisation

The peasants met forced collectivisation with large-scale passive resistance
and sporadic armed resistance. Active peasant resistance to the regime and
its representatives took the form of’ mass demonstrations involving thousands
as well as ‘terrorist acts’, a term that covers murders, beatings-up and arson.
By and large, however, peasant protest was local and vocal rather than semi-
military. Resistance was evidently most stubborn on the part of the richer
peasants, but it is clear that every section of the peasantry was affected and
participated in the resistance to collectivisation.
Rather than hand over their animals to the kolkhoz, many peasants slaughtered
them (despite the decree of 16 January 1930 that prohibited such slaughtering
89
History of Modern on pain of confiscation of property and imprisonment or banishment) or rushed
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) to the nearest town to sell them. As a result, in 1933 there were only one-third
as many sheep, half as many horses and pigs, and 54 per cent as many cattle
as in 1928.
The attack on the peasant economy was accompanied by a fierce campaign
against the Orthodox Church, the centre of traditional peasant culture. Historic
Russian churches became the object of destruction or wrecking and many
priests were arrested. The monasteries were closed, although many of them
had operated as model agricultural co-operatives, and thousands of monks
and nuns were deported to Siberia. By the end of 1930, roughly 80 per cent
of village churches are said to have been closed. Dekulakisation deprived
about one million peasant households (an average of about one household per
village), or about five to six million individuals of their land and houses.
This was a veritable civil war raging in the Russian country side. The surviving
livestock herds and the spring ploughing were in jeopardy because of the lack
of seed grain. The regime thus faced a disastrous situation. In March 1930, in
an article called “Dizzy with Success”, Stalin blamed local officials for excesses
he had authorised. He called for a temporary halt to the collectivisation drive,
ordered that most of the collectivised animals (except those of kulaks) be
returned to their original owners, and that attempts to completely eliminate the
peasant market be ended. Interpreting this as repudiation of compulsory
collectivisation, the majority of peasants hastily left the collectives. The
percentage of peasant households officially collectivised throughout the USSR
dropped from 56 to 23 between 1 March and 1 June I930 and then to 21.4 in
August.
In another concession, a new model statute for the kolkhoz allowed its
members to keep a cow, sheep and pigs, and the implements to work private
plots of their own. The peasants’ real efforts were reserved for these small
private plots, whose food sustained them and whose sales augmented their
paltry earnings.
The collapse of the collectivisation drive was only temporary. The climate was
kind and the harvest was good in 1930. As soon as the grain was safely in
state storage, the collectivisation drive resumed but with clearer guidelines
this time. Tens of thousands of communists and urban workers were urgently
mobilised to work in the countryside as kolkhoz organisers and chairmen.
Villagers were steadily persuaded or coerced by discriminatory taxation to
return to the collectives. By 1937, 86 per cent of sown area had been brought
within the kolkhozes and collective farms accounted for 89 per cent of the
grain harvest and 87 per cent of grain procurements by the state.
6.4.5 Nature of Collectivisation

Collectivisation, sometimes called the “Second Revolution”, changed the
peasant way of life more radically than did the Bolshevik Revolution. The fact
that it was not carried out by peasants voluntarily, but by a largely urban and
proletarian Party, and by force, meant that it was authentically a ‘revolution
from above’. The lynchpin of the difference between peasant life before and
after collectivisation was that the collective farmer had no control over the
90
grain and cash crops that were produced on the collectivised land. As most The Socialist World-II
collective farms coincided with the former communes, the parallels with serf
villages were close. The ban on travel outside the farm without permission
reinforced the impression in peasant minds that collectivisation meant a new
form of serfdom. Peasants joked bitterly that the initials of the All-Union
Communist Party (VKP in Russian) spelt out ‘second serfdom’ (Vtoroe
Krepostnoe Pravo).
Collectivisation was a process which enabled the state to increase its
procurement of grain, potatoes and vegetables and the flow of peasant labour
to industry, at the expense of livestock, the harvest retained in agriculture and
the living standards of the rural and urban population. It was not able to bring
about an expansion of agricultural production to a degree corresponding to
the growing demand and to this extent it was a failure.
Grain harvests, yields and state procurements
Years Grains harvest Yield Quintals Procurements

million tons per hectare
1909-13 72.5 6.9 —
1928-32 73.6 7.5 18.1
1933-37 72.9 7.1 27.5
1938-40 77.9 7.7 32.1
Source: Moshe Lewin, The Making of the Soviet System: Essays in the Social
History of Interwar Russia, London: Methuen, 1985, table 6.2 p.167
1) How was the collectivisation of agriculture carried out? Write in ten lines.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) How did the Peasants respond to the collectivisation drive? Answer in
fifty words.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
6.5 THE TERROR AND THE PURGES

The rigours of collectivisation and industrialization were followed not by any
period of improvement in the lives of the Soviet population, but by a renewal
of the ‘revolution from above’, culminating in a reign of terror. This was
91
History of Modern directed not against peasants and the survivors of capitalism, but in successive
waves of arrests, trials and purges against industrial workers, the Communist
Party and finally the secret police itself, the executors of the purges and the
terror.
Historians have identified at least three political needs Stalin nursed in the
1930s. The first was to overcome opposition to and criticism of his policies
within the Communist Party. In 1933-34 this functioned as pressure for relaxing
the industrialization and collectivisation drives, for making concessions to the
working population and for reconciliation with former opponents. His second
need was not only to defeat the opposition but to attack and root out the
source of all potential opposition and criticism in the democratic traditions of
party leadership. The logical conclusion of this, and Stalin’s third need, was to
move from a single-party to a single-ruler state. The only reason Stalin
advanced for his action was a huge conspiracy to overthrow the regime,
involving not only the party organisation through out the country, but other
post-revolutionary elites and networks, like the secret police and the armed
forces. The menacing international situation and the danger of war were used
to lend substance to the threat. But not a single authenticated case of’ a spy or
traitor was ever identified among the victims of the purges and terror.
6.5.1 The Four Trials

Among the most dramatic aspects of the purges were the four show trials of
1936, 1937 and1938.
1) At the “Trial of the Sixteen” (August 1936), Prosecutor Vyshinsky accused
Kamenev, Zinoviev and others of conspiring with Trotsky to overthrow
the regime and to remove Stalin and other Politburo members. After
confessing and incriminating the “Right” Opposition, the defendants were
convicted and shot.
2) At the “Trial of the Seventeen” (January I937), featuring Piatakov, Muralov
and Radek, the accused confessed to treasonable dealings with Japan and
Germany. They too were executed.
3) The military chiefs, especially Marshall Tukhachevskii, who had made the
Red Army an effective fighting force, apparently had been highly critical of
the trials. In May 1937, he and other prominent Generals were arrested,
accused of treasonable collaboration with Germany and Japan, and shot.
4) “The Trial of the Twenty-one” (March 1938), included Bukharin, Rykov
and Iagoda. Foreign espionage agencies, claimed the prosecutor, had set
up a bloc of “Rightists and Trotskyists” on Soviet soil to bring a bourgeois-
capitalist regime to power and detach non-Russian regions from the USSR.
This was only the tip of the iceberg. For two full years in 1937 and 1938, top
communist officials in every branch of the bureaucracy – government, party,
industrial, military and finally even police — were arrested as ‘enemies of the
people’ and disappeared into prisons and labour camps. Those who were
tried and executed, or died by other means, included all surviving members of
Lenin’s Politburo, except Stalin. A former Prime Minister, two former chiefs
92
of the Communist International (Comintern), the trade union head, and two The Socialist World-II
chiefs of the political police were executed.
6.5.2 Purges and the Communist Party

Proportionately, the purges hit the Party worst of all. They shattered the group
of Communist Leaders formed in the pre-revolutionary underground, the Civil
War and the period of collectivisation and the first five year plan. When Russia
entered the Second World War in1941, her connections with the leadership
of the Russian Revolution had practically ceased to exist. The terror thus
destroyed the old Communist Party, which was not seriously rebuilt until
Khrushchev’s time. It assured Stalin’s complete control of the Party, the
government and the country.
6.5.3 Purges and the Armed Forces

The Party was not the only institution that was destroyed; also destroyed was
the established military elite. The Great Purge decimated between 35 and 50
per cent of the entire officer corps of the Soviet armed forces. Well-known
members of the General Staff, such as Marshals Tukhachevsky and Bluecher,
and Generals Gamarnik and Yakir were killed along with most members of the
Supreme War Council: three of five Marshals, 14 of 16 Army Generals, and
all full Admirals. Also affected were the commanders of all the military districts,
practically all brigade commanders, one half of all regimental commanders,
and all but one fleet commander.
These purges were an insult to Red Army patriotism and a grave weakening of
the armed forces. More senior officers were killed during the purges than
during the entire war with the Nazis.
6.5.4 Purges and the Soviet Society

The terror of the 1930s permeated the everyday life and the most intimate
experience of the Soviet people. Most estimates agree that about five per
cent of the population was imprisoned during the period, making a total of
some eight million persons, of whom perhaps ten per cent were killed. By
1938, almost every other Soviet family had had one of its members imprisoned.
The proportions, however, were substantially higher, the more educated the
group.
The terror of the 1930s differed from that of the collectivisation in that it was
directed against the urban population, against political and military elites, and
against the better educated intelligentsia. Action was taken against people for
their supposed readiness to do injury to Soviet society. This was inferred on
the basis of their social category: social origin, nationality or group membership.
This social category determined a person’s fate.
The question of how many people were arrested and died in the purges is
difficult to answer accurately because of the secrecy that still guards the relevant
files. In 1990, Soviet researchers claimed that between 1931 and 1953
government tribunals sentenced almost four million people, of whom about
one-fifth were executed. But since many more died unrecorded, and the records
were tampered with, lost or destroyed, this figure is necessarily an underestimate
of the truth.
93
1) What according to historians were the main political priorities of Stalin
in the 1930s? Write in five lines.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) How did the Purges of the 1930s affect the Communist Party and the
armed forces? Answer in five lines.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
6.6 LET US SUM UP

This Unit has discussed three crucial aspects of the Russian economy and
polity between the period 1928 and 1941: industrialization through planning,
collectivisation of agriculture and the purges of the 1930s. Planned
industrialization meant setting targets for industrial production for a period
of five years and systematically going about achieving the targets.
Collectivisation of agriculture stood for a transformation of plots of agricultural
land under individual possession into large collectives which could be exposed
to modernised farming through state initiative. Large scale opposition to
Stalin’s policies both within and outside the party coupled with a desire to
convert Russia from a single party rule to single ruler state led to the purges
of the 1930s. In these purges a number of trials took place in which old
Bolsheviks, members of Lenin’s politbureau, a number- of army officers and
many state officials were executed. Virtually any one who did not agree with
Stalin’s policies was put to death. All dissent was suppressed. Whereas the
victims of collectivisation were invariably members of the rural population,
the purges of the 1930s targeted mainly the urban population, the military
and the political elites and the educated sections of the population. It can be
said that a Russian society paid a heavy price for the official policies of the
1930s.

EXERCISES
1) Planning in industrialization meant deciding before hand the direction
of industrial development and setting targets for output for a period of five
years. See Section 6.3.
2) Soviet Russia achieved unprecedented industrial growth in a very short
time. See Sub-Sections 6.3.1, 6.3.2 and 6.3.3.
94
Check Your Progress 2 The Socialist World-II
1) Cultivable land, which, under NEP, was under the control of kulaks (rich
peasants) was brought under the control of the collectives. All land could
thus be exposed to modern farming. See Section 6.4.
2) Where as all sections of the peasantry resisted the collectivisation drive of
the Soviet government, the richer peasants resisted more vigorously as
they had more to lose. See Sub-sections 6.4.4.
1) In your answer you should refer to Stalin’s desire to eliminate all political
opposition so as to move from a single party to a single ruler state. See
Section 6.5.
2) The purges destroyed the old Communist Party and also the military
leadership of the times of revolution. See Sub-sections 6.5.2 and 6.5.3.
95
History of Modern
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) UNIT 7 COLONIALISM AND
IMPERIALISM
Structure
7.0 Objectives
7.1 Introduction
7.2 What is Colonialism?
7.3 Colonialism and Imperialism
7.4 Theories of Imperialism
7.5 Colonialism: A Mode of Production or a Social Formation
7.6 Colonial State
7.7 Stages of Colonialism
7.7.1 First Stage
7.7.2 Second Stage
7.7.3 Third Stage
7.8 Let Us Sum Up

7.0 OBJECTIVES
After studying this Unit, you will learn about:
 basic features of colonialism;
 various theories of imperialism; and
 relationship between the metropolis and the colony, and different stages
of colonialism and their special characteristics.
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The history of modern Europe encompasses the history of the world by virtue
of the colonies acquired by the major European powers from the eighteenth
century onwards. Capitalism, by its very nature, was a world system. The
motive for its expansion was the quest for protected markets and exclusive
sources of raw materials. By the nineteenth century the continents of Asia,
Africa and South America had been carved up as colonial possessions of the
European powers. Countless wars took place between the competing imperial
powers for control over colonial territories. The division of Europe into
conflicting nodal points of power via the mechanism of the system of alliances
was in large measure due to the attempt by imperial powers that were late
entrants into capitalism to somehow ensure, ‘a place in the sun’. The rush for
colonies escalated international rivalry and tension appreciably in the nineteenth
and early twentieth century.
Colonialism is the name given to the system that prevailed in the colonies.
The last half-century has witnessed the decline and collapse of this system all
96
over the world. The loss of empires has reduced the foremost imperial power, Colonialism and
Imperialism
Britain, to a country dependent on the United States of America. It is interesting
that the end of colonialism has altered the picture of the world almost as
drastically as its establishment. The steady march of colonies towards
achievement of freedom has made the third world a significant force in world
politics. The term post-colonial that is now commonly used indicates that all
countries which experienced colonialism have a basic commonality, their
colonial past, which shapes their present, too.
In this Unit we discuss the nature of colonialism in the modern age of capitalism
and various theories of imperialism. We lay special emphasis on the relationship
between the colony and the metropolis and on the stages of colonialism. We
also analyse the phenomenon of colonialism at a general level without going
into the specificity of its form and impact in any particular colony. In the next
Unit we shall take up case studies of three countries.
7.2 WHAT IS COLONIALISM

Let us take a look at the history of the term ‘colonialism’ before studying its
nature.
The first commentators on colonialism were Marx and Engels who wrote on
the colonial domination of Ireland. The first comprehensive critique of
colonialism mainly at economic level came from the early Indian nationalists of
the late nineteenth century — Dadabhai Naoroji, Mahadev Ranade, Romesh
Chandra Dutt and others. The concept of drain of wealth was developed by
them to highlight the transfer of wealth by the East India Company as plunder,
home charges or the expenses incurred by the government and private transfer
of capital. Hobson made the next break in 1902 with the publication of his
work, Imperialism. The writings of Rudolf Hilferding on Finance Capitalism,
Rosa Luxemburg’s work on capitalist accumulation and Lenin’s Imperialism,
The Highest Stage of Capitalism were important contributions to the
understanding of the phenomenon. In the nineteen twenties and thirties, studies
of imperialism in Latin America, Africa, Indonesia, etc. provided new insights
into the phenomenon. The successful liberation movements of the 1960s and
the Cuban and Algerian revolutions led to a plethora of writings on colonialism.
Andre Gunder Frank’s major contribution was followed by those of C.
Furtado, Theodore Dos Santosa, Paul Prebisch, Paul Baran, Samir Amin,
Immanuel Wallenstein: Arghiri Emmanuel and F. Cardoso. According to the
first variant of the dependency school the economic dependence of a colony
would remain even after political freedom as long as colony, which has
underdeveloped under colonialism, remains capitalist. The bourgeoisie: it is
believed, is incapable of undertaking the task of economic development.
Dependent economies can become independent only by undergoing a socialist
revolution. This view of the dependency school is disproved by the example
of India where an independent bourgeoisie has developed capitalism.
The second variant is the world systems school of Immanuel Wallenstein. This
has spoken of a capitalist world economy that is divided into a centre and a
periphery. This differentiation is marked by several features.
97
History of Modern 1) Core economies which form the centre have high value products while
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) the periphery has low technology and low wages.
2) Unequal exchange or export of surplus is a second feature.
3) The core states are strong whereas the peripheral states are weak.
4) A weak indigenous bourgeoisie.
5) A fifth feature is the domination of its economy by foreign capital.
The world system theory introduces the third category of a semi-periphery.
Such countries are distinguished by the greater control of the state in the
national and international market. Economic nationalism is a hallmark of such
states. There is scope of change in the position of the colony within the world
system.
Cabral, Franz Fanon and Edward Said have discussed the cultural aspects of
colonialism. Bipan Chandra has studied the colonial structure, colonial
modernization, stages of colonialism and the colonial state.
7.3 COLONIALISM AND IMPERIALISM

Imperialism and colonialism are two sides of the same coin, viewed from
different sides. Looked at from the metropolis, it is imperialism whereas in the
colony it is colonialism. Colonialism is as modern a historical phenomenon as
industrial capitalism in Britain. The two developed together. Colonialism is a
distinct historical stage or period in the modern historical development of the
colony that intervenes between the traditional economy and the modern
capitalist economy. It is a well- structured whole, a distinct social formation in
which the basic control of the economy and society is in the hands of a foreign
capitalist class. This functions in the colony through a dependent and
subservient economic, social, political, and intellectual structure whose forms
can vary with the changing conditions of the historical development of capitalism
as a worldwide system.
Most scholars of colonial society are not able to grasp the specificity of
colonialism. One view is that colonial society was a traditional society in which
the old relations of production were retained. Only foreign political domination
was established. However, colonialism is more than colonial policy. It is more
than political domination. It is a structure. The other view is to see colonialism
as a transitional society, which was moving towards modernization and would
have become a developed capitalist society, given time. Was colonialism only
limited modernization as seen by some? Would the colony eventually have
developed, given time, into a metropolis? Our answer is ‘No’. Some left wing
writers also subscribe to this view of’ ‘arrested growth’ and believe that
colonialism was incomplete capitalist development. The pre-capitalist remnants
of the economy are seen to be the factors that inhibited full capitalist
development. The assumption is that all features that are not capitalist must be
pre-capitalist.
Most writers cannot conceive of a colonial society that is neither capitalist
nor pre-capitalist. For example, agrarian relations that developed in India
under colonial rule were not pre-capitalist but a hybrid creation of British
rule and were colonial in nature. They came into being as a distorted
98
consequence of the attempt to develop capitalist agriculture along the British Colonialism and
Imperialism
model in India. What emerged was a clumsy caricature of the original.
The colony became an integral part of the world capitalist system but this
integration did not lead to the development of a capitalist economy in the
colony. Many soldiers believed that a colony would develop along capitalist
lines. The belief was that capitalism being a world system compelled all nations
to adopt the bourgeois system. However, it was not recognized that the colonies
did not develop in the split image of the metropolis. Colonies did not become
capitalist in the way the metropolis did. Thus, capitalism was introduced in the
colonies but not capitalist development. The old structures were uprooted.
The new ones, however, failed to encourage development. Instead, they proved
to be regressive. The colony did not take part in the industrial revolution. So
imperialism introduced capitalist relations of production in many spheres, but
capitalist development did not take place. Productive forces did not develop
in the colony. Thus colonialism is not like capitalism an advanced stage of
social development. It is an image of metropolitan capitalism, but it was its
negative image, its opposite and its non-developmental side. Capitalism
develops productive and social forces. Colonialism on the other hand, does
not develop the productive and social forces. Its inner contradictions arise
from the lack of their development.
7.4 THEORIES OF IMPERIALISM

There were people, mostly economists and historians, who were trying to
understand the phenomenon of imperialism. Given the influence of Marxist
theory on all major intellectuals at the turn of century, it was but natural for
them to look for an economic explanation for the development of imperialism.
Karl Marx himself had not evolved any theory of imperialism, but there were
sufficient pointers in his analysis of the capitalist mode of production to this
direction. In Capital, Marx had shown that the capitalist mode of production
was driven by the need to extract surplus value from a class of wage-labourers.
This surplus value had to find a market for the commodities which it produced.
J.A. Hobson in his work entitled Imperialism (1902) was one of the first to
develop this theme. Hobson, a British economist, was not exactly a Marxist.
In the politics of England, he stood at the point at which Liberal politics
blended into that of Labour. His position on imperialism later became the
official position of the Labour Party. He showed how in countries which had
seen the growth of capitalism, the distribution of national income was unequal.
There was a large class of people with much less income than what they
would have had; if there had been an equitable distribution of wealth (if the
national income had been equally divided among the nation’s population).
The capitalist would soon find that he could not sell his products in his home
country due to low incomes. He would then look for markets to other European
countries but as those countries became industrialised, he would face
competition there. Consequently he would turn towards those countries which
had no industries of their own and could not protect themselves. Another
motivating factor for imperialism, according to Hobson, was the constant
desire of the capitalist to maximise his profits. After successive rounds of
investment and reinvestment, the capitalist would find it no longer profitable
99
History of Modern to invest in his own country and he would therefore be compelled to seek
avenues for investment elsewhere. Hobson concluded that it was in the nature
of capitalism itself to create imperialism.
It was found that imperialism was a characteristic of advanced capitalism.
There were many diagnoses of the phenomenon of advanced or late capitalism.
Some analysts claimed that it was the last and most decadent stage of capitalism.
With the coming of the epoch of imperialism, the progressive role of capitalism
had come to an end.
The next major theorist of imperialism was R. Hilferding, a professional
economist and banker from Vienna. His book Das Finanzkapital (Finance
Capital) appeared in 1910. By this time both the United States and Germany
had surpassed Britain in industrial production. Hilferding noticed that in both
these countries banks (which represented finance capital) were taking the
leading role in extending and controlling industrial capital. Though the British
banks were not playing any such role there was a growing tendency towards
the merging of finance and industrial capitalism throughout the industrialised
world. This created monopoly conditions. Imperial expansion, according to
Hilferding, was preferred by monopoly capitalists because it would bring new
areas under their control-areas in which they could develop raw material
production, safeguard capital investment and guarantee markets for their output.
Finance capital, according to Hilferding, needed a state which was strong
enough to carry out a policy of expansion and to gather in new colonies. This
would also involve giving up the principle of free trade, first championed by
Britain. In due course of time, conflicts between national monopolies would
emerge. Though national monopolies may sign agreements among themselves
for dividing up the world, these should not be taken as implying more than an
uneasy truce, a temporary agreement which would be given up as soon as one
monopoly saw the opportunity of advancing its position. The economic rivalry
of the great nation states was thus seen as leading inevitably to war. While this
was the negative side of the story, Hilferding also assigned a positive role to
monopoly capital. As he put it:
In the newly opened lands....The old social relations are completely
revolutionised, the agrarian thousand year old unity of the nations without
history is rent asunder.... Capitalism itself gradually gives to the oppressed
peoples the means and the method of achieving their own liberation.
This kind of understanding, which obviously emerged from Marx’s own faulty
understanding of the regenerative role of capitalism, has of course been
vigorously challenged by those who have studied the negative impact of
imperialism on the colonies (e.g. Dadabhai Naoroji for India, Andre Gunder
Frank for Latin America).
The third great theorist of imperialism was Rosa Luxemburg, whose work
titled Accumulation of Capital appeared in 1913. She described the process
by which advanced powers mopped up the markets of the still remaining non-
capitalist world and left them poorer. She pointed out that export of capital to
underdeveloped non-European lands did not lead to local industrial
development. There was an artificial division of labour in the world whereby
the underdeveloped lands were doomed to remain as primary producers
100
forever. Rosa Luxemburg shared with Hilferding the fear of nationalist economic Colonialism and
Imperialism
rivalries leading to war.
This line of thought was developed with greater clarity by V.I.Lenin, the leader
of the Russian Bolshevik Party. His work Imperialism, the Highest Stage
of Capitalism was written in Zurich in 1916. He too, like Hobson, explained
the reasons for the export of capital:
As long as capitalism remains capitalism, surplus capital will never be used for
the purpose of raising the standard of living of the masses, for this would mean
a decrease in profits for the capitalists; instead it will be used to increase
profits by exporting the capital abroad, to backward countries ..... The
necessity for exporting capital arises from the fact that in a few countries
capitalism has become over ripe and, owing to the backward stage of
agriculture and the impoverishment of the masses, capital lacks opportunities
for profitable investment.
Lenin’s work was intended to show that the First World War was basically an
imperialist war for the partition of the world and for the distribution and
redistribution of colonies, of “spheres of influence”, of finance capital etc.
These were the basic issues that the theorists of imperialism in the early twentieth
century emphasised. However, the notion of the export of capital to the
underdeveloped world to maximise profits was challenged later by those who
found that, in actual fact, the industrialised nations were exporting most of
their surplus capital not to the underdeveloped world but to the more
industrialised areas. This was particularly true of Britain. Only about 20 per
cent of British capital exported before 1914 was invested in the British colonies
including India and another 20 per cent in South America. The main investment
was in other capitalist countries, mainly Europe and North America. At least
three quarters of British capital exports before1914 and again between the
two world wars went as loans to governments and government guaranteed
public utilities. Further, Hilferding’s findings about growing monopoly tendencies
may have been accurate for Germany but in the case of Britain, monopolistic
firms were slow to emerge before the 1920s. And yet, at least until 1914,
most of the foreign capital in the world was British. And finally, it was found
that deindustrialisation in the colonies was in the long run disadvantageous for
the imperialist power. The impoverishment of the colonial peoples finally resulted
in a cutting back of production in Britain’s industries, leading to an increase in
unemployment in Britain. In fact, there were greater benefits from capital export
to European lands and European-settled lands in North America, where there
were expanding markets for British goods.
After the Great Depression of 1929, a new trend in writings on imperialism
emerged. In 1931, Joseph Schumpeter’s Imperialism and the Social
Classes was published. Schumpeter lived and wrote in Germany during his
early years and then moved on to the United States, following which he started
writing in English. He was deeply impressed by the German Junker class — a
class of feudal landlords which had played an important role in the political
and economic life of Germany in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. He also pointed out that the acquisition of empire in North America
by Britain was the work of the feudal aristocracy. From all this he concluded
that capitalism and imperialism were two separate phenomena. Imperialism,
101
History of Modern as he put it: was generated by pre-capitalist social and political forces. It was
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) a throwback to an earlier age, an atavism. Capitalism, on the other hand,
developed through innovation, through the combination of different factors of
production in different ways. The logic of capitalism was the productive
engagement of manpower. War, on the other hand, implied the withdrawal of
manpower for unproductive activities. Moreover, for capitalism it was not
necessary to acquire territory — economic development could be achieved
without the acquisition of territories.
Thirty years later, the Cambridge historians Jack Gallagher and R.E.Robinson
came up with their Africa and the Victorians which also contested the notion
that capitalism led to imperialism. Imperialism, as they put it, was the
consequence of European power politics, which was reflected in a policy of
mutual deterrence followed in the countries of Asia and Africa. Sometimes
they would mutually agree not to occupy a territory but to share it among
themselves — as in China. The European powers, while fighting among
themselves, would occupy all vacant spaces in a pre-emptive manner so that
the rival power would not come in or get an unfair advantage. (It is obvious
that the experience of the Cold War greatly influenced these writers.) Gallagher
and Robinson also took considerable pains to try and prove that the economic
interests of capitalism did not play a role in empire building. They argued that
the British cabinet at no point of time had a businessman as its member. It was
the aristocracy which ruled England, and that aristocracy had contempt for
business. The Gallagher-Robinson position is obviously a clever polemical
exercise. To point out that there was never a businessman in the British cabinet
is to prove nothing. Business interests have always functioned in a far more
subtle fashion and business pressures were and continue to be exercised through
groups which indirectly influence policy. Besides, this kind of analysis only
looks at the process of imperialism, not its causes.
7.5 COLONIALISM: A MODE OF PRODUCTION OR

A SOCIAL FORMATION
Some writers see colonialism as a distinct mode of production. Hamza Alavi
describes colonialism as “colonial capitalism”. The two specific features of
colonialism are the internal disarticulation and external integration of the
rural economy and the realization of the extended reproduction of capital
not in the colony but in the imperialist metropolis.
Bipan Chandra suggests that colonialism is a social formation in which different
modes of production coexist, such as feudalism, slavery, bondage, petty
commodity production, merchant and usury exploitation and agrarian, industrial
and finance capitalism. The social surplus is appropriated under colonialism
by varied modes of production. The appropriation of the surplus from the
colony is not linked with the ownership of the means of production by the
metropolitan bourgeoisie but with control over state power. On the other hand,
under capitalism, the surplus is appropriated on the basis of the ownership of
the means of production.
The concept of varied modes of production helps us to analyse how the class
antagonisms between different social strata are shaped by colonialism. It also
helps us to identify the roles of the major classes in society and also the primary
102
contradiction at any stage. When we see colonialism as a social formation Colonialism and
Imperialism
rather than a mode of production we are able to see the primary contradiction
as a societal one, rather than in class terms. Thus we have a national liberation
struggle rather than a class struggle against the colonial power. The struggle
from the beginning is thus political rather than economic. Classes do not join
the anti-colonial struggle through class organisations but as part of the people.
The following are the four basic features of Colonialism.
1) Integration of the colony with the world capitalist system in a subordinate
or subservient position. The needs of the metropolitan economy and its
capitalist class determine the basic issues of the colony’s economy and
society. This subordination is more crucial than linkage with the world
market. After all, even independent capitalist and socialist economies are
linked with the world market.
2) Arghiri Emmanuel and Samir Amin have encompassed colonialism in the
twin notions of unequal exchange und internal disarticulation of the
colonial economy and the articulation of its different disarticulated parts
through the world market and imperialist hegemony with the metropolitan
economy. The colony’s agricultural sector does not relate to its industrial
sector but to the world capitalist market and the market of the metropolis.
Marx and Engels referred to a similar process in their focus on the
exploitative international division of labour. The metropolis produced high
technology, high productivity, and high wage goods while the colony
produced low technology, low productivity, and low wage goods.
International trade thus became an instrument of exploitation. Similarly,
the colony specialised in the production of raw materials while the
metropolis produced manufactured goods. Railways were developed in
India in the nineteenth century to serve the interests of British industry
rather than Indian industry.
3) The third feature of colonialism is the drain of wealth or the unilateral
transfer of surplus to the metropolis through unrequited exports. The early
Indian nationalists stressed this. A large part of the colonial state expenditure
on the army and civil services represented a similar external drain of surplus.
Thus production of surplus is in the colony but is accumulated abroad.
This process has been described by Hamza Alavi as deformed extended
reproduction.
4) The fourth basic feature is foreign political domination or the existence
and role of the colonial state.
1) What is colonialism? Answer in 50 words.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
103
History of Modern 2) Write in brief on theories of imperialism.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
3) Explain basic features of colonialism in about 100 words.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
7.6 COLONIAL STATE

What is colonial about the colonial state?
For one, it is an instrument for exploiting entire societies rather than one
class. The colonial state is an integral and intrusive element in the structuring
and functioning of the colonial economy. The state is the instrument in the
hands of the capitalist class in the home country to control and exploit the
colony. The colonial state serves the long-term interests of the capitalist class
of the mother country as a whole. It does not represent the sectional interests
of groups within this bourgeoisie, who are competing with each other. In
capitalism, in contrast, the capitalist state is the instrument for one class
dominating another.
Colonialism is a relationship between the foreign ruling class and the colonial
people as a whole. Under colonialism, the ruling coalition of class forces
does not include any of the indigenous social classes. All the indigenous classes
of the colony are dominated-even the propertied classes are not junior partners
of colonialism or its subordinated allies. They have no share in state power
though they may have some share in the social surplus. Their interests can be
sacrificed for those of the metropolitan bourgeoisie at any point. For example,
reforms that would be looked upon with disfavour by the indigenous
bourgeoisie, such as factory legislation, would be introduced by the state, as it
would make the foreign imports more competitive. Thus even the uppermost
classes in the colony could begin to oppose colonialism as it went against their
interests. It is useful to remember that big landlords led the anti-colonial
movements in Poland and Egypt. This is a major difference between colonies
and semi-colonies. The latter have compradors -native classes that are part of
the ruling class. The upper classes in the semi-colonies are part of the ruling
class. Arun Bose has rightly pointed out that while in a colony the dominant
class of the metropolis determines the class nature of the state, in a semi colony
the class nature of the state is defined by the class nature of the politically
dominant class.
The role of the colonial state was greater than the capitalist one. It structured
colonialism. It was not merely a super structure but a part of the economic
base. It not only enables the ruling classes to extract surplus, it itself is a major
104
channel for surplus appropriation. Under capitalism, it was the ownership of Colonialism and
Imperialism
the means of production that gave the ruling class the power to use the state as
its instrument of domination. Under colonialism it is because of its control
over the colonial state that the metropolitan ruling class is able to control and
exploit colonial society. It is its control over state power that gives it control
over the social surplus rather than its ownership of the means of production.
For example, in India, the state did not own the means of production to any
significant extent and yet it wielded great power.
The colonial state guaranteed law and order and its own security from internal
and external dangers. Indigenous economic forces and processes hostile to
colonial interests were suppressed. It was a channel for surplus appropriation.
It prevents unity among the people of the colony, by fostering the identities of
caste against class, community against community, etc. The state was actively
involved in reproducing conditions for appropriation of capital, including
producing goods and services. Another important task is the transformation of
the social, economic, cultural, political and legal frameworks of the colony so
as to make it reproductive on an extended scale. The problem is that there is
a contradiction between the policing functions of the state and its developmental
functions. There is a competition for existing scarce resources and development
is clearly the casualty. It is easy for the anti-imperialist forces to expose the
exploitative character of colonialism, as there is an explicit and direct link
between the colonial structure and the state. Thus it is easy to politicise the
struggle, unlike in advanced countries where the link between the state and
the economy is not so evident. The mechanism of colonial control lies on the
surface, hence it is easy to expose it in an instrumental fashion, and reveal the
links with the industrial bourgeoisie of the home country. The state is visibly
controlled from abroad and the isolation of the colonial people from policy
and decision making is evident. Compared to the capitalist state the colonial
state relied on domination and coercion rather than on leadership and consent.
Hence there is very little space for manoeuvre and the vacant space is rapidly
occupied by the anti-imperialist forces. The state soon enters into a crisis.
However, the other side of the coin is that as the colonial state is a bourgeois
state, it introduces the rule of law, property relations, bureaucracy, and can
even develop into a semi-authoritarian and semi-democratic state. Thus there
is constitutional space in the colony.
The question of colonial ideology is one that has not been adequately studied.
Different stages were informed by different ideologies — the second stage by
development and the third stage by depoliticisation and benevolence. Once
non-participation in politics does not work, loyalist politics is promoted.
7.7 STAGES OF COLONIALISM

Marx, in his writings, had referred to two stages of colonialism- monopoly
trade and free trade. R. Palme Dutt, in his seminal book, India Today, added
a third stage, that of finance imperialism, basing himself on Lenin. Samir
Amin and others theorize as if only the third stage constituted colonialism.
Stages do not exist in a pure form nor is there a sharp hiatus between stages.
The time frame of the stage can vary from colony to colony. Some countries
only went through one or two stages; the other stages were atrophied. For
105
History of Modern example, the third stage did not take off in India while the first and second
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) stages were atrophied in Egypt and the second stage in Indonesia.
Colonialism was the complete but complex integration and enmeshing of the
colony’s economy and society with world capitalism carried out in stages over
a period lasting nearly two centuries. The forms of subordination changed
over time but the subordination of the colony remained a constant feature. As
the forms of surplus appropriation or subordination change, so did colonial
policy: state and its institutions, culture, ideas and ideologies. The stages were
the result of the historical development of capitalism as a world system. They
were also the result of changing patterns of metropolis’ own social, economic,
and political development and of its changing position in the world economy
and polity. The colony’s own historical development also played a role in
determining the stage.
7.7.1 First Stage

There were two basic objectives at this stage:
Monopoly of trade: In India, for example, monopoly of trade was necessary
to enable the East India Company to buy Indian goods cheap. European
competitors were kept out by waging wars against them. Political conquest
was undertaken to prevent Indian traders from taking part in the lucrative
trade.
Direct appropriation of revenue or surplus through the use of state power:
Huge sums of money were needed to wage wars against European powers
and indigenous rulers. This money could only be raised from the revenue of
the colony. Colonial products were also bought from revenues collected from
the colony. The reason for this was that the metropolis did not produce anything
of value and spending gold and silver to purchase the goods of the colony
went against the prevalent mercantilist wisdom. The political conquest of the
colony enabled plunder and seizure of surplus. The high salaries of officials
and the profits of merchants and corporations were all drawn from the revenues
of the colony. It is estimated that the drain of wealth from India to Britain
during the first stage was considerable. It constituted two to three per cent of
the national income of Britain at that time.
It must be remembered that no basic changes were introduced in the
administration, the judicial system, the means of transport and communication,
methods of agricultural or industrial production, forms of business management
or economic organization, education or intellectual fields, culture and social
organization. The only changes made were in military organization and
technology and in the top level of revenue administration. The reason for this
lack of intervention was that colonialism in the first stage could be superimposed
over the traditional system of economy and polity. There was no need to
penetrate the villages deeper than earlier rulers had done, as long as their
economic surplus was extracted. It was not necessary to carry out any basic
transformation of the colony’s economic or political structure. Hence the
ideology was not one of development and there was no criticism or
understanding of traditional values, religion, customs, etc. The traditional
systems of learning were encouraged and administration was carried on in
the vernacular.
106
Colonialism and
7.7.2 Second Stage Imperialism
The second stage of colonialism is known as that of free trade. The industrial
bourgeoisie, which had replaced the trading companies as the foremost class,
opposed plunder as a form of appropriation of surplus on the ground that it
would destroy the goose that laid the golden eggs. The interest of the industrial
bourgeoisie of the metropolis in the colony was in the markets available for
their manufactured goods. For this it was necessary to increase exports from
the colony to pay for their purchase of imported manufactured goods. The
metropolitan bourgeoisie also wanted to develop the colony as a producer of
raw materials to lessen dependence on non-empire sources. Increase of exports
from the colony would also enable it to pay for the high salaries and profits of
merchants. Trade was to be the mechanism by which the social surplus was to
be appropriated.
It was necessary to transform the economic, political, administrative, social,
cultural and ideological structure to enable exploitation in the new way. The
slogan was development and modernization. The colony was to be integrated
with the world capitalist economy and the mother country. Foreign trade was
to be freed of all restrictions and tariffs. Capitalists were allowed to develop
plantations, trade, transport, mining and industries. Capitalist farming was to
be introduced. The system of transport and communications as developed to
facilitate the movement of massive quantities of raw materials to the ports for
export. Railway expansion was undertaken and a modern post and telegraph
system was set up. In the field of administration, it was deemed necessary to
make it more detailed and comprehensive so that imports could penetrate the
villages and raw materials could be taken out easily. Capitalist commercial
relations were to be enforced. The legal system was to be improved so as to
ensure upholding the sanctity of’ contract. However, no change was made in
the sphere of personal law. Modern education was introduced to produce
men who would man the new administration. It was also expected that
westernization would increase the demand for imported goods.
In the field of political ideology liberal imperialism was the watch word. The
perspective was to train the people of the colony towards self-government.
There was confidence that the economic relationship would continue even if
formal political control was ended. A corollary to the perspective of
modernization was the critical view of existing modes of living. The ideology
was development. The intention was not to deliberately underdevelop the
country. Underdevelopment was not the desired but the inevitable consequence
of the inexorable working of colonialism of trade and of its inner contradictions.
Hence there was no imperialist theory of underdevelopment-only of
development.
7.7.3 Third Stage

By the middle of the nineteenth century certain significant changes had taken
place in the nature of world capitalism. As industrialisation spread to the rest
of the developed world the supremacy of Britain ended and there was an
intense struggle for markets and sources of ’ raw materials and food stuffs.
There was also excess accumulation of capital, which looked for lucrative
opportunities for investment. Those countries with colonies were obviously
107
History of Modern at an advantage as these were areas over which they had exclusive supremacy.
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) Another consideration was that the empire and its glory could be used to
deflect political dissent at home and impart a commonality of interests between
potentially conflicting social classes.
The third stage of colonialism led to more intensive control over the colony. In
the sphere of ideology the mood was one of reaction. The administration
became more bureaucratic, detailed and efficient as the need for intensive
control increased. There was no more talk of self-government; instead
benevolent despotism was the new ideology, according to which the colonial
people were seen as a child people who would need guardians forever.
Modernisation and Western education, which were the watchwords of the
second stage, were no more heard of.
There are two kinds of contradictions within colonialism-one is the external
one, between the colonial people and the system, which is expressed in the
form of the anti-imperialist movement. The other is the internal one-in which
the colony can no longer serve the interests of the metropolitan capitalist
class. In the third stage it is not able to absorb metropolitan capital or increase
its exports of raw materials. It was to prevent this that a strategy of limited
modernisation was implemented but the logic of colonialism revealed itself
and underdevelopment became a constraint on further exploitation of the
colony.
The third stage often did not take off. Many of the older colonies continued to
export capital. One major reason for this was that colonialism had so wrecked
the economies of these colonies that they could not absorb capital investment
to any appreciable extent. After all, where would the demand for the goods
produced by the newly set up industries come from when colonialism had
exhausted their potential? Hence capital was invested in those products that
had a ready market abroad or in infrastructure for such exports. In many
colonies the older forms of exploitation continued. In India, for example, the
earlier two forms remained more important even in the third stage.
1) Analyse the distinctive characteristics of the colonial state in about 100
words.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) In what ways was the second stage of colonialism different from the first
stage?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
108
Colonialism and
7.8 LET US SUM UP Imperialism
The history of modern Europe would be incomplete without the study of the
colonial possessions of the European powers and the economic and political
system that integrated these colonies with the modern world. This system was
called colonialism. While Europe continued its march towards progress and
prosperity on the basis of the surplus extracted from the colonies, the territories
under colonial rule were reduced to backwardness. The consequence of
colonial domination was underdevelopment of large parts of the world.

EXERCISES
1) See Section 7.2 for answer.
2) See Section 7.4
2) See Sections 7.2 and 7.5 for answer.
1) See Section 7.6
2) See Section 7.7
109
History of Modern
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) UNIT 8 PATTERNS OF COLONIAL
DOMINATION-I
Structure
8.0 Objectives
8.1 Introduction
8.2 India
8.2.1 First Stage
8.2.2 Second Stage
8.2.3 Third Stage
8.3 Impact of British Rule in India

8.3.1 Agriculture
8.3.2 Trade
8.3.3 Industry
8.4 Africa
8.4.1 Colonial Economy
8.4.2 Colonial Impact
8.5 British Colonialism in Africa: Egypt

8.5.1 Conquest
8.5.2 British Economic Policy in Egypt
8.5.3 Suez Canal
8.5.4 State Structure
8.6 French Colonialism in Africa

8.6.1 Algeria
8.6.2 Tunisia
8.7 South-East Asia

8.7.1 Indonesia
8.7.2 French Indo-China
8.8 Let Us Sum Up

8.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this Unit, you shall be able to learn:
 how direct rule was exercised by the Imperial Powers in various parts of
the world; and
 what impact this rule had on the economy and society of these colonies.
110
Patterns of Colonial
8.1 INTRODUCTION Domination-I
In the last Unit you were acquainted with the basic features of colonialism as
a system. In this Unit we shall introduce you to the direct forms of colonial rule
as it was manifested in different forms in the colonies of different European
powers. We have taken up three representative areas as case studies, South
Asia, Africa and South East Asia, with special focus on India, Egypt and In-
donesia. We have taken up an example each from British, French and Dutch
colonialism to bring out the specificities.
8.2 INDIA
India was an example of a classic colony. It served as a market for British
goods, as a source of supply of raw materials and food stuffs and as a field of
investment of British capital. Foreign companies controlled trade, industry,
mining, banking, insurance, shipping and transport. The Indian army defended
the British Empire all over the world and the Indian administration offered
avenues of employment to large numbers of British youth. The consequence
was that India became underdeveloped while Britain developed rapidly to
become the most advanced nation in the world.
8.2.1 First Stage

The first stage of British colonialism in India was characterised by a concern
to ensure the monopoly of trade with India and the East. Both the rival
European trading companies and the Indian merchants were to be kept out. A
charter from the British Crown was the typical device used to restrict other
merchant companies in Britain from trading with India. War was the means
used to eliminate the competition from the European rivals. As far as Indian
merchants were concerned, the Company used its superior naval power to
ensure that their rivals were eliminated from the lucrative coastal and foreign
trade. Political power was used to compel the craftsmen to sell at very cheap
prices and to drive Indian merchants out.
The impetus for conquest came from the quest for financial resources. The
money for the wars in India and for maintenance of the naval and military
establishment could only come from India. The search ended with control
over Indian revenues. Expansion of territory was a mechanism for raising
large amounts of money through taxes. Money was also needed to finance
the industrialisation of Britain. With the conquest of Bengal and South India,
both these objectives, of controlling financial resources and wielding a
monopoly of trade, were fulfilled. The Company was able to accumulate vast
sums of money through taxes and direct plunder from Bengal. Thirty three
per cent of Bengal revenues were sent out by the Company in the form of
exports. This did not include the illegal exactions of the Company’s officials.
The drain of wealth from India amounted to two to three per cent of
Britain’s national income at the time.
The policies followed in the field of administration were that of minimal
interference in the existing customs and systems. As long as surplus could be
extracted reasonably efficiently there was no need to effect any changes in the
fields of law and administration or in the organisation of production. It is
111
History of Modern significant that the two educational institutions set up at Calcutta and Banaras
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) were centres of traditional scholarship. There was no attempt to introduce
Western ideas or English education.
What were the contradictions during the first stage of colonialism? A study of
the inner contradictions is crucial to the understanding of any system as it is
only when the contradictions emerge that the system can be properly studied.
Should exploitation be short term or long term, was a question on which opinion
was divided. Obviously, short-term exploitation went against the interests of
maintaining the colony such that it remained serviceable for a long period.
Plunder and exploitation of revenues went against reproduction of the economy
of the colony. The Company was in favour of declaring high dividends while
the industrial capitalists were in favour of territorial expansion whose benefits
would accrue in the longer period. There was clearly a contradiction between
the trading interests and the industrial capitalists and between the interests of
the Company and British society as a whole.
8.2.2 Second Stage

It was the phase of free trade. An intense struggle developed between
manufacturing and trading interests in the beginning of the nineteenth century
over which class of British society would control India. A series of regulatory
acts severely limited the hold of the Company and brought the Crown in as the
power controlling India. The Crown in turn championed the interests of the
newly emergent industrial capitalist class whose power and influence had
increased with the success of the Industrial Revolution. Hence a new stage of
colonialism was ushered in keeping with the change under gone by the British
economy.
The needs of the manufacturing interests were obviously very different from
those of the trading companies. The industrial capitalists needed markets for
their products and sources of supply of raw materials and foodstuffs for the
rapidly growing urban population. This stage has been described as the
imperialism of free trade as all tariff duties were removed on British good.
However, this did not mean that there was free trade for all. Duties continued
to be imposed on Indian goods. Inordinately high duties were levied on Indian
products imported into Britain. The duty on Indian textiles ranged from 30 to
70 per cent. Within India internal customs duties were imposed on Indian
manufactures to make them less competitive vis-à-vis British goods.
The problem, of course, was how to finance this entire operation from Indian
revenues. For this the British promoted the production of agricultural raw
materials such as cotton, jute, silk, oilseeds, wheat, hides, skins, indigo and
tea. From being one of the finest producers of crafts in the world, India was
reduced to being a producer of raw materials. Of course, the earlier forms of
exploitation continued from the first stage. Indian revenues were needed for
the further conquest of India and to pay the high salaries of the officials.
The transformation of the economic, social and administrative structure was
necessary for the colony to be serviceable. In the economic sphere, free trade
was introduced. Fundamental changes were introduced in the sphere of
administration. Maintenance of law and order was essential to ensure free
movement of goods across the country. In the field of law, basic changes were
112
brought about to introduce capitalist notions of ownership, property, contract, Patterns of Colonial
Domination-I
etc. This was the period when the new legal codes were drawn up. Western
education was introduced to supply clerks and junior functionaries for the
vast bureaucracy that now ran the country. Means of transport and
communication underwent modernisation and expansion. Railways were set
up under government initiative. The political ideology was one of liberal
imperialism, i.e., it was believed that the economic exploitation of the colony
could continue even after it became politically independent. Hence there was
much talk of self-government in this period.
Coming to the contradictions during the second stage, first of all the colony
faced the constraint of’ limited finances in its attempt to develop India in order
to make it more conducive for exploitation by industrial and finance capitalism.
Development expenditure could not be undertaken on any appreciable scale
as the resources went into civil and military expenditure. In the field of
agriculture there were two opposed needs — one to develop agriculture and
buttress the position of the peasant so that he could become a producer of
raw materials and a buyer of British manufactures and the other to extract
surplus from the peasant to pay for the empire. Basically the contradiction
was between making India a reproductive colony and the objective
consequences of colonialism leading to the opposite result.
8.2.3 Third Stage

It was the phase of foreign investment and international competition for
colonies. Three developments led to the ushering in of the third stage of colonial
exploitation. The first development was the industrialisation of the rest of the
developed world. With this the countries of Europe, USA, Russia and Japan
became competitors for markets and sources of supply of raw materials. The
second development was that major technological developments took place
in the nineteenth century that increased the need for raw materials and
foodstuffs. Thirdly, capital had accumulated on a significant scale in the
developed capitalist countries and needed outlets for investment. An additional
advantage was that colonial expansion could provide a channel along which
the discontent of the workers and peasants could be deflected. The dream of
national greatness was always a heady one and jingoistic patriotism rallied
the country around the state.
Within the colony this period saw the revival of conservative ideologies as
imperialist control was sought to be wielded with firmness. Curzon was only
the last of a line of Viceroys who introduced policies of suppression and
regulation. This was also necessary for ensuring safety for British foreign
investment in the railways, plantations, mining, jute, shipping, trade and banking.
Firm control was also vital as the army was sought to be maintained as a
weapon for defence and expansion of the empire. There was no more talk of
self-government; instead it was declared that the people of India were a ‘child
people’ who would never be fit to rule themselves.
Of course, the contradiction in this grand design of a tightly controlled colony
was financial constraints. The goose that laid the golden eggs was in danger of
being killed through over-exploitation. The colony needed to be developed in
order to exploit it further but over-exploitation had made the country so
113
History of Modern backward that development was no longer possible. The other contradiction
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) was that modernisation produced social groups which rallied against
colonialism.
8.3 IMPACT OF BRITISH RULE IN INDIA

The colonial domination of India converted it into a classic colony whose
economy was subordinated to that of the metropolitan country, Britain. India
became a market for British goods and a supplier of raw materials and foodstuffs
to the mother country. The irony was that the very expansion of capitalism,
which took Europe along the path of modernisation and development, created
extreme backwardness and underdevelopment in the colony. The entire
economy was made serviceable for the interests of Britain.
8.3.1 Agriculture
Agriculture was the sphere of the economy that was most adversely affected
by British rule. The British extracted the maximum possible surplus from
agriculture by imposing an extremely high land revenue burden. A new social
class of zamindars was created by the Permanent Settlement of Bengal to
ensure that revenue collection was efficient. The old collectors of revenue
were turned into private landlords who were given some of the rights of the
landlords but to turn over the revenues to the state after keeping a small
percentage for themselves. The peasants could be exploited at will by these
zamindars. The Ryotwari system implemented in the Madras and Bombay
presidencies involved tax collection from individual cultivators. However, the
high revenue burden meant that their condition was at best only marginally
better than that of the peasants of Bengal.
The peasantry was crushed under the exceptionally high and harsh revenue
burden. With land becoming alienable under the new capitalist relations
introduced, many peasant proprietor found themselves reduced to agricultural
labourers as the moneylenders, zamindars and officials gained control over
the lands mortgaged to them by the hapless peasant in order to pay landrevenue.
There was no system of remission of revenues even during times of floods,
drought and famine and collection. The number of intermediaries grew as
zamindar and revenue collectors sublet their rights to intermediate rent receivers.
The system of agrarian relations that developed was thus neither capitalist nor
feudal — it was semi-feudal and semi-capitalist. The techniques of production
in agriculture remained stagnant. The colonial government paid no attention to
modernisation in this area.
Commercialisation of agriculture took place in the nineteenth century with the
replacement of food grains by cash crops such as cotton, jute, tobacco,
sugarcane and oilseeds. The collapse of the supply of cotton from the USA
because of the civil war led to the increase of acreage in cotton in India.
Credit was advanced to the peasant by the traders to encourage him to grow
cotton. Thus, cotton joined opium and indigo in becoming an important
commodity to be traded on the world market. While per acre production of
food grains decreased by 0.18 % per annum that of non-food grain crops
increased by1.31% per annum. Production of cash crops increased the role
of moneylenders and usurers in the village economy. In some areas, the well-
114
to-do peasants remained free of the stranglehold of the moneylender and Patterns of Colonial
Domination-I
accumulated considerable savings from production of cash crops. The process
of differentiation of the peasantry thus gathered momentum.
8.3.2 Trade
The pattern and direction of India’s foreign trade was subordinated to British
interests. There was undoubtedly an increase in the quantum of foreign trade
from Rs.15 crores in 1834 to Rs.60 crores in 1858, and Rs. 758 crores in
1924. The composition of this trade was, however, skewed so as to serve
British interests. India exported raw materials and foodstuffs and imported
manufactured goods from Britain. Even the excess of exports over imports
was the mechanism for the drain of wealth rather than an asset as in the case
of a free country.
8.3.3 Industry
The traditional industries of India were destroyed, first by the Company using
its position as a monopolist buyer to force the craftsmen to work at uneconomic
rates and then by being forced to compete at a disadvantage with the duty
free manufactured goods imported from Britain. The consequence of the
destruction of traditional handicrafts was that craftsmen were thrown back on
to agriculture leading to further overcrowding and uneconomic production.
This process has been described as deindustrialisation. According to noted
economic historian, A.K. Bagchi, half the people dependent on industry in the
middle Gangetic region in 1809-13 were displaced from their livelihood by
1901.
Modern industry did develop in India in the colonial period. Millions of
craftsmen whose livelihood was destroyed swelled the ranks of the workforce.
The establishment of a modern system of transport and communications
created an all-India market. The first industries to be set up were cotton, jute,
textiles, coal mining and tea plantations. Ancillary industries came up along
with them. The development of an economic infrastructure was also necessary
for the expansion of trade and extraction of raw materials and foodstuffs
from the countryside. This benefited Indian capitalists also. The spread of
railways also led to the setting up of railway and engineering workshops.
Most of the modern industry was owned and controlled by British capitalists.
The growth of modern industry really took place in the period after the First
World War. The depression of the 1930s also gave an opportunity for Indian
industry to progress.
Thus, India had modern industry but she did not undergo an industrial
revolution. Capital goods industries were not encouraged, as the British
industrialists wanted to sell machinery to India. Only those industries developed
which did not compete with British manufactures. Thus, India underwent a
commercial transformation and not an industrial revolution. The share
of the industrial sector in the Net Domestic product was 12.7 in 1900-04,
13.6 % in 1915-19 and 16.7% in 1940-44. In contrast, the share of the
primary sector was 63.6% in 1900-4, 59.6% in 1915-19 and 47.6% in 1940.
The per capita income of India was Rs.52.2 in 1900-04, Rs. 57.3 in 1915-19
and Rs. 56.6 in 1940-44 at the constant price of 1938- 39.
115
History of Modern The cultural and intellectual spheres also did not undergo transformation in a
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) modern and progressive direction. Modern education was introduced in an
extremely piecemeal manner so as to produce the clerks for the administration
but not encourage independent thinking. Nevertheless, the educated classes
were exposed to Western ideas and came to demand that British rule in India
be run along more liberal lines. There were some attempts at social reform in
the nineteenth century but these were discontinued after the revolt of 1857.
On the whole, policies followed in the social sphere were conservative and
even reactionary. The divisive ideologies of communalism and casteism were
promoted to prevent the consolidation of the unity of the Indian people.
1) What are the distinctive features of colonialism in India?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) What was the impact of colonial rule on Indian agriculture?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
8.4 AFRICA
The conquest of Africa took place in the last decades of the nineteenth century.
As late as1880, only a small part, 20 per cent of Africa, had come under the
European rule. The European powers had been content to trade with Africa
and wield informal political influence where necessary. However, the spread
of the Industrial Revolution in Europe brought to the fore new political ambitions
and rivalries. Direct political control was the watchword of the era of the ‘new
imperialism’ and rival capitalist monopolies. The conquest of Africa was made
possible by superior European technology, financial and military resources
and relative stability in Europe.
A continent of over 28-million sq. km. was partitioned and occupied by
European powers by a combination of two strategies, treaties and conquest.
A series of treaties marked out spheres of influence of the European powers.
The Anglo-German treaties of 1890 and 1893 and the Anglo-Italian treaty of
1891, the Franco-Portuguese treaty of 1886, the German-Portuguese treaty
of 1886, the Anglo-Portuguese treaty of 1891 and the Anglo-French convention
of 1899 were important milestones. The French were the most active in
pursuing the policy of military conquest. Britain’s military imperialism was as
spectacular and bloody. Nigeria was conquered in stages by the turn of the
Century. Sudan was occupied in 1896. Zanzibar became a protectorate in
1890 and provided a base for the British conquest of East Africa. Uganda
became a protectorate in 1894. The conquest of Zambia, earlier known as
116
Northern Rhodesia, was completed in 1901. It is interesting that the conquests Patterns of Colonial
Domination-I
were in the traditional slaving zones-in the east it was in old ivory trade zones.
Three eras can be distinguished. The first phase, 1880-1919, was one of
conquest and occupation. The colonial system was consolidated after 1910.
The second phase, 1919-1935, was the period of accommodation. The third
phase, 1935 onwards, was that of the independence movements. Within forty-
five years from 1935, the colonial system was uprooted from over 94 per cent
of Africa. Colonial rule lasted for a hundred years on an average.
8.4.1 Colonial Economy
The colonial economic system reached its prime by the Second World War.
New production relations were established between 1880 and 1935. The first
signs of the new economy were the development of road, rail and telegraph
communications.
The self-sufficient African economies were destroyed or transformed and
subordinated by colonial domination. Their connections with each other and
with other parts of the world were broken. Money economy was introduced
and so was a market in land. Colonial interests dictated infrastructure linkages.
Industrialisation was discouraged. According to Fieldhouse, “probably no
colonial government had a department of industry before 1945.” The traditional
crafts were destroyed. Single crop economies with heavy reliance on cash
crops were developed. Africa was integrated into the world economy in a
disadvantageous position. Inter-African trade was virtually stopped.
Land alienation was common. By 1930, 2,740,000 hectares were alienated
in Kenya. Differentiation in African society occurred as a result of the impact
of colonial domination. Limited proletarianisation and widespread
de-peasantisation took place. A class of rich peasants developed. European
powers reduced the economies of Africa to colonial dependencies through
the power of finance capital. The loans for the Suez Canal enmeshed Egypt in
a web of indebtedness. Big international companies controlled the mining of
gold and diamonds.
8.4.2 Colonial Impact

The colonial school of African historiography has misrepresented the African
response to colonial occupation as one of welcoming the establishment of
colonial rule. Similarly, the theory of Social Darwinism justified colonialism by
arguing that the domination over the weaker races was the inevitable result of
the natural superiority of the European race. Another theory was that of balance
of power, i.e., the conflict between European nations was played out in Africa
so as not to disturb the balance in Europe. However, it is evident that the
primary motive behind colonial rule was economic exploitation of the colony
in the interests of the metropolitan power.
According to some western scholars colonial rule was a blessing. It provided
modern infrastructure, health and education. David Fieldhouse has described
the effects as “some good some bad”. Gann and Duignan have argued that
the cultural diffusion effected was important and that it was wrong to stress
only on political exploitation. On the other hand, W. Rodney has described
colonialism as ‘a one-armed bandit’.
117
History of Modern There is little doubt that the limited positive effects of colonialism were
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) accidental by-products of exploitation. It is true that peace and stability
prevailed, but only after the initial period of complete dislocation. The political
Face of Africa was reshaped. Earlier clans were the unit and low territorial
units replaced them. This has left troubled legacies in the form of ethnic
conflicts. These ethnic conflicts often arise because of the arbitrary definition
of territorial units imposed under colonial rule in utter disregard of the ground
reality. New institutions, the judicial system and the bureaucracy, were set up
on quasi-European lines. The concept of punishment of the guilty replaced
the traditional notion of redress of the aggrieved. Pan-Africanism and
nationalism were also by-products of’ colonialism.
The negative effects, apart from economic ruin were the undermining of
indigenous systems of governments such as traditional monarchies and
chieftaincy. A mentality of subservience developed. A standing army became a
heavy millstone around the neck of the colony. The loss of African sovereignty
was the greatest tragedy brought by colonial rule. The colony lost its right to
control its own development. Colonialism insulated Africa from momentous
developments taking place in the world.
8.5 BRITISH COLONIALISM IN AFRICA: EGYPT

British territories in Africa were Nigeria, Gold Coast, The Gambia, Sierra
Leone, Kenya, Tanganyika, Nyasaland, Uganda, North and South Rhodesia
and South Africa. We take up Egypt as a case study as it demonstrates how
colonialism functions effectively even without direct formal political suzerainty.
8.5.1 Conquest
An abortive expedition was made by Napoleon to annex Egypt around the
turn of the nineteenth century. The British military intervention repulsed the
French and the British occupied Egypt in 1801. However, this lasted only two
years till the Treaty of Amiens and the British forces left Egypt by March
1803. The British attacked Egypt again in 1807 but were forced to retreat. In
1840, a British squadron commanded by Napier threatened Alexandria. A
convention was signed which limited the powers of Mohammed Ali, the ruler
of Egypt. Egypt became a British colony in effect. Though Egypt remained
nominally under Turkish rule, the consuls of Britain and France were the real
wielders of power. Egypt came under the joint protection of France and Britain
and it was only their rivalry that gave Egypt a modicum of independence.
In 1842 the terms of the Anglo-Turkish Trade Treaty of 1838 were applied to
Egypt. British merchants and industrialists were allowed to buy cotton directly
from the producers and British exports to Egypt were required to pay minimal
customs duties, if any. By 1845, England was the predominant partner in
Egypt’s trade. A quarter of Egypt’s imports and a third of her exports were
with England. In 1851, the British were given concessions to build a railway
from Alexandria to Cairo and Suez, which would be of vital strategic
importance to the British in the context of their colony in India. The
construction of the railway line enhanced Egypt’s importance as a transhipping
base. In 1858 the British used the line to transport troops to suppress the
revolt in India.
118
British colonialism in Egypt reduced it to an agrarian and raw material Patterns of Colonial
Domination-I
appendage of the metropolitan country. The history of colonialism in Egypt is
a sordid tale of exploitation by foreign powers and banking companies who
enmeshed her in indebtedness. The nineteenth century saw Britain and France
controlling political developments in Egypt, toppling governments and setting
up puppet regimes. The rise of nationalism in Egypt was an expression of the
discontent of the Egyptian people with their exploitation by the Turks, the
Mamelukes, the Albanian notables and the French and the British.
8.5.2 British Economic Policy in Egypt

Two stages of colonialism were merged into one in Egypt. The primary aim
of the British industrialists was to develop Egypt as a supplier of cotton for
industry. The second motivation was that Egypt could be a valuable field for
investment of finance capital. During the financial boom of 1897-1907, foreign
capital investments in Egypt totalled 73,500,000 Egyptian pounds. The
proportion of industrial investment was extremely little. In 1883-97, it
accounted for 29 per cent of the total and it fell during the financial boom.
Most of the foreign investment was in commerce, banks, mortgage banks,
land companies and public utilities. It has been estimated that 79 per cent of
foreign investment was in non- productive fields, such as public debt mortgage
and banks, 12.36 per cent was in trade and transport and 5 per cent in industry
and construction.
The British industrialists converted Egypt into a primarily cotton growing
country. Several irrigation networks were built to this end. The area under
cotton increased from 495,000 feddans in 1879 to 1, 723, 000 feddans in
1913. Cotton yielded 43 per cent of the total value of agricultural output
between 1910 and 1914. Cotton exports accounted for 85 per cent of total
exports in 1913. Cotton exports multiplied five times from 1860 to 1870 while
imports trebled from 1843 to 1872. In thirty years the total volume of Egyptian
overseas trade increased fivefold.
The consequence of being a single crop economy was that, Egypt had to
import food grains. Foreigners owned 700,000 feddans or 13 per cent of the
entire privately owned lands. In addition, they controlled the 27 per cent of
the land that was mortgaged to foreign companies. The primary cotton
processing and cotton cleaning industry and the steamship lines that transported
the bales of cotton were under British control. The British controlled the entire
cotton trade in Egypt. It is an index of the exploitation of Egypt that it did not
have a single cotton mill!
Means of transport and communication developed on a rapid scale during the
second half of the nineteenth century. Railways developed, as did telegraph
lines and steamships. Egyptian industry developed to a limited extent. Sugar
refineries, small textile and weaving mills, foundries, repair workshops, etc.,
were the kinds of enterprises set up, which had relatively low levels of
technology. The absence of tariff protection was a major drawback for industry.
8.5.3 Suez Canal

In the 1850s the French financial tycoon, Ferdinand de Lesseps, proposed
the building of the Suez Canal. Abbas Pasha, who had opposed the project,
119
History of Modern died and the new ruler, a personal friend of de Lesseps, granted concessions
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) for the construction of the Canal. The construction of the Canal was to hasten
the process of the conversion of Egypt into a colony. 44 per cent of the share
capital came from Egypt, apart from the labour and the land, which was
provided free. Egypt was forced to go in for massive foreign loans to finance
this project. 25 to 40,000 labourers were employed at any one time and this
was mostly forced labour. Thus it was the compulsory semi-slave labour
of the Egyptian fellaheen, which built one of the biggest structures of
capitalism. Colonialism, as we know, utilises forms of labour of earlier
pre-capitalist economies. In fact, the continuation of survivals from the medieval
period was a special feature of Egypt’s capitalist development. This hampered
the development and modernisation of both agriculture and industry.
The Suez Canal project embroiled the Egyptian government in a financial
imbroglio. The total cost to Egypt was 400,00,000 francs. Of this, she was
able to recover only a quarter through sale of her shares. Millions of pounds
were thrust as loans on her for a project from which she drew little benefit and
which was implemented to reduce the time and the cost of travel to the East.
The bankers of London advanced millions of pounds to the Egyptian
government, interest payments on these loans alone amounted to the revenues
of the richest provinces. By 1876, Egypt’s total foreign debt amounted to
94,000,000 pounds. The interest on this was a staggering 8,000,000 pounds
every year. The government sold its shares in the project to Britain, which
used her clout as the biggest stockholder in the Canal to oust France from her
position as a rival. The roots of this new policy lay in the ushering in of the
stage of monopoly capitalism in Europe. The European powers adopted more
aggressive postures in their colonial policy.
Britain forced a commission of inquiry into Egypt’s finances. Dual control of
France and Britain over her finances was enforced. A new cabinet was set up
with primarily European officials in 1878. Egypt now became a colony of the
Anglo-French bankers. Resentment was naturally intense and widespread.
The nationalists or wataneun gave expression to this discontent. A national
government replaced the infamous European cabinet but this was short-lived
and the European powers continued to wield power.
8.5.4 State Structure

Egypt became a colony of Britain in 1882 but was not formally annexed or
recognised as a protectorate. Egypt continued to be part of the Ottoman
Empire. Britain described herself as a temporary occupation power. The British
desisted from annexing Egypt as that may have triggered off a serious
international crisis. The excuse of internal anarchy was used to continue their
occupation in the coming decades. France accepted Britain’s domination over
Egypt as part of the Anglo-French Entente in 1904. The Suez Canal was to
be controlled by an international commission. In 1906, Britain annexed the
Sinai peninsula. Dual control over Egypt’s finances was ended, and with it
French influence. The British administrator was the supreme authority in
practice though nominally the Khedive ruled and a Legislative Council and
General Assembly existed. The consul general of Britain wielded the
dictatorship of British finance capital. Lord Cromer was the longest serving
administrator, followed by Gorst and General Kitchener.
120
Britain drew Egypt into the First World War despite her not being a colony Patterns of Colonial
Domination-I
formally. Extensive use was made of Egypt’s natural resources and manpower
for the war. Her entire economy was martialled for the war effort. The peasants
were oppressed by the forcible seizure of their crops for the armed forces.
The gold reserves of the National Bank of Egypt were handed over to the
British Treasury. Egypt was incorporated in the sterling area, which allowed
Britain to pay for her military expenses in paper currency. Inflation rose
dramatically during the war. The rupture in foreign trade brought about by the
war stimulated local Egyptian industry. Martial law was imposed in 1914, the
dictatorship cracked down on political dissent and thousands of intellectuals
were exiled. The nationalist movement spread rapidly. On December 18, 1914
Egypt was formally declared to be a British protectorate.
8.6 FRENCH COLONIALISM IN AFRICA

In the following account, we have discussed French colonialism in Africa with
special reference to Algeria and Tunisia.
8.6.1 Algeria
Algeria was the first colony of France in North Africa. Charles X sent
expedition in 1830. In the following years the civilian administration was
organised. By 1839, 70,000 Frenchmen were concentrated in Algeria. French
colonisation began after 1839 when the lands of subdued tribes were given
over to French colonists who established large estates and built huge palaces.
Initially, France only controlled towns along the coast. Gradually, they
conquered most of the country.
Algeria was developed as an agrarian appendage of France. Raw materials
were produced there and French manufactures sold at great profit. The
domestic industry and trade that existed prior to the French conquest was
destroyed. Artisans were ruined. Acquisition of land was the main form in
which control was expressed. By 1871, colonial settlers had been given
480,000 hectares of land. French capitalist companies acquired extensive
lands. However, despite concentration of land in the hands of big capitalist
companies, Algeria remained a backward agrarian economy. Exploitation of
Algeria’s mineral wealth was another source of profit. French companies
exploited iron ore and phosphorite deposits. Railways were laid to facilitate
trade and for military and strategic purposes. The growth of foreign trade
from 1871 to 1914 was marked, suggesting that Algeria’s utility as a colony
was increasing. Imports comprised primarily of cloth, indicating that Algeria
was a consumer of French manufactures.
The collapse of the Second Empire in 1871 was a signal for the Algerians to
attempt to shake off the French rule. The local French bourgeoisie resented
the monopoly of the Parisian bourgeoisie and the military regime. The rest of
the people were also against colonial rule as the economy was ruined by the
depredation of the colonialists. Famine and pestilence accounted for the death
of one-fifth of population between 1866 and 1872. The Arab and Berber
uprising, led by Mohammed el-Mokrani, stared on 14 March 1871. The rebels
won substantial military victories but the collapse of the Paris Commune
weakened their position disastrously. However, the uprising was put down
with a firm hand.
121
History of Modern The years to follow saw colonial misrule as its worst and imperialist
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) exploitation at its height. Seizure of land from the Arabs consolidated the
position of the French colonist greatly. They acquired another 500,000 hectares
of land and by 1917, 55 per cent of all land was owned by French colonists.
The native peasants and nomads were forced into the inhabitable areas and
perished in great numbers. The French colonists were given political privileges
that were denied to the Arabs and Berbers. The former were citizens while
the latter were subjects. They were subject to different laws and different
rates of taxes. The native Algerians who demanded equality and democracy
resisted this.
8.6.2 Tunisia
France established control over Tunisia by encouraging her independence vis-
a-vis Turkey. Tunisian territory was invaded in 1837 but France retreated
under pressure from Britain. The attempts at modernisation placed the rulers
in a precarious financial position and made them vulnerable to the persuasion
by foreign banks to undertake huge loans on extremely unfavourable terms.
Taxes were extracted from the peasants and artisans with the use of brute
force.
In 1881 the French seized Tunisia. Italy had already established its presence
there and obtained concessions in railways and telegraphs. The defeat of France
at the hands of Prussia in 1871 emboldened Italy to secure certain privileges.
At the Berlin Congress of 1878, France was informally permitted by the
European powers to annex Tunisia. The annexation took place in188l on the
pretext of a border incident. France declared that it would control Tunisia’s
foreign relations henceforth. The state set up was to serve the interests of
French monopoly capital. In 1664 financial control passed into French hands
from the international commission. However, Italy maintained her interest in
the colony and Italian settlement continued. Italy signed the Triple Alliance
with Germany and Austria-Hungary to check French expansionism. In 1896,
the French recognised the special position of the Italian residents and Italy, in
turn, recognised that Tunisia was a French protectorate. It is to be noted that
the number of Italians exceeded those of the French in Tunisia. Seizure of
land was the common form of exploitation. Another form was exploitation of
mineral deposits.
8.7 SOUTH EAST ASIA

The use of the term South East Asia goes back to the Pacific War of 1941-5.
The countries it comprises are Burma, Thailand, North and South Vietnam,
Cambodia, Laos, Federation of Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia and Philippines.
Colonialism in South East Asia lasted from the late fifteenth to the mid-twentieth
century. Europe’s military and naval superiority enabled her to dominate the
rest of the world. The cannon and the steam-powered gun boat outmatched
the weapons of the Asian countries. Motives were wealth, prestige and converts
to Christianity. Even after the heyday of the spice trade, South East Asia
remained significant for Europe as she supplied raw materials for European
industry — oil, rubber, metals, rice, coffee, tea and sugar. After 1870 the
interior of the colonies were opened up at great momentum. Even Thailand
was affected, though it was not a colony.
122
According to Victor Purcell, “trade, treaties, persuasion and legality were the Patterns of Colonial
Domination-I
usual instruments of European expansion — not fire and the sword.” Ancient
states were dismantled, patterns of commerce were transformed and the cultural
and intellectual assumptions of Asian civilisations were challenged.
8.7.1 Indonesia
The spice trade was extremely lucrative and attracted the European powers.
The Portuguese came to Malacca in the early sixteenth century but their power
was broken by 1600. They were the first to introduce maize, tobacco, sweet
potato and cocoa. The Dutch merchants formed a company in 1594. The
companies were amalgamated in 1602 and given a common charter. Territorial
expansion followed as an offshoot of trade. A secure base was needed to
conduct trade and keep rivals away. Revenue collection provided important
financial resources. Competition with the French and British continued till 1682
when the British and French withdrew. The Dutch monopoly system was
broken in 1784 under the provisions of the Treaty of Paris.
The Javanese peasant was forced to cultivate export crops. The native people
were forced to work for a pittance and buy food at exorbitant prices from the
Dutch traders. All agricultural exports were to the Netherlands. The peasant
could not grow cash crops without permission from the colonial authorities.
Dutch patrols destroyed any unlicensed trees of cloves and nutmeg.
There was very little capital investment in the colony. Mineral development
was in its infancy. Railways developed in the 1860s. By 1900 there were
3000 km of railways. The telegraph service was started in 1856 and the postal
service in 1866.
Colonialism fatally weakened the old political order in the archipelago, opening
the way for new structures. Dutch colonial rule paved the way for a modern
state by suppressing the old kingdoms.
8.7.2 French Indo-China
France occupied Saigon in 1859. In 1861, Cambodia became a French
protectorate. The Union Indochinese was formed in 1887 - Cochin China,
Annam and Tongking.
Tariffs were imposed by France to benefit its own industries, especially textiles,
iron and steel and machinery. The result was an extremely slow tempo of
industrialisation. Mining of coal, tin and zinc attracted French capital. Timber
extraction and rubber planting developed. Between1911 and 1920 19.6 per
cent of exports from Indo-China were to France. By 1938 this had gone up to
53 per cent.
Peasant ownership was replaced by landlordism. Landlords controlled 80 per
cent of the land and employed 200,000 as sharecroppers. Absentee
landlordism was rampant. Overpopulation, undernourishment and progressive
pauperisation of the countryside were the inevitable result. Taxation was
extremely heavy.
French colonial policy was to “gallicise” (frenchify) their territories. In contrast,
the British and the Dutch maintained traditional ways. Indirect rule was a double
burden as two bureaucracies were to be supported, one French, the other
ceremonial and impotent.
123
1) Discuss the British economic policies in Egypt in 100 words.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) What was the impact of French colonialism in Algeria and Tunisia?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
8.8 LET US SUM UP

Colonial exploitation through direct rule occurred mainly in three stages:
plunder and monopoly of trade, free trade and capital investment in the
colonies. Although these stages can be said to follow each other on the time
scale, there has been lot of intermingling particularly between the second and
third stages. The concept of free trade continued till very late in many forms
along with the direct financial investment in some colonies. But in all these
forms of relationships with the metropolis, the colonies were economically
exploited, their traditional industries suffered decline and, in many cases, they
were reduced to the level of suppliers of raw materials for the upcoming and
growing industries of the imperial countries. For the colonies, it always
remained unequal relationships which impoverished them while enriching the
imperial countries.

EXERCISES
1) See Section 8.2 for answer.
2) See Section 8.6
124
Patterns of Colonial
UNIT 9 PATTERNS OF COLONIAL Domination-II
DOMINATION-II
Structure
9.0 Objectives
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Emergence of Semi-Colonialism
9.2.1 Free Trade
9.2.2 Preference for Indirect Rule in Complex Situations
9.2.3 Reconciling Conflicting Imperial Interests
9.3 Indirect Rule: Case Studies

9.3.1 China
9.3.2 Latin America
9.3.3 The Ottoman Empire
9.3.4 Iran
9.4 Let Us Sum Up

9.0 OBJECTIVES
This Unit will enable you to learn about the:
 nature of the indirect rule;
 factors leading to the emergence of this form of rule; and
 actual working and the impact of indirect colonial rule in many regions of
the world.
9.1 INTRODUCTION
While large parts of Asia and Africa were brought under direct colonial rule,
there were other areas where colonialism took an indirect form. What do we
mean by indirect rule? This form of rule, which is also sometimes called semi-
colonialism was one in which the actual process of running a country remained
in the hands of the local rulers, however weak and inefficient they might be,
while the imperialist powers concerned themselves with obtaining the maximum
economic gain by extracting raw materials according to their requirements
and carving out a market for their manufactured goods.
In economic terms the indirect rule can also be referred to as semi-colonialism.
For the purposes of our study, we shall use the term semi–colonialism more
frequently than indirect rule. This is because the category of semi-colonialism
brings out better the unequal nature of the relationship between the Imperialist
powers and the less developed world which was brought within the orbit of
capitalism. The relationship was clearly exploitative — one in which, through
different strategies and clever moves, the economies of the semi-colonies were
125
History of Modern made to yield benefits to the metropolis — i.e., the imperialist power. Some
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) historians use the categories of ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ empire to distinguish
direct from indirect rule.
9.2 EMERGENCE OF SEMI-COLONIALISM

The various factors which contributed towards the emergence of the system
of indirect rule can be said to be the rise of multilateral trade, provision of
avenues to accommodate conflicting imperialist interests and the cost-
effectiveness of the indirect rule in comparison with the direct rule in certain
situations. If we look at the period in which semi-colonialism emerged, we
notice that it was by and large after the 1860s. This was the great age of
multilateral trade. The economic stimulus given by the American Civil War and
the construction of the Suez Canal were important contributory factors. The
technological revolution in overseas transportation led to a general reduction
in ocean freight rates. By this time the Belgians, the French, the Americans,
the Germans and the Russians were all at different stages of industrialization
and anxiously looking around for sources of raw materials and markets for
their industrialised products. As a result, what has been described as one of
the most unhindered periods in world trade began.
In this phase it was difficult for any one Imperialist power to acquire exclusive
control of a particular territory and since England subscribed to the principle
of free trade, a sharing arrangement between the major Imperialist powers
had to be worked out.
9.2.1 Free Trade

The doctrine of free trade proved to be as harmful for the semi-colonies as it
was for the full colonies. When Britain achieved the position of economic
preponderance in the Western world due to the success of its Industrial
Revolution, it began to talk of laissez faire or free trade which meant the
removal of all tariff and customs barriers between trading countries. As has
been pointed out by several political economists, the concept of free trade
was a misnomer. It was England alone which stood to gain from free trade.
This was bound to happen because free trade can work ideally only in a
situation where all the countries participating in it have reached a comparable
level of economic development. In the nineteenth century, free trade was
virtually imposed on the backward economy of Asia and Africa whose
products, such as handloom goods, could not compete with the machine-
made textiles from England’s industries. Soon, the colonies and semi- colonies
were flooded with cheap textiles from Lancashire and Manchester, virtually
ruining the indigenous economies.
9.2.2 Preference for Indirect Rule in Complex Situations

Indirect rule was adopted in areas where there were diverse groups of people
with different ethnic backgrounds and varying cultural and political practices
as in the Ottoman Empire or China. This was because, in such areas, it was
easier for the imperialist powers to deal with one centralised administration
than with numerous provincial dynasts and notables. This point will be
illustrated in greater detail when we take up the Ottoman Empire for detailed
126
consideration. For a sharing arrangement between the Imperialist powers to Patterns of Colonial
Domination-II
work smoothly, it was best that the running of the country be left in the hands
of an indigenous dynasty or potentate. The ruler, whether in China, or in the
Ottoman Empire should be efficient enough to run the country in an orderly
fashion, but he/she should not be too independent either, the kind of ruler
who was most desirable was one who would be pliable and willing to follow
the dictates of the external powers. He or she should be encouraged to
undertake some amount of political and economic modernization within his/
her territory. Thus, from the 1830, the tanzimator political reordering of the
Istanbul regime (Ottoman Empire) was actively encouraged by the European
powers. This reordering involved the Westernization of government structures
and the recentralisation of the state apparatus. So was the self-strengthening
movement under Empress Tsu-Hzi in China from the 1860s.
Indirect rule was more convenient for the imperialist powers since they did
not have to assume responsibility for the government, even though they did
not hesitate to dabble in the internal politics and disputes of the semi-colonies.
This is not to say that direct rule did not have its advantages. Direct rule or full
colonialism allowed the Imperialist power to use extra-economic means to
secure its interests more easily. It could cut off trade and investment by other
industrialised countries; it could raise taxes from the local population and
transfer large sums of money to the home country more easily. In the semi-
colonial situation the Imperialist powers developed strong indigenous allies
who helped in the promotion of their interests. Thus in Chile for instance, the
indigenous mining, large landowning and import merchant groups played a
collaborative role with British and U.S. imperialism in what Andre Gunder
Frank has referred to as the “development of underdevelopment”.
9.2.3 Reconciling Conflicting Imperial Interests

The rivalries between the Imperialist powers also paved the way for the
emergence of semi-colonialism. In the case of the Ottoman Empire, the
conflicting imperial interests of Britain and Russia could be best reconciled
and accommodated by continuing to keep the “sick man of Europe”, viz,
Turkey alive. This was also true of China, where the Russians in particular
were keen to keep alive the tottering Manchu regime rather than have it
removed, since an ouster would strengthen the British hold over China. The
Japanese and the German also had their own interests there. In Latin America,
the USA wanted to assert its predominant position and it, therefore, tried to
force the others out.
1) Discuss in 100 words the main characteristics of semi-colonialism or the
indirect rule.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
127
History of Modern
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) 9.3 INDIRECT RULE: CASE STUDIES
All the countries on the periphery had certain common experiences but, as
the historian, Sevket Pamuk has pointed out in his study: “within this unity
there existed a good deal of diversity. In terms of the specific forms of
interaction with the rest of the world economy and in terms of the resulting
structures, the history of each country was unique.” Pamuk divides the four
examples that we are going to study, namely China, the Ottoman Empire, Iran
and Latin America into two categories. The first three, which he puts in one
group, had relatively strong state structures with centralised bureaucracies.
Within these areas there was often a struggle between the bureaucracy and
those social classes which wanted a more rapid and direct integration into the
world economy; the export-oriented landlords for instance. The imperialist
powers, themselves in a state of mutual rivalry, had more to do with the
bureaucracy than the social classes, however. They extended political, military
and financial ‘support’ to the centralised structures which at this time were
feeling themselves to be weak and inadequate. In return for such support, the
imperialist powers obtained commercial privileges or concessions to undertake
a major investment project. In the case of Latin America, on the other hand,
one imperialist power, namely America, exercised influence. The patterns of
trade and foreign investment were dominated by that power, which ensured
that the ruling groups in the various Latin American countries secured its
interests.
9.3.1 China
We shall first take up the case of China to see how semi-colonialism was
established. The Manchu regime of China was, from the very beginning, bitterly
opposed to the western powers, who were referred to as the “barbarians”.
The Chinese Emperor tried by all possible means to restrict the foreigners to a
limited area of China and for years, from the 18th century onwards, European
merchants were allowed to trade with China only through the city of Canton,
which was situated at the opposite end of the empire from Peking. They were
also subject to numerous restrictions and exactions. Western traders could
only have relations with Chinese merchants and not with the government
officials. The leading Chinese exports, silk and tea, had to be carried over
land for a distance of at least 500 miles to Canton since the Chinese
Government suspected that the traders would evade excise duties if they were
allowed to bring the goods by boat along the coast. European traders were
allowed to come to Canton only during the winter months, they were not
allowed to bring their women with them or employ Chinese servants or ride
in sedan chairs. They were also expected to perform the “kowtow” or Chinese
custom of kneeling and touching the ground with the forehead before the
Emperor, much to their resentment. Similarly, the “ping” or practice of
petitioning the Emperor for concessions was greatly resented by the European
traders but the Chinese authorities insisted on it. However, in spite of all this
opposition and the fact that in the early years the Chinese did not even require
or desire any Western goods, so that Chinese tea and silk had to be paid for
in Western gold and silver, China was ultimately reduced to a position of
economic subservience to the Western imperialist powers.
128
The despicable system of opium trade was evolved by the British East India Patterns of Colonial
Domination-II
Company to turn the balance of’ trade in England’s favour. The opium trade
involved Britain, India and China. Under it, opium was grown extensively in
parts of India under British supervision and then shipped to China in order to
obtain Chinese tea for the European market. No effort was spared to make
the Chinese people addicted to opium and gradually a vibrant and intelligent
people were dulled into apathy through extensive imbibing of opium. The
Chi-officials realised the harmful effects of the opium trade and tried in all
possible ways to stop, or at least to restrict it. The governor-general of
Hu-Kwang warned that if opium was not suppressed, in a few decades China
would have no soldiers to fight the enemy with. There would also be no
money to maintain an army.
The attempts by the Chinese authorities to restrict the entry of opium resulted
in the famous Opium Wars of 1839-1842. But the wars only revealed the
weakness of the Chinese military system. In fact, China’s defeat in the Opium
Wars marked the beginning of a new phase of Western intervention in China.
By the 13 articles of the Treaty of Nanking signed on 29 August1852, virtually
at gunpoint, five ports were opened to British trade, the port city of Hong
Kong was ceded to the British and the Chinese had to pay an indemnity of $
21 million to the British. Thus Britain obtained the most favoured nation status
and also gained the rights of extra territoriality, which meant that foreigners
accused of crime would not have to be tried by Chinese tribunals but could be
tried in their own courts. The new tariff system which was worked out, where
by the import duty was fixed at 5% (higher than the existing rate and therefore
seemingly beneficial to the Chinese) proved, in the long run, to be more
beneficial to the British than the Chinese. This was because, by fixing the tariff
for all time to come, the Chinese lost the prerogative of’ raising tariff levels at
any time in the future.
Once the British had obtained these concessions, the French and the Americans
began demanding similar treaties. Since the Chinese did not want any more
conflicts, they agreed to the American and French demands. They also reasoned
that granting these demands would only cut into the British profits and would
not harm the Chinese. On 3 July 1844 the Treaty of Wanghsia was signed
with the US and on 24 October 1844 the Treaty of Whampoa with the French.
The same concessions of most-favoured nation treatment, extra-territoriality
and fixed tariff were granted to these countries as well. With the loss of these
three national rights, China was reduced to the status of a semi-colonial state.
The fixed customs rate made it easier for foreign goods to enter China in
large quantities and the Chinese handicrafts were ruined. In this respect, the
consequences of’ semi-colonialism were hardly different from those of full
colonialism. The foreign powers had been involved in more hostilities with
the Chinese government. In 1858, following a misunderstanding about the
route that the foreign representatives were to take to Peking, the British and
the French forced their way to the capital. The emperor fled to Manchuria.
When this war was ended in 1860, a fresh set of treaties opened China even
more widely to Western penetration. Opium trade was legalised and a tax
was imposed on it, eleven more ports were added to the list of authorised
trading centres, and foreigners were granted the right to travel in all parts of
China.
129
History of Modern Once these treaties had been concluded, the Western powers realised that if
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) they were to continue to enjoy their concessions the Ch’ing dynasty would
have to be made to last. In any case, after 1864, the Ch’ing court began to
display a “remarkable spirit of resurgence”. They initiated a self- strengthening
movement which entailed the adoption of western military and technological
devices. The power of the state was firmly in the hands of the Empress Dowager
Tzu-hsi, who ruled on behalf of the young Emperor Tung-chih, a minor during
eleven of his thirteen reigning years and a weakling for the remaining two
(1862-74). This period saw the introduction of modern shipping, railways,
mining and the telegraph system. Some cotton textile mills, match companies
and iron factories were also set up. Of course, most of this was done with
foreign assistance. The British minister at Peking and the inspector-general of
customs, Robert Hart were important functionaries. (The post-1860 scenario
was one in which the higher personnel of the Chinese customs service were
always composed of foreigners and the inspector-general would always have
to be a British subject). However, the efforts at modernization were largely
superficial and Western political institutions were not adopted. All these efforts
did not ultimately shore up the tottering Manchu regime.
During the last quarter of the nineteenth century the proverbial carving of the
Chinese melon began. Besides the older aggressor nations, Germany and Japan
were also involved in the race for concessions in China. It all began with
China’s loss of substantial territories to Russia after 1860, enabling the latter
to surround Manchuria and control the entire Asiatic sea coast north of Korea.
By combining diplomatic and military methods, France acquired control over
all of Indo-China (Vietnam and Cambodia) with the exception of Siam
(Thailand). Following the murder of a British explorer in China’s south-western
province of Yunan, Britain demanded sovereignty over Upper Burma from the
Chinese. It had to be conceded in 1886. The Japanese claimed suzerainty
over the Ryuku islands (in the East China Sea) in 1881. In 1887 the Portuguese,
who had interests in Macao for over 300 years, now acquired full control.
After China’s defeat in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95 its weakness was
laid bare before the whole world. The five great powers: Russia, Britain, France,
Germany and Japan responded by carving up the major part of China into
“spheres of interest” among themselves. China thus became an economic
dependency of the great powers.
9.3.2 Latin America

Latin America suffered imperialist exploitation precisely in the period during
which it became “independent”, i.e. after it had shaken off the yoke of Spanish
or Portuguese direct rule in the first two decades of the nineteenth century.
However, the geographical location of this continent, its proximity to the
United States which had recently gained its independence, made it susceptible
to U.S. dominance. Indirect rule was naturally preferred here, since the
Americans, having just thrown off the yoke of British rule, could not justify
colonization of any other area by themselves. But the exercise of the Monroe
Doctrine ensured that no other Western power could tread on what was
considered to be America’s backyard. This Doctrine, promulgated in 1823,
stated that the United States would be opposed to the creation or expansion
of any old colonial regime in Central and South America. Any attempt by a
130
European power to “extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere” Patterns of Colonial
Domination-II
would not be tolerated.
When we refer to Latin America, we are concerned with what now comprises
some twenty countries belonging to Central and South America. When these
regions got their independence, there were 9 sovereign states. By 1860 the
number had increased, through division, 17.
Latin America had a unique position in terms of the richness of its natural
resources. The range of minerals that this continent possessed was mind-
boggling. Brazil, which occupied virtually half of South America, and has
sometimes been described as a continent within a continent, produced gold,
iron, phosphates, lead, platinum, bauxite, nickel, zinc, tin, chrome, cobalt and
an entire range of radio-active minerals. Chile produced nitrates, which for a
long time in the nineteenth century helped to improve agricultural fertility in
England.
What was the nature of development in nineteenth century Latin America? In
World Civilizations Volume C (co-authored by Edward Mc Nall Burns, Philip
Lee Ralph, Robert E. Lerner and Standish Meacham) (Delhi 1991) we get a
glimpse of the major trends. As in the case of all backward colonies coming
into contact with the industrialised world in the nineteenth century, there was
technological modernization in Latin America as well. Electricity was
introduced, as also steamships on the waterways, telegraph lines were laid
and a railway network created, which linked the interior regions to the coast.
However, these railway lines only facilitated the movement of exports and
internal communication did not undergo much change.
The impact of imperialism upon agriculture was manifold. Railway
construction encroached on farm and pasture land. To finance the cost of the
railways, more taxes were levied on the farmers. As farmers took more and
more to the export market, they produced less and less food for the local
market. This made them deeply vulnerable to the fluctuations of the
international market.
At different points of time, different products from the Latin American
countries had assumed prominence in the international market. Let us take up
the products of Brazil for instance. When it was first “discovered” by the
Portuguese in 1500, its red wood, the pau brasil, which was used for dyeing,
was in great demand. A century later, from 1600-1700, Brazil provided Europe
with most of the sugar it used. The sugarcane fields, which virtually ate up all
the fertile lands, were cultivated largely by a slave labour force brought in
from Sudan, Guinea, the West coast of Africa and even Angola. Finally,
competition from the West Indies put an end to the era of sugar in Brazil. But
that did not reduce Brazil’s economic worth. Through the 18thcentury Brazil
became the chief provider of gold to the world. It is said that in 1762, when
the Portuguese capital of Lisbon was destroyed by an earthquake, Brazil
despatched one and a half tons of gold to finance the rebuilding! Gold in turn
was followed by iron, phosphates, lead, platinum and several other minerals.
However, at any one point of time, the economy of Brazil, as of several other
Latin American countries, was precariously balanced because of its extreme
dependence on the export of one or two raw materials. The market for these
exports was unstable in the extreme and sometimes a crash in international
prices would spell the ruin of an entire nation’s economy.
131
History of Modern In the case of Chile, its wheat exports were adversely affected by the sudden
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) closing of the wheat markets of California and Australia between 1858 and
1861. This resulted in financial bankruptcy for business groups within Chile.
In the case of practically all the Latin American countries, there were and still
are local economically powerful groups which were allied to the imperialist
powers. Andre Gunder Frank has provided evidence to show that in Chile,
for instance, until the 1929 depression, the Chilean economy was dominated
by “three legs of the national economic table” namely the mining exporters of
the north, the agricultural and livestock exporters of the south and the large
import firms which were usually located in the centre, in Santiago and
Valparaiso, but which operated in the whole country. They lived a life of luxury,
imitating the lifestyle of the elite in Europe. None of the three groups had the
least interest in developing indigenous industries. They were committed to
free trade and to the development of more and more trade rather than any
internal development. They dominated the economic, political and social scene
until the 1930s. Gunder Frank has termed them the “pseudo- capitalist
bourgeoisie” who replicated the same metropolis-satellite relationship within
the colony vis-a-vis the ordinary Chilean people.
Latin America has one of the worst records as far as liberal democracy is
concerned. Though there have been several revolutions, they have in most
cases only succeeded in establishing dictatorships. The kind of bloodshed
that has accompanied these revolutions is perhaps unprecedented in world
history. It is particularly ironic that these areas, under the U.S. sphere of
influence, should not have imbibed the principles of Western democracy. The
question that naturally arises is: was the United States of America opposed to
the growth of democracy in these areas for fear that it might clash with their
imperialist interests?
It is not as though the countries of Latin America were not capable of
independent economic progress. Let us take up the case of Paraguay for
instance. Situated roughly in the centre of South America, it is surrounded by
the huge land masses of Brazil on the north and Argentina to the south. Between
1819 and 1870, under the rule of three successive caudillos (tyrants), Paraguay
achieved self- sufficiency in food. Large private estates were confiscated and
rented out to small farmers. Railroad and telegraph lines were laid and a
modern steam-operated navy set up, all without the help of foreign loans.
However, the growing prosperity of Paraguay was viewed with increasing
hostility by Argentina and Brazil, which finally, along with the help of Uruguay
waged war on Paraguay, which lasted for six years (1864-1870). At the end
of the war 90 per cent of Paraguay’s adult male population had been killed.
For the next five years there was military rule, during which all the popular
institutions of Paraguay, were dismantled, foreign capital began pouring in and
large landed estates reappeared. Paraguay, in the words of Burns, Ralph,
Lerner and Meacham, “entered the twentieth century as one of the most
backward and impoverished of Latin American states.”
9.3.3 The Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire comprised of Anatolia (present-day Turkey), the Balkans
(Greece, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Moldavia, Wallachia, Albania and
132
Rumania), Egypt and Syria. It has been generally maintained that the Ottoman Patterns of Colonial
Domination-II
Empire was in a state of decline from the seventeenth century onwards. But,
as Pamuk points out, this seems to have been more of a political than an
economic decline. In any case, the diversity of the regions which constituted
the Ottoman Empire makes generalisations difficult. While there was a decline
in handicraft production, especially in the Anatolia region during the late 16th
and 17th centuries, the volume of agricultural exports to Europe from the
Balkans, Western Anatolia and Syria increased during the 18th century. After
the Napoleonic Wars, there was a sharp increase in the volume of trade with
Europe. However, even here, it was not the Empire as a whole which
participated in the expansion of European trade: it was the Balkans and Egypt
to a greater extent. In Anatolia, there was comparatively less participation.
As a result, agricultural production in this area remained largely small-peasant,
whereas in the Balkans and Egypt, powerful landlord groups were emerging,
which were carving out large estates for themselves and responding
increasingly to the agricultural demands of the European markets. In the
nineteenth century it was these landed interests which struggled with the
centralised state structure of the Ottoman bureaucracy.
The Free Trade Treaty of 1838, signed first between the Ottoman Empire and
Britain and later with other European countries, reminds us of the treaties
signed in China between 1842 and1844. It opened the Ottoman economy to
foreign trade, which, in the second quarter of the l9th century, grew
phenomenally. This resulted in an increase of agricultural production for the
world market and an almost simultaneous decline of handicraft production,
especially of textiles, because of the competition from Western goods.
However, all these trends were more pronounced in the coastal areas. Even in
the mid-l870s, only 12-15% of agricultural production catered to the export
market.
From the 1850s, the Ottoman state began borrowing heavily and under very
unfavourable terms from the European financial markets. Much of this
European money was used to buy military equipment from abroad. Some
consumer goods were also bought. The imperialist powers also brought in
capital directly for the construction of railroads, especially in the coastal areas,
from the 1850s. In 1863, the monopoly to print paper was transferred to the
foreign-owned Ottoman Bank, thereby linking the Ottoman Empire to the
gold standard system. In 1866, foreigners were allowed to buy agricultural
land in the Ottoman regions. Thus, while political modernization was
proceeding under the tanzimat between the 1830s and the 1870s, there was a
simultaneous process of economic ‘modernization’ — or incorporation of the
Ottoman Empire into the world economy — or the opening up of the Ottoman
economy to foreign trade and investment. The political process helped the
economic penetration. The Great Depression of 1873 which hit the European
financial markets had its impact on the Ottoman Empire. It brought to a halt
the exports of capital and financial lending to the Empire. At the same time,
i.e., 1873-74, there was a severe famine in Central Anatolia. The war with
Russia from 1877-78 ended in defeat and the loss of substantial areas of the
Ottoman Empire. All this resulted in a serious financial crisis, the Ottoman
Empire began defaulting on external loan payments. The volume of Ottoman
foreign trade also decreased as the production in the industrialised countries
133
History of Modern slowed down due to the Great Depression. In 1896 there was a sharp fall in
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) international wheat prices because of the entry of American wheat into the
world market. Not only were the Ottoman landlords unable to export their
produce, they were also threatened with internal competition from American
wheat imports. As export-related incomes declined, handicraft production in
the country was also affected, since there were fewer buyers for their products.
A decline in world prices also meant that the Ottoman Empire had to pay
more in terms of currency, for its external debt. More money had to be
borrowed for this repayment. This led to an internal fiscal crisis and made it
easy for European capitalism to penetrate the Ottoman economy.
By the end of the nineteenth century, Britain’s advantage as an imperialist
power was over and a period of sharp rivalry between Britain, France,
Germany, Russia and even Italy began. The Ottoman Empire was one of the
stages on which this rivalry was played out most intensely, while Britain
continued to hold the largest share of Ottoman foreign trade until World War
I, British investments in the Ottoman Empire virtually ceased after the 1870s.
When the Ottoman Empire handed out railroad concessions to the Germans
and the French, it was virtually partitioned into French and German spheres
of influence. The coming of the railways, combined with a lifting of the
economic depression in Europe, led to a second wave of expansion in foreign
trade from the mid-1890s. Since internal revenues were not enough to meet
the increasing costs of military expenditure, the Istanbul regime continued to
borrow larger and larger sums of money from the European powers. This
made it easier for the powers to gain influence over the Ottoman Empire. As
investments in the Empire increased and more and more profits were generated,
larger and larger sums were transferred from the Ottoman Empire to Europe.
By the beginning of the 20th century different parts of the Ottoman Empire
were being pulled into the spheres of influence of Manchester, Hamburg and
Marseilles. The internal links of the Ottoman Empire were becoming weaker
and weaker.
9.3.4 Iran
The fortune of Persia (as Iran was then called) and the Ottoman Empire ran
along parallel lines. In medieval times, the Ottoman and the Persian empires
were two of the most powerful Muslim empires. In the 16th century, when
European merchants appeared in the Eastern markets, the Iranian shahs like
the Ottoman sultans welcomed them because of the boost that they would
give to trade. Agreements were made between the European powers and the
regime at first on equal terms. But as the balance of military power began
changing to the advantage of the West, foreign domination ensued. The Iranian
rulers were keen to introduce European military and civilian technology into
their territories but this technology was expensive. To meet the costs, they had
to borrow from foreign banks. Gradually the Iranian government became
indebted to British and Russian banks. Foreigners were placed in charge of
customs and appointed as advisers to the Iranian Ministry of Finance.
As in the case of China, Iran escaped conquest only because British and
Russian power and mutual distrust balanced each other. This enabled the
Iranian rulers to play the one Imperialist power against the other to some
134
extent. However, as the eminent historian, Hugh Seton-Watson has put it, Patterns of Colonial
Domination-II
“The Anglo-Russian balance of power served chiefly to preserve Iran in a
condition of social and cultural stagnation”.
At the end of the nineteenth century, Western capitalism began to penetrate
Iran on a serious scale. This was not without resistance from the Iranians,
however. In 1892 the ruler, Nasiruddin Shah had to withdraw a tobacco curing
and sale monopoly that he had granted to a British company because of local
agitation against it. Despite this the volume of imports to Iran steadily grew
and caused considerable damage to the fortunes of Iranian merchants.
1) Discuss the system of semi-colonialism in China.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) In what respects was the semi-colonial rule in Latin America different from
others?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
9.4 LET US SUM UP

Did indirect rule bring about the modernization of the areas that came under
it? This issue has been greatly debated and is very controversial. Those, like
Paul Baran and Andre Gunder Frank, who strongly believe that capitalism is
inherently exploitative, argue that all forms of Colonialism were inimical to
development and modernization. In Gunder Frank’s words what happened
was the “development of underdevelopment”. This is certainly true of Latin
America, where the growth of democracy and independent capitalist
development has been greatly thwarted. It is also true of Iran to a certain
extent. Gunder Frank goes on to say that only if a nation succeeds in breaking
out of the capitalist network, could it hope to develop a strong economy. The
success of China can be understood in terms of the strength of the indigenous
communist movement, which was able to secure its independence from the
forces of world capitalism. As for the Ottoman Empire, its various component
units have come under either the socialist or capitalist spheres of influence.
One may hazard the theory that, from the point of view of the colony, semi-
colonialism was preferable to full colonialism. It seems to have left some space
for the indigenous government to try and resist some of the oppressions of the
exploiters. In the case of direct rule, this space never opened up since there
was no indigenous government. Thus the Ottoman state between 1860 and
1908 tried to raise import duties and offer some protection to its indigenous
manufacturers. In other respects the consequences of semi-colonialism were
135
History of Modern hardly different from that of full-blown colonialism. In fact, because there were
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) indigenous groups collaborating with the forces of imperialism, it was more
difficult for the people under semi-colonialism to perceive their economic
exploitation than those under direct rule. All the above-mentioned areas bore
the deep scars of imperialism well into the twentieth century — whether in the
form of ruralisation of their economies and the relatively low rate of industrial
development, or in terms of a weak democratic structure, paving the way for
the growth of fundamentalism in some form or the other.

EXERCISES
1) See Section 9.2
136
Cultural Dimensions of
UNIT 10 CULTURAL DIMENSIONS OF Imperialism
IMPERIALISM
Structure
10.0 Objectives
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Cultural Argument for Empires
10.3 Christianity and Missionary Enterprise
10.4 Education and Language: Tools of Imperial Control
10.5 Sports and Culture in Empire
10.6 Role of Drugs in Empire Building
10.7 Contemporary Notions of Cultural Dominance
10.8 Let Us Sum Up
10.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this Unit, you will be able to learn about:
 cultural dimensions of Empire;
 ideological justifications for attempts to conquer globe;
 role of Empire in fostering activities of Christian missionaries and its impact
on religions of colonies;
 role of large scale educational systems in transmitting Imperial ideology;
 intervention in colony through sports;
 role of drugs in Empire-building; and
 contemporary notions of Cultural Dominance.
10.1 INTRODUCTION
The term ‘imperialism’ has been used by historians to explain a series of
developments leading to the economic expansion of Europe. Imperialism in
this sense has been tied to a chronology of events related to ‘discovery’,
colonial conquest, exploitation, distribution and appropriation. Economic
explanations of imperialism were first advanced by English historian J. A.
Hobson in 1902 and by Lenin in 1917. Hobson saw imperialism as being an
integral part of Europe’s economic expansion. He attributed the later stages
of nineteenth-century imperialism to the inability of Europeans to purchase
what was being produced and the need for Europe’s industrialists to shift
their capital to new markets for realization of profits. Imperialism was, thus
in his view, a system of control which secured both markets and capital
investments. Colonialism facilitated this expansion by ensuring European
control, which necessarily meant subjugating indigenous populations. Like
137
History of Modern Hobson, Lenin was anxious with the ways in which economic expansion was
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) linked to imperialism and published a tract on Imperialism in 1917 in which
he also linked expansion with economic motives. He argued that the export
of capital to new markets was an effort to salvage capitalism, and linked to
protection of ‘labour aristocracy’ in the imperial nations. Although economic
explanations might account for why people like Columbus were funded to
explore and discover new sources of wealth, they do not account for the
devastating impact on cultures and societies of indigenous peoples whose
lands were conquered.
So now scholars connect imperial power to transform colonial cultures for
reasons of market. John M. MacKenzie defines imperialism as being more
than a set of economic, political and military phenomena. It was a complex
ideology, which had widespread cultural, intellectual and technical ramifications.
This view of Imperialism locates it within the Enlightenment which initiated the
transformation of economic, political and cultural life in Europe. In the wider
context of Enlightenment, imperialism became an integral part of the
development of the modern state, of science, of ideas of the ‘modern’ human
person. On the other hand, colonialism became imperialism’s outpost, the fort
and the port of imperial outreach. Whilst colonies may have started as a means
to secure ports, access to raw materials and efficient transfer of commodities
from point of origin to imperial centre, they also served other functions. Colonial
outposts were also cultural sites, which preserved an image or represented an
image of what the West or ‘civilization’ stood for. In this Unit we will explain
further cultural dimensions of imperialism.
10.2 CULTURAL ARGUMENTS FOR EMPIRES

Scientific and pseudo-scientific theories, prevalent in Europe in the nineteenth
century had a tremendous impact on the idioms of imperialism and offered
persuasive arguments in support of imperial rule. One of the ideologies, which
dominated nineteenth century thought, was racism. In the eighteenth century,
the idea was that all human beings belong to the same species but are divided
into different races. Gradually over the century this was modified to suggest
that races were distinct and ranked according to some criterion of inferiority
or superiority, defined by skin color, hair type and cranial features. Great
concern was expressed about racial miscegenation with inferior races, leading
to degeneration. The scramble for Africa and conquest of Asia and parts of
the Pacific was now premised upon a supposedly scientific understanding of
the superiority of the white race. Accordingly, people were grouped as separate
“races” along an evolutionary scale, and the conquest of peoples of color was
considered the inevitable outcome of the superiority of white men.
The evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin ‘struggle for existence’ in nature
were now applied to society. The term ‘survival of the fittest’, coined by
Herbert Spencer (considered a Social Darwinist but new scholarship considers
him utilitarian) was now applied to race and inter-racial conflict. This
understanding that the strongest and fittest should flourish and the weak should
be allowed to die later came to be known as Social Darwinism. While by no
means all Europeans adopted the attitude of racial superiority dictated by
Social Darwinists, the pseudo-scientific origins of racism were to have a bitter
138
and enduring impact around the world. Imperialist powers considered Cultural Dimensions of
Imperialism
themselves culturally superior and accepted the responsibility of civilizing
colonized peoples.
10.3 CHRISTIANITY AND MISSIONARY ENTERPRISE

It was in the sphere of religion through missionary activities that imperialist
powers tried to influence the religious beliefs of colonized peoples. Though
Catholic missionaries — Jesuits, Dominicans, and Franciscans — accompanied
the sixteenth-century expansion of Europe and had a lasting influence in Asia
and Africa, they were most successful in the Americas. In the nineteenth
century, however, the Protestant missionary movement shored up the New
Imperialism ideologically, especially in Asia and Africa. The Biblical command
“Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature” was taken
literally by Protestant men and women as they moved out from their homes,
cultures, and societies to make their own particular contributions to imperialism
through evangelism, converting other peoples to Christianity. While dedicated
to convert ‘heathen’ unbelievers of the non-European world to the saving
grace of Protestant Christianity, many missionaries engaged in medical work
and teaching, setting up hospitals and schools as bases for their evangelical
activities. The motives of missionary men and women were complex and
varied. Many European and American women simply accompanied their
husbands on missions, but others went as single women for whom the mission
was an attractive alternative to matrimony or spinsterhood at home. The
missionary life was also one of the few opportunities for adventure available
to women and offered a perfect female occupation together with an intense
experience of religious conversion or a solid background of religious training
in family, school, and church. European and American women often saw their
role as one of uplifting and enriching women in foreign lands both morally
and in a social context of working to improve their treatment by men; though
at times missionary women found themselves in societies where women had
more power than in the missionaries’ own. Some missionaries also
acknowledged the great difficulties in trying to make room for Christianity in
very dissimilar religious and cultural tradition. They also devoted much of
their time to translation work and educating themselves in the cultures of the
peoples they sought to convert. They recorded languages, local customs and
cultural traditions. For example, the British missionary James Legge, working
at China Inland Mission in the late nineteenth century, translated Chinese
classics that are still widely used today. On occasion, they intentionally
overstated, invented cultural practices and attributed them to the colonized
people in order to get congregations back home to support missionary efforts.
The very nature of missionary enterprise was such that it reinforced the goals
of the new imperialism. Missionaries provided essential information needed
for conquest. They served as decisive communication links in isolated areas
far away from colonial centres. Their mission stations were key trading points
for the transfer of European manufactured goods, as well as ideas. To the
missionaries, conquered peoples were “sinners to be saved.” By justifying
conquest of other peoples with the purpose of converting them to Christianity,
the goals of missionaries, thus, dovetailed with the political and economic
goals of Empires.
139
History of Modern To explain the point further one can refer to the cultural impact of British
colonialism in India. As the European Orientalists began to compose Indian
history and religion, since “the natives were supposed to be unreliable
interpreters of their own laws and culture, they began to try and create a
homogenized concept of Indian religion from the whole host of practices and
beliefs, which had no single name or canon, spread throughout the country.
In doing so they imposed a hierarchal structure and similar theology on a vast
congeries of religious practices and beliefs. This was done by locating the
core of Indian religiosity in certain Sanskrit texts and secondly by an implicit
(and sometimes explicit) tendency to define Indian religion in terms of
normative definition of religion based upon contemporary Western
understanding of Judaeo-Christian traditions. They even discovered a trinity
in Hinduism, supposedly acknowledged by all Hindus that included a god
most Hindus did not pray to. However, contrary to this, ‘Hindu’ religion was
largely based on oral traditions and belief in gods and goddesses found in
natural objects, such as trees and stones. However during this Orientalist
reformation of Hinduism “the oral and ‘popular’ aspects of Indian religious
tradition were ignored or decried as evidence of the degradation of
contemporary Hindu religion into superstitious practice on the grounds that
they bear little or no resemblance to “their own texts.” This prejudice
marginalized the villages and small towns in India and allowed further control
by a central power, imposing their idea of what India should be and what
religious practices were lawful to suit their Western tastes. Classical texts
were used for important administrative purposes by the British since it allowed
them to even ban certain practices simply because it was against this definition
of Indian religious traditions. Even educated Indians accepted this idea of a
singular religion and culture common to them all. The Indian intelligentsia
accepted the religious and cultural unity discovered by Western scholars and
welcomed it in their search for national identity. This newly constructed
‘Syndicated Hinduism’ allowed the British and upper class Indians to structure
and control Indian society. It politicized and amalgamated what was once a
large number of separate but related beliefs, evolving over time regionally,
into a single scripture-based national religion.
A similar change occurred in the area of painting. With the arrival of realism in
British painting, not only did the British think of Indian art as primitive, but
Indian people came to think of it that way as well. All forms of patronage for
traditional Indian painting stopped and schools, founded by the British, started
teaching oil painting and European techniques. Traditional Indian painters, lost
their patronage, changed their style to suit tastes of British rulers, in what
is known as Company Art. The superior realist art of Europe became the
benchmark for art in the early days of colonialism. In an attempt to prove
their worth, artists such as Ravi Varma took to creating Victorian realist oil
paintings of Indian figures and mythological scenes. Varma’s appropriation
of Western painting helped to show the skill that Indian artists could acquire
and also allowed him to sell work in a market that no longer had traditional
Indian patronage. It marked a compromise between the West and East. But
with the emergence of nationalism in India, this foreign-born style was no
longer considered representative and there began a search for an Indian idiom.
140
Cultural Dimensions of
10.4 EDUCATION AND LANGUAGE: TOOLS OF Imperialism
IMPERIAL IDEOLOGY
The rise of colonial power in India was accompanied by rise and growth of
western education and knowledge. Along with guns, modern technology and
railways, new modern education also came to India. Although the British
ruled with force, Indians accepted the education imparted by them. A number
of agencies, the British colonial government, Christian missionaries, Indian
social reformers and nationalist leaders all contributed to the spread of this
education in India. In 1830s there was a keen controversy within the ranks of
British officials whether to patronize “oriental knowledge” in classical and
vernacular languages or encourage western European knowledge and literature
through the medium of English language. We know that in this dispute the
supporters of western education won. Indian or indigenous learning was seen
as mythic, superstitious, superficial and false. Macaulay said that Indian medical
science “would disgrace an English farrier” and astronomy “would move
laughter in girls at an English Boarding school.”
According to Thomas R. Metcalf, in their efforts to define themselves as
superior, the British depicted themselves as laborious, advanced rational,
enlightened and masculine and Indian as weak, superstitious, feminine, irrational
and barbaric in need of education and civilization. The institutions of colonial
education were important because they provided education that qualified
Indians for government service, for legal and professional jobs. Colonial
education ensured transmission of certain cognitive and social skills from
generation to generation. Another function of colonial education was to develop
indigenous elites who could serve as intermediaries between metropolis and
local populations. Such elites were used by the colonial rulers to incorporate
local people into production of goods necessary for metropolitan markets and
they also adapted social structures to fit European concepts of work and
social relations. Education was an important source of employment to the
emerging middle classes. Gauri Viswanathan has shown how British colonial
education and its schools, through their curriculum, propagated notions of
superiority of western culture.
Colonial language practices also devalued indigenous languages. With the
expansion of British Empire, English language spread to every nook and corner
of the world and now it is in use in all parts of the world. At the same time,
colonial people were required to acculturate to give up elements of their
cultural heritage and assimilate to the colonizers’ culture. This is known as
culture colonization, which results in colonizing the minds of people. The
colonial powers believed that a colonized nation, which adopted and admired
western culture, would no longer be capable of resisting the colonizers’
occupation of territory. The educated elites adopted western values and the
colonizers were able to rule by consent rather than coercion. Colonial powers
always argued that third world countries were inferior and needed western
help and assistance in order to gain moral integrity and economic wealth.
They treated indigenous people as ‘uncivilized barbarians’ and the racist
stereotypes of colonial discourse can still be found in science and technology,
literature and mass media.
141
History of Modern Language plays a decisive role in any society and language has strong
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) relationship with society and culture. R. Phillipson (1992) views the spread of
English as a global language as repressive since it not only substituted and
displaced other languages but also imposed new mental structures on learners.
He says indigenous languages were stigmatized and that deeply affected their
use and growth. These mental structures were possibly the ideologies that
westerners used to justify their own culture and impose these ideas on others.
Linguistic imperialism or language imperialism is a concept that involves the
imposition of a dominant language to other people. The imposition was
essentially a demonstration of power and aspects of dominant culture are usually
transferred along with the language. The British colonialism spread English
across the globe. R. Phillipson defines English linguistic imperialism (Linguistic
Imperialism) as “the dominance asserted and retained by the establishment
and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between
English and other languages.”
1) Discuss the link between Christian missionaries and imperialism.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) Do you think that imperialism influenced India’s religion and customs?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
3) Explain the impact of imperialism on education of colonies.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
10.5 SPORTS AND CULTURE IN EMPIRE

Another cultural baggage of imperialism was colonial sports. Colonial sports
became a channel for the imposition of British values on colonial society.
There were traditional forms of gaming and betting that were part of pre-
colonial recreational establishments but with the coming of European powers
in the colonies, notions of recreation changed. The new concept of industrial
labour discipline drew a firm distinction between work and leisure. It was
concerned with efficiency and productivity during work hours and saw
recreation or leisure as unproductive drain on the national economy. As such,
leisure could be seen as a luxury in a society, which was beginning to view
industrial progress as the supreme symbol of civilization. In the context of
142
English public schools athleticism has been defined as an ideology, which at Cultural Dimensions of
Imperialism
the practical level comprised considerable and compulsory involvement in
organized physical activity, especially team games of cricket and football. By
partaking in such exercise, it was believed that an individual developed physical
and moral qualities, which would be of great benefit to him later. A sense of
duty towards self and group, which could include a team, school and ultimately
nation, qualities of honesty, truth and fair-play, and the ability to co-operate,
command and obey, were effectively transmitted through participation in
sports. Herbert Spencer’s Education: Intellectual, Moral and Physical,
published in 1860, exerted considerable influence in England’s public schools
because it was believed that the fittest survives in every walk of life, and
those who distinguished themselves as cricketers or footballers were worthy
of esteem and admiration. Team games, were efficiently and effectively
harnessed in the English public school system for purpose of character training
and as a means of indoctrination into a prescribed code of rules and conventions
held by the upper classes. The practical value of the games field in moral
training and the development of manly virtues exhibited by gentlemen, were
lessons readily used and sport was a pleasurable medium with the added
capacity to symbolize victory, defeat and loyal endeavour, and capable of
lending its emotional powers to worthwhile causes. It should be emphasized
that it was not only the sports themselves, but the entire Victorian ideology of
sport — its values, attitudes, assumptions, and class bias – that was an integral
part of this cultural diffusion. This ideology, including the notion of Muscular
Christianity, was a part of a broader ideological cluster that comprised a
renewed militarism, a devotion, indeed obsession, with royalty; an identification
and worship of national heroes; together with a contemporary cult of the
personality; and racial ideas associated with Social Darwinism. (or the belief
that ‘survival of the fittest’ ideal of Darwin was applicable to society and races.)
India, the cornerstone of the imperial structure in the east, provides the most
remarkable example of the fusion of style and spectacle into the institutional
life-style of the Empire where recreation and sport were elevated to become
the classic symbols of the English-man abroad. Sporting practices were part
of the cultural inheritance and the games and pastimes that were adopted
reflected the sporting characteristics of the culture prevalent in Victorian
England. However, this was not 100% imitation and aping of sporting traditions
of the Imperial country. An essential feature of colonial society was that its
membership was not truly representative of the class structure from which it
was transplanted. This provided a levelling influence within which the bounds
of tradition were strained, threatened, and often abandoned as irrelevant.
Inherited forms if found wanting, were modified suitably. Cricket came to
India initially through British clubs and was popularized by soldiers and sailors
and was first adopted by the Parsis, an educated westernized prosperous
social group in Western India. It was gradually adopted by other groups as a
part of competitive communitarian traditions and ultimately became a popular
sport.
10.6 ROLE OF DRUGS IN EMPIRE BUILDING

Psychoactive natural substances like Opium poppy (Papaver somniferum),
Cannabis (Cannabis sativa) and Cocoa (Erythroxylum) had been used for
143
History of Modern a variety of reasons in pre-modern societies. These drugs were used for
medicinal purposes as well as physical and psychological stimulation. As natural
gifts of nature or God, they were also used in religious or cultural ceremonies
and played a key role in maintenance of culture and community traditions. In
such pre-modern forms consumption was regulated, production was limited
and cultural mores checked abuse. The socio-cultural context of traditional
drug use contained within it a strategy for management of overdose and addiction
by potential users. For example, there were a variety of uses of cannabis in
the Indian context. Firstly, it was used for medicinal purposes along with other
ingredients in treatment of rheumatism, migraine, malaria and cholera. Secondly,
it was used at the time of Shivratri, Krishnashtami, Holi and Akha Teej
and other festive occasions. Thirdly, holy men used it to attain altered states of
consciousness. The culturally ingrained use patterns prevented excessive use
despite easy availability and local cultivation of such drugs. However, a
fundamental change took place between 1500-1800 in the pattern of use of
drugs as means of altering waking consciousness due to the rise of transoceanic
trade and empire-building. As there were enormous profits and revenues
involved in the marketing of psychotic resources and products, European
merchants, planters, and governments encouraged their production and
exchange on a global scale, the use of which was earlier restricted and confined
geographically. In some cases they democratized consumption of such
substances whereas earlier it was a privilege of the elite sections only.
The selection of commodities for commercial global exchange was based on
shelf-life as well as cultural biases of the European merchants. Certain
substances like kava, betal, qat and peyote failed to become commodities
but the big three, alcohol, tobacco and caffeine, which have become so
‘naturalized’ that we do not even consider them as drugs, were the deliberate
choice of the profit-driven process. Viticulture or selective cultivation of grape
vines for making wines was an old practice in Europe but use of sugar and the
Baltic grains and subsequently conversion of perishable potatoes into spirits
as cheap source of calories and intoxication made it possible to mass-produce
spirits and increased drunkenness and alcoholism in both European and Non-
European societies. Modern technology was also used for raising the potency
of drugs. The pre-modern fermented beverages had low-alcohol content and
they spoiled early but modern techniques made it possible to add heavy ethanol
punch to the alcohols. The economic and social use of wines also changed
with this. The use of tobacco also spread after its discovery by the Portuguese
in the late fifteenth century, it was already a global crop by the seventeenth
century and it spread cutting across social categories although the mode of
consumption varied with class, gender and locality. The triumph of cigarettes
in twentieth century with clever use of advertising, rapid urban social pressures
and changing gender roles marked the process of switch-over from shag-
tobacco to a more convenient mode of consumption.
Drugs were at the heart of Empires in the modern period. Sales of opium in
China, of alcohol in Africa, of tobacco in the Caribbean, of cannabis across
South Asia (along with tea in India) all provided financial resources to build
administrative structures and provided the economic impetus to new markets
and further control ever wider areas. While significant economically, drugs
144
were also central to politics of empires; Europeans drew up treaties and fought Cultural Dimensions of
Imperialism
battles in Asia in order to compete for drugs routes long before the Opium
Wars of the nineteenth century. Drug traffic also increased with global
exchanges of capital, people and ideas in the context of an uneven and
hierarchical modernity. The imperial expansion of European powers since 15th
century was based on disruption of traditional patterns of consumption and
production as well as increasing movements of narcotic substances in the global
commercial networks. We know of the role played by opium in the grand
commercial design of the British Empire. The opium trade helped in meeting
military and administrative costs of Empire and it was also associated with
‘super-profits’. Opium paid a substantial part of the cost of colonial
administration. The relationship between consciousness altering commodities
and imperialism was significant in cultural terms too. The image of the dissolute
Asian addict, or the helpless African or Australasian lost in alcohol, was a
recurring theme in the ‘Orientalist’ construction of Western superiority (i.e.,
broadly the Western depiction of oriental societies as static and undeveloped—
thereby fabricating a view of Oriental culture). Implicit in this fabrication, was
the idea that Western society was developed, rational, flexible, and superior,
this legitimated and validated the Empire; it was also at the centre of ideologies
about the ‘civilizing’ nature of imperialism as both liberals and missionaries
decided that these victims were in need of salvation.
10.7 CONTEMPORARY NOTION OF CULTURAL

DOMINANCE
New notions of cultural imperialism emerged in the 1960s. Cultural imperialism
was now increasingly defined as the economic, technological and cultural
hegemony of industrialized nations, which determines the direction of economic
and social progress, defines cultural values, and standardizes the civilization
and cultural environment throughout the world. It is argued that the whole
world is becoming a common market area in which the same kind of technical
product development, the same kind of knowledge, fashion, music and
literature, the same kind of metropolitan mass culture is manufactured, bought
and sold. Western ideologies, political beliefs, western science, western laws
and social institutions, western moral concepts, western working methods and
leisure activities, western foods, western pop idols and the western concept
of human existence have become the ideal type and determine objectives,
provide by example and establish norms for the entire world.
The transmission of culture to new generations has become increasingly
institutionalized by the modern state; it has become the responsibility of official
organizations, which conform to supranational, metropolitan standards. The
cultural heritage of every race comes more and more under the control of: 1)
The western educational system, and 2) The supremacy of western
communication. With the control of mass media, the local culture, local
knowledge is fast being supplanted by globally standardized culture and
knowledge. In every country, regardless of its ideology, the western educational
system is pursuing goals that are increasingly standardized. The developing
countries are following suit in the creation by professionals of educational
communities that are organized along similar lines and pass on similar kind of
145
History of Modern knowledge and cultural values. It is assumed that the super-culture created by
advanced technology and its values are destroying the local culture and
knowledge systems and the whole communicative, symbolic and empirical
system of causal relations on which traditional culture is based. In their place
the super-culture supplies the western mechanisms of socialization, notions of
power, and values. The super-culture has its own superior machinery for the
assessment of cultures. Just as individuals are assessed in terms of intelligence
quotients and capability scales, the nations of the world are also assessed in
terms of technocratic units of measurement. Every aspect of a culture has its
own quantitative unit of measurement: 1) Those of development: gross national
product, volume of exports, industry index. 2) Those of ‘happiness’ i.e. the
standard of living: how many material possessions each person/household has.
3) Those of ‘unhappiness’: starvation, sickness, mortality. These cultural
statistics have become indispensable to western society as they provide the
scientific basis for social and economic planning. Cultural Imperialism is, thus,
described as the cultural aspects of imperialism.
Imperialism, here, broadly refers to the formation and upholding of unequal
relationships between civilizations favoring the more powerful
civilization. Therefore, it can be defined as the practice of promoting and
imposing a culture, usually of politically dominant nations over less powerful
societies. It is the cultural hegemony of industrialized or economically leading
countries, which determine general cultural values and standardize civilizations
throughout the world. The influence of a dominant culture of an advanced
nation may result in the acculturation of a subject population, or the voluntary
embracing of the imperial/dominant culture. Acculturation was regarded as
important and defined as, ‘‘Acculturation comprehends those phenomena
which result when groups of individuals sharing different cultures come into
continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original culture
patterns of either or both groups’’. (Redfield R, Linton R, Herskovits, MJ.
Memorandum on the study of acculturation, American Anthropologist 1936;
p.149: 973–1002.)
Cultural influence may be perceived by the ‘receiving’ culture as either a
threat to its traditions or as enriching. It seems therefore helpful to distinguish
between cultural imperialism as an (active or passive) attitude of superiority,
and the position of a culture or group that seeks to complement its own
cultural production, considered partly deficient, with imported products. Some
believe that the newly globalised economy of the late 20th and early 21st century
has facilitated this process through the use of new information technology. This
kind of cultural imperialism is derived from what is called “soft power”. The theory
of electronic colonialism extends the issue to global cultural issues and the impact
of major multi-media conglomerates, ranging from Viacom, Time-Warner, Disney,
News Corp, Sony, to Google and Microsoft with the focus on the
hegemonic power of these mainly United States-based communication giants.
Cultural Imperialism often refers to the propagation of Western moral concepts,
goods, and political beliefs around the globe. The United States is currently
not the only cultural power, but today, as a global economic and political
superpower, the spread of American consumption patterns dominate the entire
world. Some people believe that the widening of American beliefs and concept
146
of universal values is positive for most nations because they are associated Cultural Dimensions of
Imperialism
with ideas of freedom, democracy, equality, and human rights. Proponents
argue that their contribution to modern ways of thinking and standards of
becoming developed make world society wealthier in cultural terms.
Others, on the contrary, consider this American cultural hegemony as a threat.
Indeed they may help less advanced countries, but these positive rewards,
often come at the cost of hurting local markets and local cultures. While
traditional cultural values are more and more eroded, critics argue, the world
is moving towards a cultural uniformity in which a common global culture
(based on imperialist culture) is becoming more evident. This cultural sameness
would predictably lead to the extinction of local cultures and make the world
less culturally rich and diverse. One of the reasons often given for opposing
any form of cultural imperialism, voluntary or otherwise, is the protection
of cultural diversity, a goal seen by some as comparable to the preservation
of ecological and biological diversity. Advocates of this view argue for a
growing emphasis on enculturation (Herskovits M J. Man and his Works:
The Science of Cultural Anthropology. p.5) which refers to the process of
socialization into and maintenance of the norms of one’s indigenous culture,
including its salient ideas, concepts, and values. Proponents of this idea argue
either that such diversity is priceless in itself, to preserve human historical
legacy and knowledge, or instrumentally precious because it makes available
more ways of solving problems and responding to catastrophes, natural or
otherwise.
1) Discuss the role of drugs in Empire-building.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) Critically evaluate the contemporary notion of cultural imperialism.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
10.8 LET US SUM UP

The colonial empires are often seen as instruments to serve the economic and
commercial interests of the Imperial countries. However, the cultural impact
of imperialism on indigenous societies of colonies was also enduring and long-
term. The way people lived, dressed, played, worshipped, and consumed
was modified under the impact of imperial ideologies and activities of colonial
state systems. Along with industrial and other tangible products, values, sports
and food habits were also imported to the colonies and this resulted in
considerable change in the cultural landscapes of the erstwhile colonies. The
147
History of Modern process of this cultural contact still continues and the new concept of cultural
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) and electronic imperialism tries to capture the essence of this acculturation.
The colonial cultural practices may have a little persuading sway for the imperial
culture and the process of cultural penetration was often contested by
indigenous people but the hegemonic nature of dominant imperial culture cannot
be denied.

EXERCISES
1) See Section 10.3
2) See Section 10.3
3) See Section 10.4
1) See Section 10.6
2) See Section 10.7
148
Two World Wars
UNIT 11 TWO WORLD WARS
Structure
11.0 Objectives
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Factors for the Wars
11.2.1 National Economics and Political Rivalry
11.2.2 International Relations and Formation of Camps
11.3 The Warring Nations in the World Wars

11.4 Wars as the Wars of Ideologies
11.4.1 Ideologically Defined Armed Camps of the Two World Wars
11.4.2 Political Spectrum of Europe at the Outbreak of the War
11.5 Beginning of the Cold War

11.6 Let Us Sum Up
11.7 Key Words
11.0 OBJECTIVES
In this Unit, you will learn about:
 changes introduced in international relations due to industrialization;
 continuities that came to be established between the two world wars as a
single, uninterrupted process; and
 the ideological factors that kept the groupings in the wars identical in both
cases.
11.1 INTRODUCTION
We have so far discussed the nature and consequences of industrial capitalism
and the consequent rise of modern politics. In the earlier Units the growth of
nation-states and the nature of imperialist rivalries have also been discussed.
We understand you are now better placed to see the two world wars as
culmination of these diverse processes. Industrialization had signalled in fact
the growth of new states that competed with each other for global domination:
and in the absence of mechanisms for peaceful resolutions of international
rivalries, armed conflicts on an almost global scale became inevitable. Since
Europe had already been divided into ideologically defined camps, the war
also assumed ideological dimensions. In the First World War ideology was
still in the background. But the Second World War definitely saw the alliance
of liberal democracy and socialism opposed to the rightist dictatorial regimes.
Interestingly the War did not fulfil the objective of either camp-annihilation of
the other. Soon after the end of armed conflict therefore began an era of Cold
War.
149
History of Modern
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) 11.2 FACTORS FOR THE WARS
The two wars were caused by a variety of factor. The beginning of the century
witnessed the division of the world into major international forces based on
distinct ideologies. These forces were well equipped with the weapons of
modern welfare. In the initial decades of the 20th century they competed with
each other for a domination of the entire world. Since their conflicts and
rivalries could not be resolved through any peaceful mechanism, they resulted
in the outbreak of the two world wars. Let us look at this aspect in some
details.
11.2.1 National Economies and Political Rivalry

The industrial revolution had introduced significant alterations in the
international balance of power. The emergence of nation-states and the growing
industrial resources had made large scale state mobilizations of both human
and material resources a new working possibility as a combat weapon. The
opening years of the nineteenth century saw the industrial-manufacturing
techniques extended beyond England to more and more states, such as Belgium
(1815-30), Sweden, France, United States and Prussia (1840-60), Norway,
Russia and Japan (1870-90). Gradually, then, the industrial development tended
to move in the direction of a conflict far larger in size than anything in the past
had actually taken place. In the following sections we shall detail these
developments further. The latecomers in the field of industrialization used new
instruments of capital markets — banks and financial institutions — new
elements of business-organizations — joint-stock companies with limited liability
and an active state policy of protectionism and promotion. The spread of
railways forged the globe into a single world economy. Although, the technology
of power still remained yoked to steam and coal, developments in electric
power-generation and chemical-synthesis and the oil industry took a course
of rapid growth in this period. The economic growth of industrial and
industrializing countries further quickened after the 1880s. New technologies
of electricity now accelerated the process of mass production. Modern
assembly lines created new products (e.g. automobiles). Though Britain
remained the dominant industrial power, however, the rapid growth of the
American and German economies began to displace England from this position
of pre-eminence from the 1880s. The growth of Japan after the Meiji
restoration (1868) and industrialization of Russia further altered the global
economic environment. The wider diffusion of industrialization resulted in fast
growing acceptability in the use of coal energy. Even in 1913, coal provided,
directly or indirectly, for about 90% of global energy output. However, from
the 1880s electric energy gradually became more important especially in the
USA. American and German firms offered stiff competition to British
manufacturers and also enjoyed technological superiority in chemical and
electrical sectors in industries. Around the middle of the 19th century, the British
economy was acting as the world’s banker supplying long-term finance,
particularly for the development of railways. The two other contenders in
Europe — the French and the German — therefore, targeted those
industrializing nations of Europe located at the periphery. After the 1890s and
especially after 1900, French and German foreign investment also became
150
more global in scope, being undertaken increasingly in the United States, Latin Two World Wars
America, Africa, Russia and China. As a direct result of these economic
developments, Europe saw the emergence of multiple centres of politico-
economic power competing with each other and also trying simultaneously to
displace Britain from its position of pre-eminence in world economic affairs.
A crisis seemed imminent as the expanding industrialization tended to globalise
the economy. In fact, the world system of capitalism was still working in the
form of competing “national economies”. The closing years of the nineteenth
century did see the crystallization of this trend. The latecomers in the field of
industrialization (such as Prussia, Russia and Japan) were staking claims beyond
the “national territories”. Economic and political rivalries now began to take
the shape of ideological groupings. The Pan-German League, founded in 1893
and representing right-wing conservative forces, wanted economic and territorial
control over Central Europe. They claimed Belgium, the French iron ore district
of Longwy-Briey, the French channel coast to the Somme and a Mediterranean
base at Toulon, along with Poland and the Baltic states. They also envisaged a
Central European federation comprising Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania,
the Netherlands, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland under
the leadership of Germany together with German, French and Belgian colonies
attached to it. In May 1915, the central federation of German industries and
other industrial and agrarian interests gave their support to these plans. It was
not incidental that Germany’s alliances during war and the treaties of Bucharest
and Brest-Litovsk (1918) fulfilled these dreams to a great extent. Hitler not
only wanted a union (Anschluss) with Austria but also aimed to get sufficient
living-space (Lebensraum) for the German ‘people’.
The Italian right-wing similarly used class-concepts of ‘proletarian’ (have-
nots) and ‘plutocratic’ (have) nations to redefine international relations and
to claim colonies for a ‘proletarian’ Italy. In Japan, similarly, the right-wing
militant nationalists (Black Dragon Society 1901), Empire Foundation Society
(1926), and Japan Production Party (1931), demanded an “equitable
distribution of world resources”. They even favoured military action to establish
“A Co-prosperity Zone” in the East under Japanese leadership.
11.2.2 International Relations and Formation of Camps

Industrialization created multiple centres of power and threw new claimants in
the race for global domination. There was, however, no mechanism to
adjudicate rival claims and resolve conflicts. The attempts made to resolve
conflicts lacked direction. The First and Second Hague Conferences (1899
and 1907) failed to achieve anything concrete on the issue of armament
reduction. The Court of Arbitration set up at Hague to deal with inter-state
conflicts also proved futile. The anticipation of a large-scale war loomed large.
The armament race and military build-ups by the European powers, in
anticipation of this war, continued at a frenzied pace. The apparent purpose of
such military build-ups — protection of(feeble) national economies — got
pubic support in good measure. The system of military alliances used by the
European powers for security purposes meant that in the eventuality of a real
war the fighting would not only involve the two sides but would bring a
number of other countries, too, in the fray. Such alliances could force a country
151
History of Modern to go to war against an ‘enemy’ with which it had no direct conflict. The
secrecy of the terms of alliances could also have disastrous consequences. In
1879, Germany and Austria-Hungary agreed to go to war if either country
was attacked by Russia. Italy joined the agreement in 1882, and it became
known as the Triple Alliance. In 1894, France and Russia agreed to mobilize
(i.e., call up troops) if any nation in the Triple Alliance mobilized forces. They
agreed to help each other if either were attacked by Germany. In 1904, alarmed
by German naval buildup, Britain ended their “splendid isolation”. It not only
settled the past differences over colonies but also signed the Entente Cordiale
(friendly agreement) with France. Although the agreement contained no pledges
of military support, the two countries began to discuss joint military plans. In
1907, Russia joined the Entente Cordiale, and it became known as the Triple
Entente. These alliances left Europe divided into two hostile camps.
The two camps fought in 1914-1918 the World War I to resolve the question
of global domination. The treaties (of Versailles, Riga, Lausanne, Locarno.
etc.) simply redrew the map of Europe. Four great empires, the Russian
Romanov, the Hohenzollern, the Habsburg, and the Ottoman faced defeat
and collapsed. Russia underwent a bloody civil war before the establishment
of Communist rule. Germany became a republic, suffering from the stigma of
defeat and burdened by Allied reparations. The victorious western democracies
gained territories. France, for instance, gained Alsace-Lorraine which was
with Germany since I871.
Britain acquired more colonial possessions, but the safety of its empire
remained perilous. In fact, the problem of global domination to resolve itself
persisted even after a war of such colossal proportion. In 1922, the British
were compelled to accept naval parity with America to abandon the Anglo-
Japanese alliance, so useful to them in protecting their Far Eastern empire.
Italy and Japan remained dissatisfied with their territorial gains. Discontent
over the severity of the Allied peace terms and squabbles over the newly
drawn frontiers contained seeds of future conflicts.
The idea of a world organization for maintaining peace in the globe was
proposed by Woodrow Wilson, the American president. But it did not generate
much hype as the treaty of Versailles, the cornerstone of this organization —
the League of Nations — was not ratified even by America. Moreover, the
defeated powers were also not invited to become members. Germany was
allowed to join the League only in 1926. Partial success was achieved in naval
disarmament in 1921 and 1930 when Britain, USA and Japan agreed to impose
restrictions on their own cruisers, destroyers and submarines. However, the
League sponsored Disarmament Conference in Geneva (1932-34) failed to
reach any agreement. Cracks began to appear in global peace in the early
1930s. The League lacked the executive powers to impose peaceful solutions.
Japanese Militarism, Italian Fascism and German Nazism became increasingly
strident in their demands.
In 1931, Japanese forces seized Manchuria, a region of China rich in natural
resources and made it a puppet state called Manchukuo. Some historians
consider this incident as the start of another war on a global scale, the World
War II. To add to an already volatile situation Italian forces invaded Abyssinia
(modern Ethiopia) and conquered it by May 1936. In Germany, Hitler started
152
in a big way a programme of military build-up — in violation of the Terms of Two World Wars
the Treaty of Versailles. In March 1936, he notified to the western powers the
existence of a German Air Force (Luftwaffe). In the same year, Germany and
Italy formed an alliance, called the Rome-Berlin Axis, which was joined in
I940 by Japan. In March1938, German army moved into Austria to achieve
union (Anschluss) with Germany. In1938, Hitler sought the control of Sudetan
land, a region of Western Czechoslovakia dominated by German speaking
people. Britain wished to preserve peace at all costs, by meeting Hitler’s
demands and following a policy of appeasement. In September 1938, British
Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French Premier Daladier agreed to
turn over the Sudeten-land to Germany and forced Czechoslovakia to accept
the agreement (which became known as the Munich Agreement). The failure
of appeasement soon became clear. Hitler violated the Munich Agreement in
March 1939 and seized the rest of Czechoslovakia. Similar treatment was
meted out to Poland later on.
A dress-rehearsal for World War II was held after the ideological divisions of
Spain resulted in a Civil War (1936-39). In Spain in 1936, a ‘popular front’ of
republicans, socialists, anarchists and syndicalists assumed power. The army
leaders and right-wing parties feared the programme of this front and rebelled
under General Franco. The situation thus became ripe for other world military
powers to show their powers. The divisions were quite apparent.
The Fascist and Nazi regimes provided military support to General Franco
while the Soviet Union helped the Republicans. The Republican forces also
received “volunteers” from many countries thought liberal democracies desisted
from a direct national participation at this time.
11.3 THE WARRING NATIONS IN THE WORLD WARS

The theatre for the First World War got located in the Balkans which was then
a region of competing nationalisms and ethnic conflicts. Briefly the drama of
the First World War unfolded in the following manner. Austria-Hungary declared
war on Serbia on 28th July, 1914. Germany declared a war on Russia on 1st
August and on France on 3rd August. Belgium was invaded by German forces
on the same day and France was invaded on 4th August. German violation of
Belgium neutrality gave the British a convenient excuse to enter the war on the
side of France and Russia. British world-wide interests made the war a global
conflict, drawing into it the dominions of Australia, Canada, New Zealand,
South Africa and the greatest British colonial possession, India, and later the
United States, because of close British links with it. Austria-Hungary attacked
Russia on 6th August and France and Britain declared war on Australia-Hungary
on 12th August. Italy, diplomatically aligned with Austria and Germany since
the Triple Alliance of 1882, declared its neutrality on 3rd August. In the following
months it was avidly pursued by France and Britain. On 23rd May 1915, the
Italian government succumbed to Allied temptations and declared war on
Austria-Hungary in pursuit of territorial expansion.
In the Second World War, division of the world into two armed camps followed
more or less same pattern as for the First World War. Only a few states such
153
History of Modern as Italy, Japan, Turkey, and Romania switched their sides either because of
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) dissatisfaction with territorial gains in the first War or due to ideological reasons.
Germany, Italy and Japan (known as the Axis Powers) were joined by Bulgaria,
Hungary, Romania, Albania, Finland and Thailand. The Allied armed camp
mainly consisted of Britain, France, Soviet Union, Belgium, Denmark, Turkey
and the United States. Other major belligerents siding with the Allies included
Argentina, Australia, Canada, Brazil, Greece, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, South
Africa, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, etc.
1) How did industrialization affect relations of powers? Answer in 100 words.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) How did the system of military alliances pave the way for World War?
Answer in about 10 sentences.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
3) Which of the following statements are correct:
a) The system of military alliances was meant for security purpose/s,
but made world more unsafe.
b) The Spanish civil war was an internal matter of that country.
c) The policy of appeasement followed by the British government has
no desirable effect.
d) Two armed camps in World War I and World War II were not
identical.
11.4 WARS AS THE WARS OF IDEOLOGIES

Modern politics, inaugurated by the revolutions of 18th and 19th centuries and
institutionalized through elections, parties and representation, also served to
divide European society and polity along ideological lines. The spectrum of
politics had created three major bands in the 19th century –left, centre (liberal
democratic) and right (counter-revolutionary). In the following sub-sections
we discuss the formation and features of the political spectrum.
11.4.1 Ideologically Defined Armed Camps of the Two

World Wars
You have seen how belligerents in both wars were almost identically grouped
in two hostile armed camps. In large measure, this grouping of territorially
demarcated states was based on basic, ingrained political proclivities of these
states. Britain, France, America, the main allies in both wars, had well-
154
established liberal democratic traditions. Germany, Austria, Italy, Japan, Two World Wars
Hungary lacked such democratic traditions. Although Japan and Italy helped
the Allies in the First World War, both left them during Inter-war period itself
and with their dictatorial, authoritarian regimes found their natural allies (the
Central Powers) during World War II. The Russian autocracy under the
Romanovs supported western democracies owing to economic compulsions
as 25% of investments from abroad came from France (1914) and Russian
banking, railway development and the Southern Russian Industrial Complex
all depended on French capital. During World War II, ideological compulsions
again compelled Communist Soviet Union to ally itself with western liberal
democracies against the danger of extreme right-wing dictatorships despite
inter-war recriminations. The Ottoman Empire supported the Central Powers
during World War I. However, a democratically reformed Turkey joined the
Allies in the Second World War.
However, what differentiated the liberal democratic world from the Central
European Empire was not the existence of elections, voting rights and
parliaments, but responsible, accountable governments. The German empire
established by Bismarck after the Franco Prussian War (1870) was a revolution
from above’ carried out by the Prussian military. The German Constitution of
1871 entrusted formal sovereignty to a Federal Council (Bundesrat) whose
members were nominated by the executives of member-states. It also
established a Reichstag or parliament of 400 deputies elected by a direct,
secret, adult male suffrage. However, there was complete lack of parliamentary
responsibility in this system as the Imperial Chancellor, appointed by the
emperor, and enjoying enormous powers, was not accountable to the
Reichstag. The German empire therefore emerged as a hybrid of Prussian
military hegemony and imperial federation, combining modern franchise with
ancient monarchical authority. The emperor retained control over the three
pillars of absolutism in the dominant Prussian state as “a military despotism
cloaked in parliamentary forms with a feudal ingredient, and at the same time
influenced by bourgeoisie, decked out by bureaucrats, and safeguarded by
the police.”
Similarly, the Habsburg monarchy of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire
were also dominated by medieval social institutions and military methods.
Although a sham constitutional government was established in Austria-
Hungary in 1861, the representative elements in parliament remained restricted
and it was dominated by nominated members from the clergy and the big
landowning classes. Universal adult male franchise was introduced in 1907
but the nature of state remained unchanged. Similarly, a representative
parliamentary government was established under the leadership of Young
Turks in 1908 and the Ottoman Empire started disintegrating. However, a
reformed democratic policy in Turkey could emerge only after the fall of
Sultan Muhammad VIin 1922.
War further forced every individual to take a stance. It posed the problem of
identity for millions of people. Internal ideological cleavages were to be avoided
to face the enemy from outside. War put the squeeze on ideological space
(hegemonic space) available within a state.
It tended to homogenize citizens, within territorially organized states, at least
in their attitudes towards war and national defence and in demonizing enemy
155
History of Modern states. The process of identity — resolution, however, was not a smooth and
uneventful process. For instance, there were more than a hundred socialist
members in German parliament, who for years had been proclaiming their
loyalty to the spirit of internationalism, but only Karl Liebkneckt voted against
war credits in 1914. George Lansbury, the pacifist leader of British Labour
Party was ousted from leadership of Party as he was opposed to re-arming of
Britain in a big way.
11.4.2 Political Spectrum of Europe at the Outbreak
of the War
The Left spectrum of this divide was mainly inspired by socialist ideology. In
1864, the International Working Men’s Association or the First International
was born. Though it collapsed in 1876 mainly as a result of unresolved internal
contradictions, it did give birth to socialist and social-democratic parties
organized mainly along national lines. In 1875 the Universal German Working
Men’s Association fused with another Marxian group to form the German
Social Democratic Party. It went on increasing its influence despite Bismarkian
ban from1878-90. Its share of popular vote increased from 3.2% in 1872 to
34.8% in 1912. Socialist Party in France was founded by Jules Guesde in
1879. There were five socialist parties in France in 1890s. The Independent
Socialist Party of Jean Jaures (1893) was more prominent. Two major socialist
groups merged in 1905 and the number of socialist deputies in the French
Chamber of Deputies increased from 52 in 1906 to 102 in 1914. In Britain,
the Fabian Society was founded to propagate socialism in 1884. Later in
1893, the Independent Labour Party was formed which wanted to achieve
socialism through parliamentary action. It increased its strength in the British
House of Commons from 2 members in 1900 to 12 in 1910. After 1880s,
similar social-democratic parties were organized in Italy, Russia, Hungary,
Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, etc. In 1889, the Second Socialist international
was organized as a loose federation of national socialist parties. It had a Radical
left wing led by Marxists and a reformist wing which wanted compromise with
the liberal democratic state and parties to improve workers’ lot within existing
institutions and social structure.
Similarly liberal democratic parties represented the centrist politics of promoting
industrial capitalism in their respective countries. The republicans in the Third
Republic of France, Whig or Liberal party in Britain, the Liberal Party and
Catholic Centre party in Germany and Catholic People’s Party in Italy and
Kadetparty in Russia exemplified politics of the centre. Right-wing politics
was typified by the French Legitimists who wanted restoration of monarchy in
France, Tory or Conservatives Britain, the Agrarian League in Germany and
German Workers Party (D.A.P. founded in 1903). The more inclined towards
extreme rightwing were certain paramilitary forces which emerged in 20th
century such the Heimwehr in Austria, Action Fran-caise in France (founded
in 1899), Italian Nationalist Association (or AN1established in 1910) and
ultranationalist Boulangism in France.
After war, liberal democracies re-established their control over the Central
European Empires, helped by reformist, compromising socialist leaders in many
cases. However, using ultra-nationalist slogans, induced by economic problems,
Fascist and right-wing dictatorships soon gave a stimulus to establish a powerful
156
right-wing armed front in countries like Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Two World Wars
Poland, Spain and Japan. These dictatorships arose especially in countries
that lacked traditions of democratic institutions. The central doctrine of these
variegated dictatorships was the supremacy of state as opposed to the liberal
democratic ideal that the state exists for the individual. Despite anti-capital
rhetoric, these states also opposed revolutionary socialism.
During the Second World War, liberal democracies of Britain, France and
USA, etc. and Communist Soviet Union allied together to wipe out right-wing
dictatorships. The outcome in 1945 left two contending armed camps (Western
democratic camp and Communist camp), antithetical to each other, reviling
each other, but both with the same end in view, that of, global domination.
11.5 BEGINNING OF THE COLD WAR

After World War II, the world was split between a Communist bloc, an anti-
Communist bloc, and a small number of neutral states. In February 1945,
Churchill (British Prime Minister), Roosevelt (American President) and Stalin,
leader of Soviet Union met at Yalta in the Crimea. It was easy for the Allies to
agree in their objective of defeating Germany and Japan. But differences of
interests, opinions and ideas surfaced when the question of future opened up.
Britain and America disliked communism and feared its spread in the devastated
countries of Europe. The display of Russian strength during the war also
alarmed them. The Allies had agreed to free elections in the East European
Countries liberated by the Red Army such as Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia,
Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Albania. But Stalin imposed communist
governments on these countries. Eastern Poland was exchanged with German
Silesia by Stalin, thus moving the Russian frontier further west. Britain
intervened in Greece and toppled a Communist government there. Germany
was initially divided into four zones. Berlin, the capital city under
Russian-controlled zone was also similarly divided. In 1948, three western
zones introduced a new currency, without consulting the eastern zone, resulting
in rail and road traffic blockade by Soviet Union for eight month during which
the British and Americans air-lifted all supplies to Berlin. The Soviet on the
one side and US, Britain and France on other side, opposed each other in
every sphere. The Eastern European countries under Soviet hegemony re-fused
to accept American aid under the Marshall Plan, for reconstruction of their
economies. The Soviet Union made the atomic bomb in 1949 and the situation
of hostility further intensified which was called the Cold War. Peace remained
elusive in this open ideological war, which periodically erupted into
confrontation between the great power blocs with impending threats of military
action or of nuclear destruction of our planet.
1) The armed camps of world wars were engaged in a war of ideologies.
Comment in about 50 words.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
157
History of Modern 2) What do you understand by the Cold War? Explain in 10 sentences.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
11.6 LET US SUM UP

In this Unit, you have seen how the industrialization of western countries threw
up multiple claimants to domination of globe. In the absence of international
mechanisms where by such claims can be resolved through arbitration and
peaceful mechanisms, armed conflict on a global scale became imperative.
We have also seen that the three-fold ideological divisions of 19th century
Europe culminated in well-defined armed camps with distinctive ideological
positions. Therefore, as we have seen belligerents in the two world wars were
almost identically arrayed. In a protracted armed conflict, starting in 1914,
with an interval of long truce democracy and socialism wiped out the Right
counter-revolutionary camp. Even after this bitter conflict, peace remained
elusive as a new era of secret, ideological hostility known as the cold war
commenced from 1945 itself between the western liberal democratic world
and the Soviet Union-led Communist bloc.
11.7 KEY WORDS

Anschluss : A German term for Union, used in the
context of Pan-German ideology of
Austria and German Union.
Appeasement : A policy of satisfying Nazi government
demands in a bid to contain its
aggressive policy.
Economies of Scale : The advantages of large-scale
production accruing to a firm
owing to the size of firm.
Lebensraum : An ideological construct of Nazis who
wanted a “living space” for the German
Race-an euphemism for their
domination.
Mobilization : A military term used for calling up
troops for fight.
National Self-determination : Right of a nationality to choose its
future.
Reparations : Payments for war-damages.
Suffrage (also called franchise) : Voting right granted by a state to its
citizens.
158
Vertical integration : An economic process whereby a firm Two World Wars
takes over sources of its raw-materials
and enterprises which buy its product.

EXERCISES
1) See Sub-sections 11.2.1 and 11.2.2
2) See Section 11.3
3) a) Correct, b) Incorrect, c) Correct, d) Incorrect,
1) Summarize Sub-section 11.4.2
2) See Section 11.5
159
History of Modern
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) UNIT 12 THE CRISIS OF CAPITALISM
Structure
12.0 Objectives
12.1 Introduction
12. 2 Capitalism and Crisis
12. 3 Crises prior to World War II
12.4 Crises in the Post-War Capitalist Economy
12.4.1 Immediate Aftermath of the War
12.4.2 The ‘Golden Years’
12. 4.3 The Crisis Years
12.5 Globalization and its Discontents and Contradictions

12.6 Let Us Sum Up
12.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this Unit, you should be able to:
 explain the link between wars and capitalism;
 analyze economic crises inherent in the capitalist system;
 describe different phases of boom and depression since World War II till
the end of the twentieth century; and
 discuss globalization policies as strategies for dealing with capitalist crises.
12.1 INTRODUCTION
In your study of the earlier Units you would have seen that capitalist
industrialization went through two major recessions in economy referred to as
the Long Depression, beginning in 1873 running through to 1879; and the
Great Depression of the decade preceding World War II, which was world
wide in its impact. The timing of the Great Depression varied across nations,
but in most countries it started in 1930 and lasted until the late 1930s or
middle 1940s. It was in terms of years longer than the first one. The first was
described as “the first truly international crisis”, followed by a gap in which
economy thrived, into the second. By then it began to be understood that
capitalism was prone to periodic crises caused by the contradictions inherent
within the system.
The crises in capitalism had both economic and political dimensions, which
are intrinsically linked. We cannot understand the meaning of the two world
wars without the background of what was happening to the economy at that
time. Nor can we fully explain the economic strategies of the period without
taking into account the intersections of politics during the twentieth century.
160
Colonialism and dispossession of the peasantry and elimination of small The Crisis of Capitalism
manufacturers had a big role in the development of capitalism. This drive for
capital and profits remained a continuing need of capitalists and nation states
alike: it ensured that political conflicts coincided with capitalist crises and
political solutions were aimed at resolving these crises. The methods to resolve
the crises were in turn aimed at preserving the capitalist-liberal political systems.
In other words, therefore, the causes of capitalist crises could have political,
financial or social dimensions, with one particular dimension assuming greater
importance at a particular political juncture.
The crisis in economy reflected in the Depression following the year 1873
became one of the factors eventually for World War I, as the dominant and
emerging imperialist powers tried to restructure the world economy and increase
their own pace of development through reasserting and increasing their areas
of control across continents. These were in fact bids for control over markets,
avenues for investment of capital and cheap procurement of raw materials
essential to their industries. The post World War world economy and polities
too were reorganized keeping in view these interests of the victors – Britain,
France, and USA too, which claimed its gains following its role as late
stakeholder. The Depression of the 1930s, along with dissatisfactions of Italy
and Germany became the crucial issues in the conflicts of World War II.
These two experiences of world wide depression in economy and the two
world wars form the historical background to understand the subsequent crises
in capitalism that emerged in the post war world, and how they were sought to
be resolved. This will be our focus in this Unit.
12.2 CAPITALISM AND CRISIS

In many ways the possibility of crisis is always present in the capitalist system
due to the contradictions inherent within capitalism. Capitalism is geared
essentially to production for profit rather than production for use; without
profit from selling a product, the capitalist would simply not produce it. On
the other hand, the other sections of society are not concerned with the individual
profits of capitalists. Their needs and aspirations may be different and multiple.
In a capitalist society, however, except during time of exceptional political
upsurge, it is the capitalists who ‘call the shots’, influencing economic and
political decisions in their favour. It is their interests that ordinarily influence
and shape political decisions, and it is they who are dominant within the political
systems even through electoral democracies.
Also, within economy each capitalist takes his own independent decision based
on his own command of resources and intelligence, his own rationale so to
say. Millions of independent decisions planned for by an individual for himself
may or may not synchronise with millions of other such decisions. The system
as a whole is, therefore, always characterized by a lack of planning which
sometimes creates imbalances and disharmony.
Also, there is always a contradiction between the use-needs and needs of
profits. And hunger and deprivation have nothing to do with availability. Markets
are filled with goods and food items, but they are available on sale and large
161
History of Modern sections of people may not have money to buy them and would go hungry in
the midst of plenty. Thus a capitalist needs to sell in order to make profit, the
people need money to buy, but capitalist in order to make maximum profit
needs to pay least as wages, which means people never have enough money
to buy and capitalist cannot sell as much as he would like to. This brings a
situation of overproduction that is products that remain unsold, or an economy
that cannot produce more because capacity to buy is not sufficient. This can
create a crisis within capitalist economy.
Similarly, the capitalists are only interested in producing what the rich can buy
or want rather than what the majority of the people need or can afford. For
example, why are thirty brands of toothbrushes or toothpastes or shampoos
needed? It can go to absurd lengths, when within one brand of shampoo there
is one for falling hair and dandruff and another for dandruff and nourishment,
and another for growth of hair and dandruff and ‘glossy’ hair, and so on! If
there are enough rich the capitalist will prefer to produce more and more
sophisticated and larger television sets rather than what the majority needs
and can afford.
Crisis can also be caused due to imbalance between technological progress in
one process and not another, where one process becomes faster and cheaper
and another remains slow and costly, or distortions of economy due to political
decisions and conflicts, war, recession, financial decisions, etc. which may
have adverse effects across the economy.
The capitalist economy because of its largely unplanned nature and
contradictions of interests and the primary drive for profit is thus strongly
prone to crises, although the immediate causes of each such crisis may vary in
details.
12.3 CRISES PRIOR TO WORLD WAR II

The major crisis for capitalism between the two world wars came in the form
of a down turn in economy that lasted almost a decade, had huge repercussions
for the economies and polity of the advanced capitalist countries, with
considerable effect across the world. It began in the US, the leading capitalist
country after World War I, lasting from 1929 till almost 1939, and even the
early 40s in some countries. The first shock was felt in the Wall Street Stock
Exchange in the US and millions of investors were wiped out. The consequences
were a drastic cut down in both consumer spending and investment, leading to
decline in industrial output deprived of markets, and finally massive
unemployment as companies laid off workers. By 1933, 13 to 15 million
Americans were out of work and nearly half of the country’s banks had
collapsed. For those employed wages fell drastically. The collapse of the
economy of the major leading nation, the country least affected by the impact
of World War I, and the highest exporter and importer of manufactured goods,
adversely affected the continental European economies. It was also the major
lending nation.
It was a combination of domestic and worldwide conditions that led to the
Great Depression. Since inter-connectedness and inter-dependence was a
feature of the capitalist world economy, the effects were bound to be felt
162
across nation states. For example, in Germany the war ravages and the war The Crisis of Capitalism
reparations had already created a difficult situation that was being met through
both reparations and economic reconstruction being financed by American
loans. The 1929 debacle in the US, therefore, had an immediate impact on
Germany. The German government responded by decreasing public
expenditure, which worsened the situation. A shrinking market, declining
productivity, mass unemployment, and business failures ensued. In 1931 the
German banks collapsed, in 1932 Germany defaulted on its reparations. Two
years later, Britain and France defaulted on their own war debts, owed to the
US. This set in motion a crisis that was as much economic and social. People
found their lives ruined, hunger and scarcity became the norm, homelessness
and crime increased.
Little scope remained for social democratic governments to manouvre.
Disgruntlement led to rise of right wing political parties. It is said that the
Depression and this popular disgruntlement was a major factor in the rise of
fascist parties across Europe, an angry and humiliated German populace that
supported aggressive political programmes. Italy equally felt that it had not
gained its due after World War I. Aggressive nationalism across Europe and
the need to refashion economy in their own favour led, again, eventually to
war as solution.
War related demand, including armaments of all kinds, supplies of all kinds,
and transport and infrastructure, by the states became one factor that once
again revived production and markets, which led to soaring profits for capitalists.
The scale can be imagined from the scale of the war –world wide in scope, in
which colonies were willy-nilly involved, and resources, both human and
material drawn upon to serve the interests of Capital and Imperialism.
Yet, war entailed its own ravages and destruction, sorrows and dislocations,
which called for reconstruction of war-devastated cities. These are crucial to
understanding the highs and lows of capitalism and its crises. Also, the matter
was more complex because not all industries had revived during the war.
The Soviet Union, with its new socialist system of economy, state ownership
of means of production, welfare as part of economic policy and State Planning,
remained free of crisis during these crucial years. Its rates of growth continued
to increase as did standards of living of the majority of its population.
Check You Progress 1
1) List some factors for creation of crisis in capitalism.
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
2) What happened just before World War-II?
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
163
History of Modern
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) 12.4 CRISES IN THE POST-WAR CAPITALIST
ECONOMY
The post-war economy is generally analyzed in the context of its two broad
phases, the ‘Golden Years’ when the major European powers tried to and
successfully overcame the debacle of the economy resulting from World War
II, lasting roughly from 1950s to the early 1970s; and the down turn and its
features from the early 1970s to 1989, marked by the collapse of the socialist
states and their economies. Since capitalist economy is a global economy, the
years of ‘high’ and ‘low’ coincided in almost all the countries of the world,
although not on the same scale and exactly the same form. The imperialist
rivalries and capitalist crises too became intertwined.
Although independent now, many of the former colonies remained tied through
aid to the imperialist countries, on terms that linked the fortunes of capitalist
economies with their own development, or non-development one might say.
They were thereby effected by the crises.
The socialist economies, which were relatively insulated from the capitalist
ebbs and flows of the markets, also experienced critical problems within their
economies, as you will see in the course of this discussion.
12.4.1 Immediate Aftermath of the War

Almost all the western economies experienced the adverse effects of the War,
except the US, which in fact found itself in a favourable position. The crisis for
capitalism in the immediate aftermath consisted in having to rebuild shattered
economies. The second element was the fierce competition and rivalry with
the socialist world. The capitalist countries had collaborated with the Soviet
Union in order to defeat fascism. With this defeat having been achieved, and
with the German economy equally shattered, the main economic contradiction,
as in the sphere of politics, was seen with the socialist alternative economic
system. Within Europe there was shift in the balance of power, with the Soviet
Union becoming a major influence over the people democracies in Eastern
Europe, which adopted socialist economic policies. These factors were crucial
in the policy actions adopted by the advanced capitalist countries to overcome
the war-created stagnation in the economy.
These policy actions were transcontinental in dimension since the idea was to
guarantee a capitalist system for as much of the world as possible, and to
ensure that the post colonial countries did not adopt socialist alternatives.
The decision to divide Germany into two separate states, the Federal Republic
of Germany (FRG) and German Democratic Republic (GDR), meant not just
a German economy weakened by the ravages of war but now two German
economies with divided assets in place of one – the first capitalist in nature
and under the influence of the US primarily but also western Europe, and the
second, socialist, aided by the Soviet Union.
The European countries ravaged by war began to have a subordinate
relationship with the US, now the only capital-surplus country. It was truly the
continuation of what has been called the ‘American century’, in terms of
not just political domination, but a political domination based on economic
164
power – characterized by itself as leadership of the capitalist world. At the The Crisis of Capitalism
end of the War the US was responsible for nearly two-thirds of the world’s
industrial production.
These arrangements and aims underlined above became the basis of the Truman
Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, through which the rebuilding of war torn
economies and ensuring of capitalism in greater part of the world was achieved.
Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was the
American initiative to aid Europe, in which the United States gave $17 billion
(approximately $160 billion in current dollar value) in economic support to
help rebuild European economies after the end of World War II.
The War had neatly divided the capitalist economies in Europe and in the US
into two separate sectors: one based solely on demands created by the
government, for example armaments and other war related and infrastructural
requirements, including requisition of grain etc., and that concerned with
production of everyday needs of consumers and other businesses. It was this
second sector that was completely deprived of resources and in stagnation
even during the war. The record of World War II in stimulating demand and
economic growth is thus mixed and not as good as is generally believed: it was
an artificial demand that ended with the war. On the whole, from 1941 to
1943, real gross private domestic investment plunged by 64 per cent; during
the four years of the war, it never rose above 55 per cent of its 1941 level.
With the end of war the first (war demand generated by govts.) was no longer
(at least in immediate future) required and the second remained stagnant due
to lack of demand and resources at peoples’ command to buy goods. Both
sectors therefore, deprived of markets, became incapable of creating profits,
and hence growth of capitalist economy. There was also a general fall in the
standards of living, causing an equally generalized disgruntlement across
classes and regions.
The first phase of recovery from 1945 to 1947 was channeled through
negotiated loans from the US disbursed through the United Nations Relief
and Rehabilitation Agency (UNRRA). GNP increased by 8% in the years
after 1946. Industrial output rose to pre-war levels. A monetary and trading
system allowing for unrestricted movement of capital and commodities within
the capitalist world was achieved, aided by the political-military alliances
between capitalist Europe and the US.
During the next phase of recovery and rebuilding, 1948-1951, the West
European countries received close to 13 billion dollars as loans from the US
sponsored recovery programme, supplemented by 1 billion dollars from the
IMF and World Bank, two international economic organizations created by
the US for this purpose and to boost controlled capitalist development. The
maximum aid was given to Britain, France, Italy, and West Germany, which
have remained consistent supporters of the US since then. These loans were
loaded with conditionalities: these countries had to ally themselves with the
Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and to submit to it a
national plan every four years, apart from making available on agreed terms a
set of funds (depending on quantum of aid given) for the organization, to be
spent in ways approved by the US. In addition they had to agree to food
imports only from the US, despite cheaper alternatives available elsewhere,
165
History of Modern and to use US shipping and insurance services for an agreed amount. Thus the
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) “free” economy created a lot of restrictions and monopolies in order to benefit
the most dominant among them.
Between 1947 and 1951 the West European countries also adopted certain
disciplinary and state interventions in the economy in the Keynesian style.
Learning from the success of Soviet economy and its planning, this meant
nationalization of key sectors like transport, banking and energy, some state
management of economy. There was real recovery and an economic boom in
the years following 1951.
12.4.2 The ‘Golden Years’
While the recovery had aimed primarily at rebuilding the economies of European
countries, there was some growth throughout the world; although the reference
to Golden years applies essentially to the growth and prosperity attained in
the western world between 1951 and early 1970s. During these decades the
developed capitalist countries accounted for three fourths of the world’s
production and almost 80% of the manufactured exports. In general, the
production of manufactures quadrupled between 50s and 70s if we take the
entire world into account, and world trade grew ten times over. Capitalism
seemed to be moving ahead, competing well with the rates of growth in the
socialist Soviet Union. Food production also grew rapidly, so much so that
there was surplus for exports and then so much that a percentage of it needed
to be ‘dumped’ at unprofitable rates.
How such production levels achieved and what were the chief characteristics
of growth during this period? First, there was the tremendous investment in
R&D and the consequent development in technology, which made possible
capital-intensive growth and thus more profits for industry. The spread of the
Ford model and the older technology, now obsolete in the developed world,
found takers in the developing world, fuelling industrialization of these
countries. Second, this period saw the restructuring of capitalism and
emergence of trans-nationals, what came to be known as multi-national
companies, based primarily in the developed capitalist world. As Hobsbawm
points out, 85% of the big 200 were based in the US, Japan, Britain and
Germany, with firms from 11 other countries making up the rest. These firms
also tended to emancipate themselves from the confines of their nation states
in so far as investment and profit making decisions were concerned. This
brings us to the third feature of this age, off-shore finance, whereby there was
even a shift of industries to areas of low cost labour. Fourth, in trade, there
logically emerged a new international division of labour between the advanced
capitalist countries providing manufactures, and the developing countries the
raw materials and agricultural produce, to provide people in western countries
with tropical fruits and vegetables all the year round, otherwise not possible
given their climate. This international division of labour was necessarily
favourable to the developed capitalist countries. Fifth, the growth in key sectors
continued to be achieved through state intervention in key areas of economy,
particularly infrastructural areas like transport and banking. Thus liberalization
of trade accompanied state role in these key areas. Nationalization of railroads,
coal, steel, played a major role in expansion of economy in West Germany,
France, England, Belgium and Italy. The Italian government in fact owned
30% of Italian industry.
166
Apart from economic growth, these advanced capitalist countries needed to The Crisis of Capitalism
create some sense of well being for their citizens and money in their hands for
buying the products of industry. This was achieved through the creation of
welfare states, to offset the growing awareness that socialist countries were
offering much more to their citizens in terms of welfare measures. The public
expenditure in the fields of health and education was meant to leave more in
the hands of citizens who may become better consumers of the range of
manufactures now being produced. Increasingly, citizens of these countries
were spending a much smaller percentage of their incomes on food and more
on other high-end gadgets and entertainment and leisure, all of which went
into creating a sense of well being and prosperity.
12.4.3 The Crisis Years

Why then did this sense of prosperity not continue into the 70s, which became
the crisis years once again for capitalism? Hobsbawm points towards the
contradictions within the capitalist system that we spoke of in the earlier sections
of this Unit. A capital-intensive industry with rapid development of technology
needed less and less inputs of labour. In fact the very features of rapid growth
made possible by more sophisticated technological developments meant that
in the scheme of profits the major use of people for industry was primarily
their role as consumers; particularly in the western countries with shifts of
production to areas of cheap labour.
But if people did not find good employment and increase in wages how could
they remain good consumers – with little money to spend? This was the central
contradiction of capitalism that was not resolved during the golden years, which
eventually contributed to the crisis in the decades after early 70s.
The crisis of these decades was reflected most starkly, therefore, in decline of
employment, and growing homelessness even in the most advanced of capitalist
countries, and the inevitable decline in production — although not of the same
proportions as in the Depression years. The oil crisis in the later part of these
decades contributed to the general crisis. The 1973 OPEC oil embargo on
the part of oil producing countries sent energy prices soaring. The years 1973-
75 and then 1981-83 were recession years. In 73-74 industrial production in
the capitalist countries of Europe and the US fell by 10 per cent in one year
and international trade by 13 per cent. At the same time, labour unrest was on
the rise, and social struggles from anti-racism to feminism, to environmentalism
and gay liberation, were also breaking out. Britain saw its first national postal
strike in 1971, followed by the successful miners’ strike of 1972. The miners
struck again in 1974 ensuring the downfall of Ted Heath’s government, which
had introduced the 1971 Industrial Relations Act precisely to curb such examples
of working class power. There were huge strikes across France and Italy in
late 60s and early 70s, involving students and youth and eventually the working
classes.
Unemployment in Western Europe rose from 1.5 per cent in the 1960s to 4.2
per cent in the 70s, in late 80s averaging 9.2 per cent. You would be aware of
some of these aspects from examples in your everyday life: even as
communications increased, the number of people working in the telecom sector
was considerably reduced, with mobile phones and internet having made much
of the labour redundant in telecom and postal departments. The rise of
167
History of Modern occupations in services did not offset this decline. In UK 400,000 people
were classed as homeless and it is estimated that in the city of New York more
than 20,000 people slept in streets or public shelters. The structural logic of
capitalism thus contributed in this stage to more loss than creation of jobs,
even as societies became more modernized. All this points to the nature of
growth that had been achieved in these countries: inequalities were stark. A
small percentage of capitalists controlled a big percentage of the nations’ wealth
in all the capitalist countries, as it is now true today even in our country. This
should be seen as part of crisis of capitalism.
The governments were constrained between their welfare measure expenditures
and investment and bailing out of industry, with expenditures rising higher than
revenues. The unplanned nature of economy, with markets as the driving forces
of economy, meant that investments and flights of these investments from
particular countries were beyond the control of national governments,
contributing to the general chaos in the capitalist world economy. The
beginnings of globalization weakened the powers of governments, in later
decades even making them subservient to capital at the cost of welfare.
The constraints of governments in following the interests of capital rather than
of popular welfare also stemmed from the logic of capitalist society. This led
to a crisis of the social democratic political systems, and the choice for right
wing solutions in these countries. The slump in the 80s was overcome through
the economic policies of neo-liberalism, in which the poor in these countries
and in the developing nations bore the cost of the survival of capitalism.
Meanwhile, although not a major theme of this Unit, it is interesting to note
that even the socialist world was by the 70s not free from crisis. The years of
rapid growth and equally rapid increase in social rights reflected in free and
almost equitable education, healthcare and leisure, and almost equal
opportunities, free crèches at workplaces, etc. had meant more equitable
distribution, but perhaps not as high a standard of living as the better off strata
of population in capitalist societies. This, coupled with huge investments of the
Soviet Union in the developing countries (on terms far less mercenary than the
capitalist world), and on its security and in the arms race, created a crisis in
socialist economies. The socialist countries were also never able to match the
capitalist propaganda that grew enormous with corporate owned media in the
west, particularly the reach of television channels. The nature of crisis in the
socialist countries was thus different, although as critical.
People had money in their hands with much of their needs taken care of by the
state or at very nominal rates, but did not find sufficient goods in the market:
sometimes not enough of a choice, sometimes in the form of shortages and
lines to buy essential items. Thus capitalist societies were loaded with goods
that a majority of its people could not afford, and socialist societies had
shortages in items people wanted to buy. Even if insulated as citizens from the
vagaries of the world market economy, the Soviet Union was participant in
world trade, particularly in the international grain market: crisis in world
capitalist economy could not have left the socialist economies untouched.
The socialist economies collapsed even as the political systems did in the Soviet
Union and in Eastern Europe, in 1991. The ‘market therapy’ and the transition
168
to capitalism here was overnight, equally a ‘shock therapy’ that found people The Crisis of Capitalism
unprepared to meet individual struggles for survival. In the following decades
poverty increased, so did crime; life expectancy, nutrition, employment and
security saw sharp decline; and there arose inequalities such as never
experienced by Soviet citizens. The economic crisis was thus accompanied
by an unprecedented social and political crisis. Socialist countries became
participants in the capitalist crisis by virtue of collapsing when capitalism itself
was in crisis. In Russia the GDP fell by 17 per cent in 1990-91, by 19 per cent
in 1991-92, and by 11 per cent in 1992-93.
But the Chinese economy grew in the very same period, as did those of East
Asia. In India the growth years were a result mainly of policies of industrialization
through planning, the public sector ownership of much of heavy industry, and
railways etc. The nationalization of banks, aid from the Soviet Union, and the
huge subsidies to the private sector through the state expenditure in
infrastructure, and the steel, coal and transport worked well for some decades
in ensuring growth as well allowing the private capitalists to profit from this.
Thereafter the rates of growth began to fall during the seventies and eighties.
This was primarily due to heavy investments in defence, in the Pakistan and
Bangladesh wars, and the push from private industrial houses now strong
enough to demand more concessions from the government.
These also became the years of structural adjustment of economies on the
part of developing countries at the behest of the international economic
organizations dominated by the US. India, like many Latin American and African
countries, chose loans from the World Bank and IMF as short-term solutions
to stagnation in economies, and in turn had to bow to the conditionalities dictated
by these institutions, which put obstacles in the path of independent economic
development and welfare of population.
Latin America was already showing the strains of the debt-ridden crisis, as
was most of Africa. For many parts of the developing world, therefore,
particularly Africa, the 1980s were years of extreme depression and crisis.
This came to a head when many of the Latin American countries could not
and eventually refused to pay the debts. This would have resulted in major
crisis for the capitalist system, except that the advanced countries decided to
write off many debts. This did not solve the problem for the developing
countries of the capitalist system, which continued to face poverty and falling
standards of nutrition for the mass of their populations, as they were still
subject to the conditionalities they had agreed to and could not change the
direction of their economic policies. The advanced countries, on their part,
continued to receive the interest amounts of over nine percent in the coming
years, leaving the developing countries crippled and still subservient to the
advanced capitalist countries.
The crisis decades, therefore, were also years of increasing disparities within
the advanced capitalist countries on the one hand (as discussed above) and
increasing disparities between the advanced capitalist countries and the
developing world as well, with the former socialist countries reduced to a
situation worse than some developing nations.
169
History of Modern
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) 12.5 GLOBALIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS AND
CONTRADICTIONS
The answer to this phase of crisis was sought by the advanced capitalist
countries in first of all intensifying their control over the economies of the
developing countries, secondly restructuring their own economies, and thirdly,
those of the developing countries.
In Britain the Thatcher government determinedly went about privatizing and
eroding public services, including railways, posts and telegraph, steel and gas,
education and health, as did Reagan in the US. Free market was combined
with strong state intervention in favour of gaining control over markets world
wide; domesticating labour in their own countries; and an increase in repressive
state power, surveillance, militarization of the police, and so on. Thatcher’s
battle with the miners in 1984-85 is amongst the most remembered episodes
of her tenure as Prime Minister. The huge auto industry workers experienced
a similar repression and defeat. Trade unions were made subservient throughout
Europe with the domestication of labour and social democratic parties across
the continent. Economy itself was restructured. For example, in the 1970s the
British economy had been 70% extractive industries and manufacturing, today
it is more than 70% services. Casualization of labour, erosion of pension,
decline of social housing, flexibility in labour relations became the norm, as
part of ‘reforms’ that the state affected as part of offensive of capital against
labour across the continent and in the US.
In addition the economies of the developing countries were prized ‘open’ for
the benefit of the advanced capitalist countries. A number of international
economic organizations formed for this purpose like the NAFTA, WTO and
GATT tried to arm twist the terms and forms of trade in favour of the advanced
capitalist countries, much easier now with the collapse of the socialist
economies.
Euphemistically, this phase came to be termed as globalization or liberalization
of economy. The governments of the developing countries were forced to shift
their priorities in keeping with the dictates of the World Bank and the IMF
rather than the welfare of their own populations. This suited also, at this stage,
the industrial capitalists in the developing countries: all loans came with
conditionalities that were termed as “reforms”.
Under these conditionalities developing countries had to do away with “trade
barriers” that protected their own economies; allow Foreign Direct Investment
(FDI) in major industries in their countries followed by FDI in retail; and a
host of changes in labour laws that would make profits easier but erode the
bargaining strength of the working classes. As a result of these reforms the
burden of taxes also fell more heavily on the people while capitalists gained
concessions; government subsidies were considerably reduced as was
government expenditure on welfare services and education and health and
public transport; and to allow subjugation in agricultural priorities to suit export
needs rather than the nutritional needs of the population, and entry of foreign
capital into banking and insurance, etc.
170
The consequence has been decline in standards of living for the majority in the The Crisis of Capitalism
developing countries; decline in manufacturing; only a slight increase in
employment in service sectors that has not managed to offset the decline in
manufacturing. It has meant that larger sections of working people are now in
the informal sector, with no security and safeguards against retrenchment. Daily
wageworkers and sweatshops of the period of early industrialization have re-
emerged in globalized economies of developing countries, with intense
exploitation. Domestic labour has increased. It has also meant a subservient
and crisis ridden agriculture, with serious debts and poverty resulting in suicides
in countries like India, and a negative impact in terms of employment and well
being for the marginalized within these societies. Gender studies show
retrenchment of women in organized sector, and the pushing of women into
the most backward sectors of employment, on unfavorable terms.
The East Asian economies have had their economic bubble burst and the new
‘market’ solutions have failed the poor. Although India too managed to evade
the latest financial crisis of early twenty-first century, only China has been able
to hold her own in the world economy through allowing the intervention of
market in some sectors of economy, but keeping the more important industrial
production and finance under control of the government and state ownership.
1) Discuss the chief characteristics of growth during the period 1950-1970.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) Explain the reasons for crisis in capitalism after 1970.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
3) Point out the contradictions of globalization.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
12.6 LET US SUM UP

In this survey of the capitalist economy you would have seen that there have
been periodic crises of a global scale. You would also have understood that
some of these crises stem from the logic of markets and profits that are inherent
171
History of Modern in the capitalist economy. We have also discussed the chief aspects of the
highs and lows of the economy in the post-war world, and how these periodic
crises were sought to be resolved.
Perhaps, your study will also make you wonder whether the well being of the
majority of the people can ever be served under capitalism, and whether a
capitalist society dominated by the interests of capital can ever evolve a political
system that favours the well being of the majority. The question it brings forth
is: Development for whom? Growth for what?

EXERCISES
1) See Section 12.2
2) See Section 12.3
3) See Section 12.5
172
Glimpse of Post-War
UNIT 13 GLIMPSE OF POST-WAR World-I
WORLD-I
Structure
13.0 Objectives
13.1 Introduction
13.2 The Changed Balance of Forces in Europe
13.2.1 The Immediate Issues and Attempts to Resolve Them
13.3 The Changed Balance of Forces in the World

13.4 The Cold War
13.5 Last Quarter of the Century and Collapse of Socialism
13.6 Let Us Sum Up
13.0 OBJECTIVES
In this Unit, you will learn about the:
 political changes after World War II, more specifically the processes of
decolonization, the Cold War and the international balance of forces;
 non-aligned world and its aspirations, its leaders and their aims;
 challenge posed by socialism; and
 issues of concern in the twentieth century.
13.1 INTRODUCTION
You have read about the changes after the World War I in your earlier Units.
In this Unit we will analyse and also to some extent describe the political
changes that took place in the Post–World War II scenario. These changes
encompassed developments that altered the international balance of forces
and brought new actors to the fore in their independent capacity, in the form
of newly liberated nations. The political changes following the War reflected
this changed balance of forces achieved by decolonization. The post-War
world also saw the acceleration of the pace of revolutions that began in the
first half of the century, with the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917, and
the emergence of new socialist states, most notable being the Chinese, the
Vietnamese and the Cuban revolutions and the heroic struggle for liberation
in Algiers against the French rule. National liberation and socialism changed
the complexion of world politics, lending new dynamism to peoples’ movements
for emancipation.
In view of the heroic role of the Soviet Union in defeating fascism and
supporting the cause of national liberation it emerged as a determining political
force in the post-War world, as did the United States, which had entered the
war on the side of the Allies. The post-War world was thus also characterized
173
History of Modern by a competition and conflict between these two countries, which, in view of
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) their very different political systems, assumed the form of antagonism between
the ideologies of socialism (represented by the Soviet Union) and capitalism
(represented by the US). This conflict involved and brought within its fold,
although not directly, the entire world, and took forms that avoided direct
confrontation or war, between them that is, even though it was sometimes
quite intense.
In this Unit we will give some space to this Cold War as well, and to the non-
aligned movement composed of countries that came to be known as the Third
World, because these greatly affected Europe. Since this is primarily a course
on European history, we will not go into the trajectories of experience of
nationhood in the new nations, emphasizing instead their influence on
developments in Europe, and of European developments on them in the period
covered.
13.2 THE CHANGED BALANCE OF FORCES IN

EUROPE
Germany, a formidable political force until then, was defeated and the Nazi
regime completely dismantled. It was divided into four zones of occupation,
pending a later settlement, and then finally into two nations the German
Democratic Republic (GDR) which adopted the socialist model of social and
political development, and the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), which
was capitalist and aligned with the western nations in its economic and political
policies.
England, which had suffered extensive bombings from the German forces was
devastated and had to depend on the US for its economic recovery. More
than that, it became impossible for England to hold on to its huge Empire
status, with result that many of its colonies one by one gained independence,
beginning with the Indian sub-continent in 1947. For France this process was
more prolonged, but it no longer enjoyed its earlier political position, both the
US and Soviet Union now able to play a more decisive role in international
relations.
The Soviet Union had suffered the major losses in the war, but derived its post
war strength from the national liberation and emergence of people’s
democracies in Eastern Europe, which were firmly aligned with it. Japan,
suffered not merely by being on the defeated side, but from the tragic and
cruel devastations from the atom bombs dropped by the US on the towns of
Nagasaki and Hiroshima, whose after effects remain till today even though
Japan is now a strong economy. Also Japan was temporarily placed under US
rule.
The US was the only country that emerged unscathed from the war, as the
battlefield was far removed from its territory. On the contrary it found its
economy stimulated by the war due to requirements of war and armaments
industries mainly, and played a major role in the reconstruction of Post-War
Europe, gaining economic and political strength even from this Post-War
role.
174
Glimpse of Post-War
13.2.1 The Immediate Issues and Attempts to Resolve Them World-I
The immediate issues before the European nations were wide in scope and
conflicting given their different interests, although the central contradiction was
that between socialism and capitalism. The political arrangements and the
economic solutions arrived at reflected this major conflict of two systems.
With fascism now defeated, the urgency was of rebuilding strong political
institutions on the foundations of either liberal-democracy as had existed in
the pre war situation in western Europe, or following the experience of the
Bolshevik revolution and the Soviet regime, along the principles of socialist
democracy. Neither alternative was easy, given the hardships and economic
crises following the war, and the re-emerging hostility to socialism on the part
of the western world once Germany had been defeated.
Also, since the earlier hierarchy of nation-states was no longer valid, new
political arrangements were made by the victorious powers. The demarcation
of territories and boundaries was influenced by the strength of either socialist
or capitalist perspectives in the specific region, i.e., by whether the western
world or the Soviet Union held sway, and also the domestic conditions within
the territories that were reorganized. Left wing resistance to fascism in the
various countries contended for power with the right wing fascist groups in all
the countries. Ethnic considerations also prevailed.
In Yugoslavia, for example, the royalists opposed the communist National
Liberation Front led by Josip Tito, but they were defeated. In Poland the
areas that had been under German occupation and those under Allied influence
found themselves in conflict. Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria
became ‘peoples democracies’ with multi-party systems, but strong communist
parties, and closely allied with the Soviet Union. With the withdrawal of all
belligerent troops from Austria the country emerged as a neutral state, along
the lines of Switzerland. Thus the question of reorganization of territories and
boundaries in Europe became linked with the question of re-establishment of
political institutions.
In every country there was also the challenge of reviving the economy and
more specifically the transition from a wartime economy to a peacetime
economy that implied choice of policies and path of development. Thus
questions of economy also became intimately linked with the nature of state
i.e., in the direction of socialism or capitalism. In this context the US, put
forward what came to be known as the ‘Marshall Plan’, which meant essentially
the transfer of more than ten billion dollars to Europe over a period of twenty
years for the reconstruction of the economies of the European countries. It
was argued that this infusion of money for the devastated economies would
help counter the growth of communist alternatives in these countries by ensuring
economic stability and a political climate in favour of capitalism and more
specifically the US as opposed to the Soviet Union.
Apart from this, the agreement for formation of North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (NATO) was signed on April 4, 1949 between the US and some
European countries, with the expressed purpose of ‘containing communism’.
The countries that came together for this alliance, which became essentially a
military alliance against the Soviet Union, were United States, Britain, France,
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, Luxemburg,
175
History of Modern Norway and Portugal. Later, Greece and West Germany also became part of
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) NATO.
13.3 THE CHANGED BALANCE OF FORCES IN THE

WORLD
Before World War II millions of people across the continents lived under
colonial rule, whose destinies and, to a great extent, the quality of life, was
determined by the imperialist nations that ruled over them. They were simply
unfree and subjects of other nations rather than citizens. After the war, between
1945 and 1980 nearly all the countries of Asia and Africa, the islands in the
western Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean became independent nations.
Naturally this process affected the ruling countries that had waged the war in
the first place.
By 1950 except for Indo-China the whole of Asia had been decolonized.
During the 50s and 60s it was the turn of Africa, the British Caribbean colonies
during the 60s, the smaller islands between 60s and 1981, also the Indian and
Pacific islands in late 60s and 70s. By 1970 the only large areas left colonized
were the settler regimes in Central and Southern Africa, and of course Vietnam,
which gained its victory in the 70s. All this did not come easy. Thousands
were imprisoned in India for instance, and the partition that accompanied
independence of India and Pakistan has been a tragedy of immense proportions.
The Japanese, French and British had to be driven out of the national territory
of China by the communist led militias, which they did by 1949. There were
long and labored national liberation movements, while years of armed struggle
were needed in Algeria, Indo-China, Malaya, Angola, Mozambique and other
places before national independence could be achieved. In the 50s Sukarno
led the national struggle in Indonesia. The protracted nature of decolonization
also becomes clear from the fact that the apartheid regime in Southern Africa
could be overthrown only in the last decade of the century, and Britain returned
Hong Kong and Portugal returned Macao to China only in 1997.
In the area now known as Middle East there emerged strong democratic
regimes, in Iran a strong communist party as well. Iraq had a secular
government. These were oil and mineral rich areas, where the independent
regimes eventually collapsed, due primarily to the engineering of their politics
by the forces of imperialism led by the US. Similar was the situation and fate
of Palestine.
The first major effect of decolonization was the sheer increase in the number
of nation-states, and of state members in the international system, which had
to be accommodated within the dialogues and negotiations of international
relations, and even if not treated equally in practice, at least to be accounted
for formally. Subjects of interest to them, such as economic development,
racial equality, and rights of indigenous people had to be incorporated. The
language of legitimacy and participation had to replace that of coercion in
international dealings.
The relationship of the new nations to countries that had earlier ruled them
was one of, both, co-operation and antagonism, co-operation being expressed
through seeking assistance and aid and antagonism through bargaining for
176
their own interests as opposed to having their wealth and economy being Glimpse of Post-War
World-I
exploited for the benefit of the nations earlier ruling them and now more
developed than they were. The associations formed by these new nations
combined the agendas of national freedom and development, expressed
through the Organisation of African Unity (O.A.U.) founded in 1963 to
pressurize the colonial powers to give up the remaining regions under their
control as to develop co-operation among themselves, and the Non-Aligned
Movement (N.A.M.) to forge a unity for better prospects in a world of
inequalities. A landmark of this assertion was the Bandung Conference, in
Indonesia, in 1955, attended by leaders of twenty-nine nations, to oppose
imperialism, racism and atomic weapons and to argue for independent
development of the countries that came to be characterized as the ‘Third World’.
At the same time they also appealed for and got both Soviet and US assistance
and campaigned with the United Nations (formed at the initiative of the
developed countries and based in the US from 1945) for their interests. Other
such associations were Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN)
and Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to take care of
their regional and specific interests in a world dominated by the western powers.
We will not go into the details of their aspirations for a middle path and their
own specific paths to socialism and democracy through co-operating with
each other. But it is important to underline here that just as the colonization
and political control over these countries had contributed to shaping the history
of the European nations that colonized them, so also the decolonization process
and the existence of the former colonies as independent nations contributed to
shaping post-War Europe. In fact it is not possible to understand the history
of Europe without placing it in the context of the world as a whole, particularly
from the sixteenth century onwards which marked the beginnings of capitalism
and world economy that linked development of the European countries with
underdevelopment of the Asian and African countries.
In the post-War world this becomes apparent from the fact that inter-imperialist
rivalries were subdued by the necessity of co-operation among themselves to
meet the common and united assertion of the newly independent nations. This
was reflected in new international initiatives and formation of international
organisations to which the new nations were admitted, but in a relationship
that allowed for the domination of the imperialist countries in important
decision-making and the steering of world affairs in their common interest.
Secondly, this was reflected also in their diplomatic and coercive moves to
isolate the Soviet Union by binding the non-socialist world into the capitalist
system hegemonised by western Europe and the US, increasingly more the
US. Most notably this was reflected in the war in Indo-China, Vietnam, the
economic blockade of Cuba, the massacres of communists in Indonesia, and
subverting the non-aligned leaderships to install leaders friendly to the west.
Wars were now no longer on the soil of Europe, but exported to other
continents. The changed balance of power in the world also forced the capitalist
west to form new international economic organisations like the World Bank
and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), not simply for aiding the ‘Third
World’ in following the capitalist path of development, but in also ensuring
that these countries remained dependent on them even if politically they were
177
History of Modern sovereign nations. We can see some of the consequences of this US and
European co-operation in their own interests in the crises that have been
erupting in west Asia, notably China, not to speak of Afghanistan (to give only
the most obvious examples). The G-8, a grouping of the richest nations has
emerged as a powerful body. The British tried to maintain their strategic political
and cultural interests through the Commonwealth. It is often said that the
formation of the six-member European Coal and Steel community in 1952
led, through very protracted and difficult steps no doubt, but eventually to a
economic cooperation, both in the face of decolonization and domination of
the US, to the European Union in 1992.
All this marked a new offensive against both independent development of the
‘Third World’ nations and the growing strength of the socialist countries, which
formed a formidable bloc.
But on the other hand the isolation of the Soviet Union was broken. The Chinese
revolution of 1949 meant both the emergence of a new socialist state and the
fact that socialism had become an international phenomenon, supportive of
national liberation and thus linked with anti-imperialism, all factors that
necessarily affected the unchallenged dominance of Western Europe.
Nationalist leaders throughout Asia and Africa, even if not communists
themselves, were influenced by socialist ideas: Nehru, Yassar Arafat, Nasser,
Tito, Nkrumah, to name just a few, and the FLN in Algeria. There were
important revolutionary victories in Vietnam, Mozambique, Cuba, Chile,
Nicaragua, all of Latin America veered towards socialist alternatives, and anti-
imperialist regimes took root in Egypt, Iraq and Iran. As one political
commentator has pointed out: ‘Socialism emerged as the central fact around
which most of the aspirations and conflicts on the global scale were shaped’.
(Aijaz Ahmad)
Within the imperialist countries, the emancipatory ideas that the 1917 revolution
had inspired, gained new grounds after the Second World War. Racism,
women’s equality, dignity of working people, minority rights, became part of
popular movements in these countries as across the world. There was spread
of all kinds of trade unions, mass organisations of women, students, theatre
people, writers and other cultural activists. The 1960s were particularly years
of anti-establishment sentiments, most notably the student protests that rocked
the regime in France, and the later anti-Vietnam protests in the US itself. The
UN as a body grew in this context to form associated bodies like UNESCO
etc. to reflect the aspirations of freedom, peace, gender equality, against racism,
for the rights of indigenous people etc., although it has remained dominated by
the more powerful nations.
1) Explain the changes in balance of power following the Second World War
in about 100 words.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
178
2) Discuss the formation of different international organizations and the Glimpse of Post-War
World-I
purpose behind this in about 100 words.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
13.4 THE COLD WAR

It is in this context that we must understand the fierce rivalry between the
Soviet Union and the US, which has been given the nomenclature of the ‘Cold
War’. It has been described as “peace time unarmed warfare” between
“superpowers”, a “diplomatic war” characterized by ideological hatred and
political distrust in which there was no armed conflict among the superpowers.
Thus war was never declared and diplomatic relations were maintained among
the countries. It is seen as a bipolar confrontation between the United States
of America and the Soviet Union that also involved allies or satellites of the
superpowers. But as we can see from the description of the changes across
the world after the war (in the section above), such a description is not only
too narrow, it is also factually not entirely correct.
The ‘Cold War’ that began soon after the war and continued till the collapse
of the Soviet Union in 1989 was, to begin with, a result of the realignment of
the political forces in Europe and the change in the balance of political forces
across the world. They wanted to go back to isolating the Soviet Union once
the war had been won, and to them the greatest enemy now was communism.
Their politics henceforth was directed not only at containing the Soviet Union,
but also destroying the possibilities of socialist alternatives wherever they
occurred. The arena was once again the world, but the battlefield shifted to
wherever national leaderships refused to fall in line with the imperialist
imperatives. Even real non-alignment was not acceptable to them. On the
other hand the Soviet Union was no longer isolated in the wake of the
successful revolutions in China, Vietnam, Cuba, Chile, the peoples democracies
in Eastern Europe, and the huge success of national liberation in Africa and
Asia, not to mention the upsurges in Latin America. All these countries received
friendly support from the Soviet Union. India’s steel plants are a good example.
Cuba would not have survived as an independent nation without Soviet support.
The Chinese revolution gained a great deal from Soviet support, until
differences arose between them in the 1970s.
Apart from the more complex factors involved, it is not factually correct to
look on this period as ‘cold’ and not characterized by heat and violence.
Again, to quote Aijaz Ahmad, “The 45 years between the end of the Second
World War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union were years of an
unremitting, ferocious, historically unprecedented civil war on the global
scale.” It is only true that “there was no shooting war between the US and the
USSR.” Close to two hundred wars were fought in the Third World for
defeating independent and socialist initiatives of the newly independent states.
Both the countries carried on intense propaganda to popularise their ideology.
The Soviet Union set up the Cominform (the Communist Information Bureau),
179
History of Modern ‘Radio Moscow’ and supported some communist parties in other countries.
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) The United States of America set up a Radio News programme called ‘Voice
of America’ and supported the anti-communist political parties and movements
in other countries. In March 1947 President Truman announced his ‘doctrine’
for opposing and ‘containing’ communism. The Marshall Plan similarly aimed
at bringing the European nations under the fold of a capitalist path of revival of
economy and tying them together through aid. Aid with conditions, became
important instruments of domination. On the other hand, in the 1960s and
1970s, anti-colonial movements in Asia and Africa were led by Communist
parties, and figures such as Ho Chi Minh and Samora Machel were heroes in
the entire world. While Soviet Russia and Communist China supported them,
the US and the capitalist countries of Europe were opposed to them.
Three areas of conflict and which became theatres of war were Korea, Vietnam
and later Afghanistan. In Korea and Vietnam the war was result of US
aggression to prevent the northern communist regions from unifying with the
southern regions to form complete nations under communist regimes. Even
after the defeat of North Korea in 1953 the US continued to deploy its troops
in South Korea. They also used aid for ensuring their domination. In Afghanistan
US interference and support to feudal warlords led to Soviet support to a
democratic regime, and it thus became an arena of serious conflict whose
repercussions are felt to this day.
The US meanwhile had also gained its eminent status due to the lead in the
possession of nuclear weapons, although the Soviet Union soon emerged as a
challenger even in this field by 1949 and an arms race, encompassing nuclear
weapons became a feature of the entire second and third half of the century.
Although this did not lead to a third world war, entire generations of people
grew up under the threat of a nuclear war.
Therefore it is in a very qualified sense that we can say that peace and stability
was maintained during the years of the Cold War, through the years of ‘détente’
or co-existence of the two ‘superpowers’ or the competing ideologies of
socialism and capitalism.
13.5 LAST QUARTER OF THE CENTURY AND

COLLAPSE OF SOCIALISM
This balance of political forces and the advance of emancipatory politics
received a setback with the crises within the socialist countries and the eventual
collapse of the socialist states in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in 1989-
90, and following that a unipolar world, the new economic order, and the
overwhelming domination of the US (“the sole Superpower”).
This reversal was a result of many factors, and can be said to begin from the
70s, coinciding with the victory in Vietnam, but also a series of counter-
revolutions beginning with Chile. Thereafter Latin America was subjected to
the most oppressive repression, through a series of coups and political
manipulations resulting in the establishment of dictatorships friendly to the US.
It was only in the last decade of the twentieth century that Latin American
countries were again able to assert themselves effectively through a series of
policy changes that challenged the US economic dominance in their lives.
180
The most important factor was the crisis within socialist economies, arising to Glimpse of Post-War
World-I
some extent from the fact that most socialist revolutions had been achieved in
countries that were backward and a much lower level of economic development
when the socialist regimes were established. They had to develop very fast to
provide benefits to their citizens that the advanced capitalist countries had
achieved. Moreover, governed by their ideology (socialism), they were
concerned with achieving the higher standards of livelihood along with equality.
This involved policies which either became unsustainable or caused hardship,
or were seen by their citizens as a loss of promise. The crises led to the collapse
of the socialist regimes. A factor also, particularly in the case of the Soviet
Union, was its investment in helping revolutionary regimes across the world in
their anti-imperialist struggles (Cuba is the most well known example) and
newly emerged nations in their independent development projects (India’s
steel industry is one example), which meant fewer resources for themselves.
The most important factor for their collapse is, however, the unsustainability
of the sheer expenditure and resources required by the socialist countries,
notably, the Soviet Union, in order to maintain ‘the balance of power’ amidst
the combined military pressure exerted by the NATO alliance, even as
differences and conflicts emerged between the Soviet Union and communist
China. The nuclear and the arms race had a direct impact on their growth
rates and development of consumer industries. Differences arose with China,
on the other hand the US adopted a policy of open door and rapprochement
with China. The collapse of the socialist regime in the Soviet Union was
followed by the collapse of these regimes in the countries of Eastern Europe,
which in turn has meant domination of the US but also greater pressure on the
national leaderships of third world nations by the US. The US now with impunity
dominates the international bodies like the Security Council and the UN,
bending them to its own purposes, and has been able to intervene in various
states to dictate their economic policies and also their political set ups. Iraq,
Afghanistan, the support to Gaza, and the numerous conflicts across the world
are a result of the unchallenged might of the imperialist countries to once again
dominate the world without actually ruling other countries.
1) What do you mean by the Cold War? What were its consequences? Explain
in about 100 words.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) Why did socialism fail? Answer in about 100 words.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
181
History of Modern
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) 13.6 LET US SUM UP
As you would have seen the post-Second World War years saw many new
developments across the world, which advanced humanity’s march forward
towards freedom and equality. It also saw the birth of popular movements on
issues of livelihood, dignity and cultural aspirations. Much of this was inspired
by the ideas and the example of the socialist experiments. The decline of
socialist regimes has had the adverse effect of strengthening imperialism, the
economic subjugation of the economies of the developing countries. It has
also had the effect of increasing, as a consequence, the inequalities among
nations and within nations. It has led to intense conflicts over the resources of
the world, which in the conditions of desperation and attempts to divert this
desperation for a better life, getting diverted into struggles over religion and
identity. The policies of divide and rule, reminiscent of the hey days of
imperialism, again characterize the uni-polar world.

EXERCISES
1) See Section 13.2
2) See Section 13.3
1) See Section 13.4
2) See Section 13.5
182
Glimpse of Post-War
UNIT 14 GLIMPSE OF POST-WAR World-II
WORLD-II
Structure
14.0 Objectives
14.1 Introduction
14.2 Demographic Changes, Migrations and Urbanization
14.3 Changes in Modern Class Societies
14.4 Changes in Work Patterns
14.5 Cities
14.6 Family
14.7 Gender and Issues of Women’s Equality
14.8 Cultural Changes
14.9 Let Us Sum Up
14.0 OBJECTIVES
After studying this Unit, you should be able to:
 explain how the post–war world was different from the earlier twentieth
century as regards society and culture, and whether all parts of the world
developed in a similar manner;
 learn the significant changes in demography and settlement patterns;
 have idea of what happened to the various social classes in the post world
war scenario;
 spell out the main technological developments and how they affected
society; and
 have an idea of the main cultural changes, including changes in family and
work patterns.
14.1 INTRODUCTION
In the previous Unit you learnt about the changes in the international scene
and the balance of political forces in the years following World War II,
particularly the conflict between the socialist and the capitalist world, the
collapse of the Soviet Union towards the end of the century, and the process
of decolonization and the emergence of the non-aligned movement.
In this Unit we will focus on the social and cultural developments during the
same period. You will see that the number of technological inventions was
much less compared to the late nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century,
but their widespread impact led to many transformations in society, not simply
in Europe but across the world. Many more millions found their lives changed.
183
History of Modern The impact of western culture was now greater across the world. Much changed
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) in the lives of people in the second half of the twentieth century, but it was still
the world created by capitalist industrialization.
The society in Europe came to be called the post-industrial society, which
impacted on how the different social classes related to each other. But again
this applied more to Europe than to Asia, Africa and Latin America, where the
process of industrialization was much still incomplete. The pace of change
was equally rapid across the world, but levels of development differed. The
reason for this, as you would have gauged from the earlier Unit, was unequal
development and the neo-colonialism that replaced colonialism. The non-
European societies still retained many of their earlier features, particularly with
regard to cultural practices and social customs.
As in the previous Unit, here too, even as we focus on Europe, we will continue
to compare developments with the rest of the world. Discussion will be on
trends, the direction and content of changes rather than details.
14.2 DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES, MIGRATIONS AND

URBANIZATION
Despite 187 million deaths during the century due to various causes, mainly
the world wars, by 1990s the world contained almost three times as many
people as before the outbreak of World War I. It is estimated that the world
population was around five to six billion. Of this, by the end of the century,
only about 1/6 lived in the western world, despite much better medical facilities.
You may wonder why.
The reasons are many. In the non-western world it was only in the twentieth
century that better medical facilities were making their impact felt. In the
context of societies still dominated by agriculture more children meant more
help in sustenance and security for future for the family. Unlike planners,
people did not look on their children as just so many mouths to feed. There
have been high growth rates of population in the non-western world as a
whole, and decline in the rate in the western world. However, sex ratios have
been disturbed in this part of the world due to son preferences, for example in
India and China.
In Europe, effected by the millions of deaths, family lives were disrupted, the
sex ratios were affected due to the millions killed in war, late marriages became
the norm and there was an ageing of the population. In Soviet Union particularly,
whose loss of lives was in millions during World War II, the ratio of men to
women was 1:4.
There were also changes in patterns of migration: whereas in the earlier part
of the century most of the population shifts were from Europe, as you would
have learnt in your earlier Units, in the latter half there has been a migration
to the western countries. But unlike earlier centuries it is not the poor that
can migrate to these countries, which encouraged only skilled professional
middle classes: only those in medicines, science in general, information
technology, etc.
Capitalist industrialization has everywhere led to urbanization and tremendous
growth of cities, but developing countries also saw the increase in size of what
184
were small towns. About 50% of the world’s population lives in towns. The Glimpse of Post-War
World-II
cities in the US and Europe are of course very large, but even the developing
world now has among the largest cities: Kolkota, Delhi, Cairo, Shanghai,
Nairobi, Seoul, Bangkok, etc.
In general, the pace of urbanization has, however, not been the same
everywhere, if we look at occupational structures. For example, while there
is a decline in population engaged in agriculture in the US and Europe where
agriculture had become mechanized and peasantry has almost disappeared,
also in the latter half of the century in Latin America, in Asia and Africa
peasantry still forms a major chunk of the population. In terms of numbers
employed also the highest are still in the agricultural sector. Japan is an
exception. There is a lot of internal migration within these societies from
villages to towns in search of better employment opportunities because of the
adverse ratio between population and land in these continents and the
agricultural distress in some of the countries. If we look at the estimates for
1970s we see that more than 80% of the people in Europe (excluding Russia)
lived in urban areas, and in UK and the US more than 95% of the employed
population was in services and manufactures; in Japan about 80%.
14.3 CHANGES IN MODERN CLASS SOCIETIES

You would have learnt earlier how modern social classes came into being with
capitalist industrialization: the bourgeoisie and the working classes are a
consequence of the development of capitalism. The landed aristocracy and
the peasantry, which had existed prior to industrialization, were also transformed
within the capitalist societies. They became linked with the capitalist economy,
which changed their character. Again, this was a change that did not take
place uniformly and at the same pace throughout the world, for the simple
reason that capitalist development was a protracted and uneven development,
with its own specific features in different parts of the world.
In most of the western world it is the industrial and financial bourgeoisie that
has come to dominate the economy, while the bourgeoisie in general occupies
the highest positions in bureaucracy and professions. This has become much
more pronounced in the second half of the twentieth century. In fact even in
the developing countries this has now become the norm, although in many
ways the landed classes continue to enjoy a clout in these countries. They are,
however, also part of the capitalist economy. In the US there are very big
farmers, though very small in numbers who are influential enough to force
the government to subsidize agriculture, but they are capitalist farmers.
Because of large-scale mechanization the numbers employed in agriculture
are miniscule, but production is high. China of course had destroyed
landlordism with its revolution in 1949.
As discussed above, peasantry has almost disappeared in the western world,
and in Japan and South East Asia, the structure of whose economies have
undergone rapid industrialization in the second half of the twentieth century.
Peasantries constitute a major chunk of population only in Africa and Asia,
including China which has also industrialized rapidly in recent decades, and
only parts of Middle East. Landlessness is also increasing in these countries
185
History of Modern due to corporate takeover of agricultural land, and policies promoting export
crops at the cost of food crops have led to distress and thousands of suicides
in the case of India. In Latin America there is some reversal of these adverse
policies now, but in the seventies and eighties the peasantries there too were
pushed to the corner. China was one country that combined industrialization
with protecting the interests of its peasants, among whom there was
tremendous increase in literacy and standards of living. The last decade of the
twentieth century saw in China too the introduction of market reforms which
has led to peasant discontent and poverty in many pockets of China. The
Soviet Union had a high peasant population, literate and fairly well off, until
the collapse of the Union, which has resulted in decline in living standards in
Russia but more in the Central Asian republics now separate independent
countries.
There was an expansion in numbers of the bourgeoisie all over the world after
1945, those we call the middle classes, also differentiated among them. On
the one hand, are those who gained the maximum in terms of wealth and role
in politics and society, due to the growth of multinationals and expansion of
economy after World War II, specifically resulting from the rebuilding of
shattered economies by capital generated privately. These constituted the
owners of factories and service enterprises, bankers, owners of mines, managers
and executives within these enterprises growing in size as the century came to
an end. Among these were also members of the bureaucracy and professionals
in info technology, medicine, engineering, etc. part of the parallel growth in the
service sector.
There were also those at the lower scale in these enterprises and in the services,
who could be called “the lower middle class” whose lifestyles were very
different from that of the upper middle class, and who suffered all the insecurities
of a market society, particularly in times of downward trends in economy.
Their aspirations were, however, closer to upper strata of the middle classes
rather than any solidarity with the working classes.
This has led some social scientists to say that the working class is shrinking
and that we, therefore, today have what is a post-industrial society, with
gradations of middle classes. This is only partially correct, firstly because it
applies to a much smaller part of the world, in numerical terms that is. Secondly,
many of these better salaried people have gained in salaries, but they are the
workers of the computer age, being subordinated to the same management
policies from their employers as the working class is.
Former socialist countries like the Soviet Union and China saw the elimination
of the bourgeoisie as a class with the abolition of private property in the
means of production. The industrial enterprises were in these countries owned
by the state, and most services were provided by the state. With less
differentiation in salaries between different gradations of work considered
middle class occupations, and between those and the working classes, and
with the state providing the welfare services free of cost (like education and
health care for example), the great inequalities and differences in lifestyles
and standards did not exist in the way they did in the capitalist world. But they
re-emerged with the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union and Eastern
Europe in late 1980s, and the emergence of private ownership of enterprises
186
in these countries, although the scale is smaller in comparison with Western Glimpse of Post-War
World-II
Europe and the US.
In the former colonies, the decolonization process and efforts at independent
industrialization saw the emergence of a strong bourgeoisie, particularly in
India, and a growing professional middle class, but with a political leadership
that was more varied and differentiated due mainly to the mass character of
the liberation movements. As industrialists the bourgeoisie became the dominant
social class in these societies, and after transformations in agriculture a
significant rural bourgeoisie also emerged. This is especially so in the case of
India, after the Green revolution, in the 1960s and 70s, that included
mechanization and increasing consolidation and sales of land. They were also
the chief beneficiaries of the growth of the administrative structures, education,
managerial jobs linked with industrialization and management in the post
independence years, and finally since the late 80s the growth of the services
sector, especially those linked with information technology, communication
and the computer revolution in the developing countries. The greater forward
push entailing greater incomes from the new sectors of economy, however,
took place only from the 1990s.
The formation of the working class, dependent on wage labour, is linked
directly with the growth of capitalist industry, and it is generally thought that
this is the kind of worker who has predominated from the nineteenth century
onwards. In actual fact, even in Europe till well into the twentieth century the
working class was quite differentiated and stratified, not all the countries had
developed at the same time and at the same pace in all the regions of Europe.
The nature of skilled workers was transformed, from those with hand skills,
like carpentry, shoemaking, the printers trade or even in baking and tailoring,
etc.to those associated with metal working and electrical industries, and later
electronics. Basically the trades themselves were transformed with greater
technological advance, so that, especially in the western world, haircuts,
tailoring, domestic work, masonry and construction work involved only the
privileged as consumers from the second half of the twentieth century. This
meant they became a minority within the working class, though well paid as
compared to their counterparts in developing countries.
In the latter part of the twentieth century with globalization and neo-liberal
policies, when manufacturing shifted to areas of cheap labour across the world,
in the western countries the big manufacturing enterprises actually declined,
leading to a fall in the number of the working class of the factory worker
variety. Also there emerged a great difference in the social status, social life,
standards of living, housing areas and the political outlook of the well-off
workers who had gained from years of welfare policies and those that now
constituted the “underclass”. In England this is apparent in the shift of allegiance
from Labour Party to support for Margaret Thatcher and her right wing policies.
In the developing countries, however, the working class working in factories
has grown numerically, especially in those countries where multinational
countries had invested in setting up factories, or in countries like China and
India which have their own strong industrial base. Yet, even here, in comparison
with the peasantry it is much smaller. China has a much larger working class
187
History of Modern in comparison with India. In the socialist countries in Europe, the working
class had a significant position, not merely in terms of numbers but in the
political system as well, which has been lost with the collapse of the socialist
state.
Moreover, in the developing countries, as a whole, skilled craftsmen, domestic
workers, tailors, laundrymen, print workers, masons and construction workers,
post and telegraph workers, railway men in a variety of jobs, miners, and
skilled and unskilled factory workers still co-exist equally. In fact informal
workers now predominate in terms of numbers. There is a huge gap in wages
and standard of living between those who hold ‘permanent’ jobs, and those
on contract labour or daily wages, between skilled and unskilled workers.
Medical leave, maternity leave, housing, minimum wages, etc. are all things to
fight for, and not universal at all.
Women entered into a big way in the labour market in the post war period, in
a variety of jobs, even those not earlier open to them. While most countries
recognize equal rights for women in the workplace, in reality, except in public
sector services, they have not received equal wages. This is true even of the
most advanced countries, as well as in the developing world, Asia, Africa,
Latin America. In India they are equal participants as agricultural labour, a
greater number as teachers and nurses, and in domestic jobs.
14.4 CHANGES IN WORK PATTERNS

In our earlier Units you have read something about how capitalist
industrialization affected work patterns: fixed hours of work, discipline and
rhythms linked with machinery and so on. In the latter part of the century,
another set of changes occurred with regard to work patterns, again not all of
a sudden and not everywhere. You would by now be familiar with terms such
as “work from home”, “flexi-time”, “free-lance assignments”, etc. These were
initiated when some of the big firms in the western countries realized that in the
age of computers it is possible to work from home, and quite easy for the
employers to monitor and supervise this work through all kinds of software,
without having to spend on office infrastructure and maintenance and facilities
and having to provide for transport allowances. Not all, but many jobs could
be got done on these terms. These were, moreover, said to be benefitting
employees, but in fact meant that employees were never really off the job as
sometimes fulfilling of targets amounted to more than an eight hour day and
no canteen facilities at home; women, especially, needed to be “on duty” at
both home and office during and after the traditional working hours. The
double burden continued without clearly demarcated time. Moreover, the
concept of “leave” was completely diluted because the employee does not
work in an office; and most likely no housing allowances and, fatally, no
possibilities of trade unions or shared solidarities among employees.
Consequences of all this, as you would guess, would be very negative for the
employees. It is the same in the developing countries today, in the BPOs and
Call Centers that have become common in the metro cities. These workers,
constituting what has come to be known as the cybertariat, are in many ways
much weaker in relation to their employers with regard to working terms
than the working classes in early twentieth century, despite better payments
and working in air conditioned offices.
188
Another set of changes in the work patterns came from what is called out- Glimpse of Post-War
World-II
sourcing. This again was a phenomenon of the last two decades of the twentieth
century, linked with globalization and the emergence of trans-national companies
whose spheres of economic activities, as you read earlier, cut across national
boundaries. They transferred some of their operations to the developing
countries, where wages have been much lower. The consequence of this was
shrinkage in employment for the workers in the developed countries and
increase in the countries where the out sourced operations took place, but on
very unfavourable terms for the workers, including low wages and safety
hazards.
Another phenomenon has been the return to the sweatshop pattern of early
capitalism with contract jobs to small enterprises, often piece payments for
work done at home. This remains the most exploited section of workers in the
developing countries.
1) Discuss in brief the changes that the working class faced in the post war
world.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) Highlight the visible changes in demography, class society.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
14.5 CITIES
In Europe the gap in standards of living between cities and rural areas closed
considerably in the years after the War, particularly during the late twentieth
century, with almost all amenities being available even in rural areas. Yet cities
remained the financial centres from which both economy, governance and
politics is controlled. Wealth in general, media, stock exchanges were and
continue to be concentrated in cities, as are multinational companies and their
offices, banking and financial capital and cultural institutions. In developing
countries, the gap between cities and rural areas is much wider, even as mobile
phones and TVs have penetrated deep into the rural areas; and malls and
markets, and construction industry and even educational institutions have created
investment in smaller towns.
Within cities too the big gap between how the rich and the poor have lived,
increased in the post war years and more so into the twenty first century. The
living spaces became clearly demarcated, as did the availability of facilities
and amenities. Dispossession of the poor and taking over of land within city
precincts was a feature of the developed world now being replicated in the
189
History of Modern developing world: in fact in the capitalist economy this is precisely what
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) development has meant for different sections of society. The working
population, even as its services continue to be used, continued to be pushed
further and further out of the main areas of the cities which saw growth of
infrastructure in the form of multi-storied apartments, big, wide roads,
educational institutions, hospitals, shopping malls, superstores and everything
else that makes good business sense. The landscapes, the forms of transport
and forms of leisure too changed.
14.6 FAMILY
Significant changes in both nuclear and joint families were result of capitalist
industrialization and expansion of education, but the post war years saw
women, who had come out of their homes in a big way to man jobs during the
war, determined to retain their roles in economy and society. This naturally
had its impact on family life. The family was, of course, no longer the unit of
production, except in the agricultural sector, which as we have discussed
above, showed a decline in terms of numbers involved in the European
countries and in the US. It continued, however, as a unit in terms of
consumption.
It became the norm that people within the same family now derived their
income from separate sources. The man’s wage as “family wage” i,e., a whole
family to survive on it, and women’s work ideally as home and nurturing of
children was seriously questioned and no longer possible in advanced countries.
A co-relation between double incomes and gender parity was recognized and
aspired for in middle class educated families. Many jobs became women
dominated jobs: in shops and offices, as nurses and teachers. Many women
became journalists and photographers, doctors and engineers. Many became
professional sportspersons, also participating in tournaments like the
Wimbledon and the US Open. In the Soviet Union a large percentage were in
the central parliament, and in scientific establishments.
The nuclear family was in crisis in the late twentieth century. In the developed
countries the older children lived separately, older parents too lived separately;
divorces increased, family became more fragile with changing norms and the
number of single, women-headed households also increased. In the developing
countries families are stronger, with children often living with their parents
until their marriages, often even after that. Parents are still by and large taken
care of by family members, although in the metros lives are being changed in
this respect. In smaller towns and rural areas families are still largely joint,
which has its advantages in terms of support, but also a lack of freedom being
now increasingly felt by the youth that no more wants to abide by the old
customs and norms and would like to take its own independent decisions in
life.
14.7 GENDER AND ISSUES OF WOMEN’S EQUALITY

Feminist movements tended to focus on individual freedom. The labour and
socialist movements, on the other hand, called for the transformation of the
whole society, including the role and position of women. Women did form a
190
good percentage of union members and in socialist organizations, although Glimpse of Post-War
World-II
very few could assume leadership roles. Even within these women had to fight
for equality. Rosa Luxemburg and Beatrice Webb were two well-known
socialist leaders.
In general, however, new social roles and participation in the job market
created new aspirations and expectations among women; and suffragette
movements became an important political expression of their assertions for
equality. Although the demand for vote was mainly a middle class demand,
incorporated within the women’s movements, primarily in Britain and the
USA, the socialist movements though not focused on it were staunch
supporters of vote for women. As matter of course, the Parliaments in the
socialist countries had good percentages of elected women. There were a
number of important and influential women writers across the world who
made a mark in the field of literature.
In the Indian sub continent and in China, questions of women’s education,
and opposition to backward social practices were part and parcel of the national
liberation struggles. Women won their vote as part of independence in India,
Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and as part of the successful revolution in China in
1949. By 1990 in sixteen states across the world women were or had been
heads of government. China, Soviet Union and Eastern Europe can be said to
have provided 100% employment and education for women. This can be
linked with their socialist organization of society and economy. The numbers
of women in the workforce also dramatically increased in the Asian, African
and Latin American countries in general.
Yet, we cannot say that women’s equality has been achieved in any country of
the world. Globalization and the neo-liberal economic policies being pursued
across the world, and the collapse of socialist economies have adversely
affected the majority of people, especially the working people and the poor in
all societies. It has been shown in various studies that the impact on women
has been more severe. In western societies women retain the social gains
made by them through their movements and the general democratization of
these societies, but in the former socialist countries where they gained most,
they have now lost out on many of their gains. Loss of free health care, equal
and free education and free public services like crèches have hurt them most,
and made them, once again, more vulnerable to the inequalities within a
patriarchal family. Unemployment and life expectancy figures are adverse for
women in relation to men. In developing countries women are being pushed
into the informal sector, with no protection of their rights as workers, which
also makes them socially more vulnerable. Female foeticide, dowry deaths,
rapes and domestic violence against women shows increase since the last
decades of the twentieth century, linked through many threads with the
desperation caused by neo-liberal policies and the refusal in these societies to
allow women equal share in family wealth and social and economic
opportunities.
14.8 CULTURAL CHANGES

There were few technological inventions in the second half of the twentieth
century, but the sheer scale of their penetration and widespread use in various
191
History of Modern forms transformed daily life across the world, in the western world first and
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) then increasingly across the world in the last two decades of the twentieth
century, though not affecting here the entire populations in the same way and
to the same degree. Science and technology affected both education and
entertainment, apart from the use of electronic gadgets in homes of the
privileged. We ourselves can see the increase in use of personal cars in cities,
of air travel, and the progress in more advanced computers, TVs, mobile
phones, facilities of STD, and from transistors through tape recorders to CDs,
internet, not to forget laser treatments and organ transplants. We have seen
the gains of science and technology being used for both destructive and
beneficent purposes, for making lives easier and leading to increasing disparities
due to unequal access. Folk music and folk arts have also got transformed the
world over after this huge advance in technological communication, although
they retain their cultural milieu in expression.
In art and literature the second half of the century saw movements linked with
avant-garde modernism and socialist realism followed by post modernism.
They are reflected in particularly creative and progressive trends within arts
and literature in post colonial societies. You would have heard the names of
Pablo Neruda, Gabriel Marquesz, Lu Hsun, Chinua Achebe, and in India about
the Indian Peoples Theatre Association and Progressive Writers Association.
Cinema has been an important source of entertainment, education and
entertainment, and many countries have big industries. Eastern Europe produced
some of the world’s best cinema in the post world war years, and into the late
twentieth century and early twenty-first century the same could be said for
Iran, Middle East and Chinese cinema. India has the second largest movie
industry after Hollywood, and has had tremendous influence on social life.
The changing patterns of movies and film songs here would give you some
idea of changing society as well as tastes. Movies respond both to changing
societies and politics.
There grew new areas of research in social sciences as well linked with new
concerns: challenge to euro-centric perspectives of looking at world history,
women’s studies, archaeological developments that brought to light the
material life and civilizations of people in various continents. In terms of
languages there has been a homogenization, within countries and across
countries. Within countries dialects are dying out as the market and job needs
motivate people to learn other languages at the cost of mother tongues: also
written knowledge may not be equally available in all languages. There are
about 6500 languages in use today. English is the most used link language in
the world, although more people speak Chinese. Most people also know more
than one language, and many people several languages. In India English is not
only the link language but also the language of privilege. French and Spanish
are also known across countries and continents. Although Hindi is given a
great deal of importance by the government, languages like Malayalam, Bengali,
Marathi and Tamil have a lot more of the world’s knowledge available in
translation. Urdu has been a dying language, largely due to discriminatory
policies.
Most important has been growth of mass media, which has had contradictory
consequences because while new technologies in media have made
communication of knowledge across the world much easier, it’s private
ownership and dominance of the western world has enabled the forces that
192
dominate and control the media to dominate the flow of information and Glimpse of Post-War
World-II
knowledge as well, sometimes leading to biased and distorted knowledge
flow.
There has been great expansion in education in the period we are talking
about, with almost hundred percent literacy in the western world and China,
and tremendous advance even in developing countries. Higher education has
also seen an increase, though much less in developing countries in proportion
to population. There is a growing trend towards professional and vocational
education with globalization and growth of service industries.
Religion has seen resurgence, although it influences personal life less and
less. Religious and ethnic conflicts have grown over the years, despite the
world becoming more modern. Perhaps, you could think for yourself as to
why this has been happening in our own country, and elsewhere.
As part of these changes may be slow but there are definite changes in
mentalities, attitudes and values in people across the world. Consumerism is
said to become pervasive. Consumerism means an attitude of preoccupation
with acquisition of goods and commodities, not always needed or required.
Obsession with “latest models” and articles considered “exotic” is part of
this. Demands and fashions are created and brands promoted through
advertising. They become part of “lifestyles”.
Youth culture assumed specific forms since the post war years, taking the
forms of “generation gap”, protests against established conventions, dress
forms, hair styles, personal relationships, particularly man-woman
relationships. The sixties and seventies were known as the years of “hippie
culture” in the western countries. They were also years of radicalization of
the youth and protest against authority and establishment, reflected in the
student movements of these years which challenged right wing regimes and
evoked workers strikes. Some of this impact, in terms of changing modes of
behaviour and challenge to age old customs has been felt in the developing
countries too with globalization of economy and culture. But the seventies
was a more radical era in these countries, with the turn of the century showing
superficial forms of modernity, while caste, conformity to religion and
backward social customs like dowry growing rather than eroding in our country
in the twenty first century.
Check Your Progress
1) In what ways family life and status of women saw changes in post war
world?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) Briefly discuss the cultural changes following the Second World War.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
193
History of Modern
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) 14.9 LET US SUM UP
As you have learnt, new technologies, science and economies of scale
transformed everyday human life in the twentieth century, more particularly in
the second half of the twentieth century, and primarily in the more developed
countries; but increasingly across the developing countries as well since the
last two decades of the twentieth century. Production on scales not earlier
possible created possibilities for sustaining and improving the living standards
of all sections of people. Yet, the gaps between the haves and the have-nots
have only increased even as more became available for consumption.
While the socialist societies had seen a wider and more egalitarian distribution
of the benefits of increased production, their collapse resulted in loss of social
gains not only in those countries, but across the capitalist world where
governments have unleashed unbridled privatization of economy and cuts in
welfare. The consequences are disastrous for the majority of the people of
this world.
Inequality was part and parcel of capitalist society, as it was of the earlier
societies, but inequality was never as great as it has been in the twentieth
century. In fact through the century inequalities have increased tremendously—
both between the advanced capitalist countries and third world countries of
Asia, Africa and Latin America, and between the rich and the poor within all
countries. In the midst of plenty there is widespread hunger. A dozen or so
people own more than the GDP of many poor countries. This is something to
ponder over.
The recent capitalist era has led to growth of a variety of social and political
organizations with their specific agendas: political parties, trade unions, women’s
and students’ organizations, employees associations, and subjugation
of international organizations like the League of Nations and the UNO to the
will of the US. Red Cross, numerous types of welfare societies and charity
organizations, those concerned with peace, environment, and a whole lot of
issues of concern now form part of organized social activities. They
complement the work of political parties. The dilemmas of development are
before us: issues such as environment and climate change are seen as linked
with the direction that economy has taken and social inequalities and hunger
and poverty are seen as linked with both the economic and social system. The
world is seen at cross roads: deriving from the periodic crises, which we read
about in our last Unit.

EXERCISES
1) See Sections 14.3 and 14.4
2) See Section 14.8
194
Cultural and Intellectual
UNIT 15 CULTURAL AND INTELLECTUAL Developments Since 1850
DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 1850

Structure
15.0 Objectives
15.1 Introduction
15.2 Philosophical Thought
15.3 Developments in Social Sciences
15.4 Developments in Science
15.5 Let Us Sum Up
15.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this Unit, you will learn about:
 developments in intellectual history;
 philosophers who contributed immensely in shaping mind since mid-
nineteenth century;
 emergence of new disciplines in social sciences to analyse social
transformation; and
 scientists whose discoveries opened new frontiers in scientific knowledge.
15.1 INTRODUCTION
We have discussed political developments, industrialization and urbanization
in Europe in the course of nineteenth century. What is interesting to learn that
nineteenth century in Europe also witnessed major intellectual developments.
Developments in polity, society and economy threw new challenges to life
and intellectuals in diverse fields through their ideas responded differently to
the contemporary challenges. Legacy of enlightenment gave birth to new
optimism and individualism. With the growth of a middle class and
professionals there was a new spirit of enquiry and human ability. This
confidence was reflected in new ideas that man was reasonable and able to
make choices according to his will. The intellectual developments of the 19th
and early 20th century world were largely dominated by the ideas and concepts
that had their roots in Europe. This period can be characterized as the conflict
between metaphysics and religious faith on the one hand and the natural
sciences on the other. New ideas on history, progress, evolution of society
and individuality marked the journey of intellectual developments. In this
Unit we will introduce you first to the philosophical ideas, then developments
in scientific knowledge and how new disciplines developed to understand
transformation in society.
195
History of Modern
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) 15.2 PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHT
Nineteenth century was a very productive period in intellectual history of
Europe. In this period some great philosophers challenged the philosophical
thought of earlier centuries which created shock waves. This was the period
which threw challenge to religious belief as a result of scientific and social
revolutions. Major concern of philosophers of nineteenth century was to revisit
idealism and legacy of Immanuel Kant and give new direction to philosophical
thought by revising or refuting idealism. Idealism gave primacy to mind and
took matter only as secondary, both Kant and Hegel provided new meaning
to the idealist philosophy. They believed that idea could transform material
life. But positivist philosophers believed that material circumstances
determined ideas. We will explain the new current of philosophical thought
since 1850 in Europe through some major thinkers of the period like Arthur
Schopenhauer (1788-1860), Freidrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), Thomas Hill
Green (1836-1882), Georges Sorel (1847-1922), and Vladimir Solovyov
(1853-1900). We will not cover John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx here as we
have discussed their ideas in earlier Units. Besides this, you will also learn
about August Comte, Herbert Spencer and Sigmund Freud in the section on
development of social sciences.
Arthur Schopenhauer
Schopenhauer was one of the major nineteenth century philosophers and his
most important work is The World as Will and Representation. Born in
the era of German idealism through his writings he wanted to provide an
alternative to the tradition created by Hegel. He is known for advocating a
sort of philosophical pessimism which believed life as being essentially evil
and futile. He saw hope in aesthetics and ascetic living. His philosophy is
interpreted as a synthesis of Plato and Kant and also the Upanishads and
Buddhist literatures. In his The World as Will and Representation
Schopenhauer suggests that world should be viewed at a deeper level as Will.
Our actions are governed by Will and actions are product of emotions and
desires. We are driven by the desire to survive at the expense of others. Human
being is caught by universal conflict, envy, competition, opposition and suffering.
According to Schopenhauer one can get temporary escape from this through
art temporarily. Through art one can forget the detailed existence of the world
around him but permanent relief only can come by eradication of our desires
and renunciation of all which we consider important for life. Schopenhauer
considered empirical world as an illusion. He had considerable influence on
late nineteenth century and early twentieth century writers, artists and thinkers
like Tolstoy, Turgenev, Nietzsche, Proust and others. ‘It is sometimes asked
whether Schopenhauer’s philosophy deserves the title “pessimism”: that it
probably does is borne out by his consistent central thought that the very
essence of each human being, of humanity, and of the world as a whole causes
only grief and is something to escape from, if possible, at all costs.’ (Kristin
Gjesdal (ed.), Debates in Nineteenth Century European Philosophy,
p.146).
Freidrich Nietzsche
Inspired by the writings of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche believed that true crisis
of the contemporary civilization was its reliance on values which had lost its
196
relevance. He believed that value system in Western culture is collapsing, reason Cultural and Intellectual
Developments Since 1850
and religion are not adequate as sources of value. In place of harmony,
happiness people are in constant conflict for acquiring power. He was a critic
of Western metaphysics and the ideologies derived from Christianity. In his
view with the death of God civilization needed to be based on a new belief
and he exposed the emptiness of modern civilization. At the same time he had
a profound belief in the possibilities of human beings. In Thus Spoke
Zarathustra he talked about ‘supermen’ who had the capability to create
new values which are not governed by conventional morality. The ‘supermen’
had the ability to struggle and the drive to strive and live for something beyond
oneself. Nietzsche wanted each human being should try to realize his full
potential. He suggested that one must discover the inner power within the
human spirit. He sought to break the shackles of psychological and institutional
baggage which caused human agony. He prescribed a new morality for a new
age. His major contribution lies in his rejection of metaphysical foundations
for knowledge, beliefs and values. His most important works are The Birth
of Tragedy, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil and Twilight
of the Idols. Nietzsche’s ideas on individuality, morality and the meaning of
existence influenced the thinking of philosophers like Martin Heidegger, Jacques
Derrida, Michel Foucault and others in the twentieth century.
Thomas Hill Green
Idealism dominated British philosophy in the late nineteenth century and early
twentieth century. Philosophers like T. H. Green, Edward Caird, F. H. Bradley
represent this generation of idealists and here we will discuss about T. H.
Green representing British idealism. Green’s most significant work is
Prolegomena to Ethics dealing with ethical questions. Green did not agree
with the view that reality is the creation of mind. He believed that the world in
which we live exists only in our minds. In his opinion ‘the notions of reality and
objective are meaningless without a consciousness. In order to conceive of an
objective world and an order of nature, there must be an understanding; a
conception of reality requires a conceiver…he describes reality as “the system
of related appearances.” Thus an understanding is required to comprehend
these relations’.(Benjamin D. Crowe (ed.), The Nineteenth Century
Philosophy Reader, pp.191-192). Green acknowledged the difficulty to define
self-consciousness which he considered at the centre in all knowledge and
nature. Green did not agree with the idea that civil society is a collection of
self-interested individuals looking for own happiness or pleasure. He said that
individual cannot be separated from group and without society individual
has no value. One achieves happiness and fulfillment only as part of a
community. Every individual is an integral part of a society and mutual
recognition of others interest is the foundation of any society. Individual is not
alone in the society and therefore, he has no right to pursue his own good.
Explaining his idea on freedom Green wrote:
“We shall probably all agree that freedom, rightly understood, is the greatest
of all blessings, that its attainment is the true and of all our efforts as citizens.
But when we thus speak of freedom, we should carefully consider what we
mean by it. We do not mean merely freedom from restraint or compulsion.
We do not mean merely freedom to do as we like irrespectively of what it is
197
History of Modern that we like. We do not mean a freedom that can be enjoyed by one man or
one set of men at the cost of a loss of freedom to others. When we speak of
freedom as something to be so highly prized, we mean a positive power or
capacity of doing or enjoying something with doing or enjoying and that too;
something that we do or enjoy in common with others. We mean by it a power
which man exercises through the help or security given him by his fellow-men
and which he in turn helps to secure for them.” (T. H. Green, Lecture on the
Principles of Political Obligation). He believed that individual can enjoy
freedom in cooperation with other citizens. Freedom was conceived as absence
of coercion and as an idea of a positive power.
Georges Sorel
Georges Sorel was greatly affected by the French defeat of 1870 and the civil
war of the Paris Commune in 1871. He was influenced by Marxian philosophy
at some stage of his intellectual journey but he was an unorthodox Marxists.
He did not join any political party because he believed all parties are dominated
by middle class intellectuals. He had disregard for bourgeois culture and had
faith in the ability of the working class. In his two most famous works,
Reflections on Violence and The Illusions of Progress he expressed his
dislike for the bourgeoisie and for bourgeois values. He advocated for a
revolutionary transformation of society under the leadership of the working
class. In his idea the decadence and demoralization of the society needed to
be overthrown through violence, emotion and myth. He was more concerned
about the process of change of the existing society rather than the nature of
society to be established. ‘Sorel foresaw a new age of production, under the
autonomous workers, and for all his socialist credentials he was not as hostile
to capitalism as might be supposed. He was not against private property, but
saw it as a necessary adjunct to personal independence. Furthermore, he saw
in the free market a spur to vigour and enterprise, and was far more hostile to
the idea of the all-providing state. He was opposed to the capitalist as exploiter
of the workers, but not as bold entrepreneur’. (Ian Admas and R. W. Dyson,
Fifty Major Political Thinkers, p.157).
Vladimir Solovyov
Vladimir Solovyov was an influential thinker and considered as the founder of
Russian philosophy. Together with Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, Solovyov
contributed significantly in the development of twentieth century Russian
thought. Based on Orthodox theology he dealt with essential questions of the
human existence. He discussed the central problem of evil from a Christian
worldview. He believed in human autonomy and dignity. Although having belief
in God he stressed on absolute human value and human divinity. In his opinion
divine principle by itself is not the source of human dignity, it is the self-realization
of intrinsic divine potential which is at the core of human dignity. Therefore, he
suggested that the source of human dignity is not God but ‘Godmanhood’. He
emphasized that human autonomy should not be overshadowed by the divine
principle. He did not attach importance to miracle, revelation and dogma in
religion. The Justification of the Good, one of the major works of Solovyov,
provides rational for human morality based on participation in God’s goodness’.
He talked about ‘the practical implications of Christian goodness for such
areas as nationalism, war, economics, legal justice, and family.’
198
Through the above brief discussion of some major thinkers of late nineteenth Cultural and Intellectual
century Europe we have tried to introduce you to the developments in European
philosophy which had far reaching impact on subsequent development of
western philosophy.
1) Write in brief about the contribution made by Arthur Schopenhauer and
Freidrich Nietzsche.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) Discuss about philosophical ideas of Georges Sorel and Vladimir Solovyov.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
15.3 DEVELOPMENTS IN SOCIAL SCIENCES

Social science as an academic discipline developed following the intellectual
development in the Age of Enlightenment. Great intellectuals like Adam Smith,
Voltaire, Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, etc. contributed in laying
the foundations for studying social science in Europe. Philosophical tradition
of the eighteenth century Europe laid the foundations for development of
social sciences. Political philosophers got engaged in understanding and
analyzing the evolution, growth and nature of state and the problems related
to power. Studying of problems concerning production and distribution of
commodities, economic growth contributed towards the emergence of
economics as an independent discipline. In a similar fashion issues related to
diverse areas of evolution and growth of society and human being gave rise to
different social sciences like history, sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc.
In the course of nineteenth century Europe witnessed a series of political
revolutions, rise of capitalism followed by industrial revolution, emergence of
new social classes and culture, development of new ideas like liberalism,
socialism, nationalism and nation-state and expansion of European powers
giving birth to colonialism. In response to these developments interest
developed among intellectuals to study the processes involved in changes in
state and society from diverse perspectives. These initiatives resulted in
scientific studies giving birth to social science disciplines. We will discuss in
this section contributions of some thinkers in this process of developments in
social sciences.
History and Leopold von Ranke
Ranke, the nineteenth century German historian, is remembered as the master
of modern professional history writing. He provided a methodology which
199
History of Modern combined narrative history and scientific approach of narrating the past. He
was critical of reliance on tradition in history writing and suggested more
objective method. His approach to history writing is known as historicism. He
emphasized on presentation of facts based on empirical evidences using archival
sources. Ranke’s insistence on analyzing first hand documentation contributed
to development of scientific approach in historiography. He brought systematic
and source-based critical approach in historiography moving away from earlier
philosophical view of history. How and why does historian select his sources?
What is the validity of documents? Does individual biases influence historian’s
search, selection and presentation? These are issues raised and answered by
Ranke. His craft of history writing known as historicism is a belief that the
study of history is an end in itself. Search for sources, critical assessment of
facts and through seminar development of a critical aptitude constituted the
art of scientific history writing. History should not be subjected to any moral
standard. Ranke is credited to introduce objective history writing which
influenced in a great way the development of modern historiography.
Anthropology and Edward Burnett Tylor
Modern anthropology came into existence in the nineteenth century with the
development of scientific theories of biological and cultural evolution.
European countries with the expansion of their empire in colonial countries
encountered new people and new cultures. They were looking for scientific
explanations and also justifications for their dominance over the colonial
people. Besides this, their interest in new cultures of the colonial people
provided the impetus to the development of professional anthropology.
Anthropologists developed models of biological, social and cultural evolution.
Edward Burnett Tylor, a founder of British anthropology, promoted the
theories of cultural evolution in the late nineteenth century. Tylor travelled
extensively to explore anthropological research. He is primarily remembered
for his two major works, Primitive Culture: Researches into the
Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art and Custom and
Anthropology: an introduction to the Study of Man and Civilization. He
analysed the development of specific customs and beliefs found across many
cultures. He is credited to give first anthropological definition of culture and
the concept of animism. In Primitive Culture Tylor defined ‘culture or
civilization’ as ‘that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art,
morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as
a member of society’. Through the concept of animism he analysed mythology
as well as other cultural manifestations of primitive society. Animism is based
on the belief that there is life in many or all objects and phenomena. He
suggested that human mind and its capabilities are same in each country despite
the differences in social evolution in different countries. However, it is
education which makes the difference. In his opinion the task of cultural
anthropologist is to discover stages of development or evolution. He advanced
theories regarding the origins of magic and religion. He argued that animism
which beliefs in spirit and soul existing in things is the true natural religion.
Sociology and August Comte
Emergence of sociology as a discipline is the outcome of changes that Europe
experienced as a result of mainly industrialization and urbanization. August
200
Comte is credited as the founder of sociology as a new discipline to understand Cultural and Intellectual
society. Since then many scholars like Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, and
Max Weber have contributed in the development of sociology. Comte’s political
philosophy is known as positivist philosophy which emanated from his
historical study of the progress of the human mind. Comte developed
his magnum opus, the six volumes Course of Positive Philosophy. His central
question was to analyse how societies evolve and change. He prescribed that
individual mind and human society progress through successive stages of
historical evolution. According to him ‘each branch of our knowledge passes
through three different theoretical conditions; the theological or fictitious;
the metaphysical or abstract, and the scientific or positive.’ This he claimed as
The Law of Three Stages. The theological stage represents human’s
superstitious nature, the metaphysical stage in which humanity begins to come
out of its superstitious nature and the final stage when human beings finally
realize that natural phenomena and world can be explained in scientific way.
Increasing application of thought, reasoning and logic to understand the world
marked the final stage of the development of human mind. He suggested that
society has its own laws, under which it is operated, just as the physical world.
He believed that the way human mind developed through stages, the social
order and social organization also followed the same stages in development.
Gradual understanding of these laws of progress is what Comte meant by the
word progress. In his the Religion of Humanity he developed the idea of an
improved religious order based on reason and humanity. According to
Raymond Aron, French sociologist, ‘August Comte may be considered as the
first and foremost sociologist of human and social unity’. His ideas played
significant role in developing structural functionalism.
Psychology and Wilhelm Wundt
Psychology developed as a discipline to analyse mental life scientifically.
Wilhelm Wundt is remembered as the founder of Psychology as a scientific
discipline. He began his career as a physiologist and then developed psychology
as a separate discipline to study mental consciousness. He separated
psychology from philosophy and biology. Experimental and research method
used in physical sciences were applied to understand psychological questions.
In his first major work Principles of Physiological Psychology he explained
the usage of the methods of natural science in psychology. He emphasized on
applying scientific method in psychology through detailed experiments to
test psychological theories. He established at Leipzig University the first
laboratory to experimental psychology. He used experimental methods to
understand the structures of thought and to investigate the interaction of
thoughts. He studied sensation and perception of participants through their
observations of objects, images and events. He developed a process called
introspection to study mental states and his approach of understanding mental
processes became known as structuralism. He is remembered for contributing
three important ideas in the study of psychology — the idea of an experimental
psychology, the idea of a social psychology and the idea of a scientific
metaphysics.
201
History of Modern
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) 15.4 DEVELOPMENTS IN SCIENCE
The nineteenth century was a period of discoveries in science. We have seen
that how philosophers and social scientists were engaged in understanding
human nature and behaviour from new perspectives. Same time scientists were
trying to discover the mystery of the physical world. William Whewell wrote
extensively on history and philosophy of science and first used the word scientist
to describe the people who study science. He wrote on a variety of subjects
like architecture, astronomy, geology, mathematics, physics, etc. His major
work on history and philosophy of science is History of the Inductive
Sciences, from the Earliest to the Present Time in three volumes.
According to Whewell science was a historical activity by human mind and
scientific results are tentative and can change with time. He argued that
subjective human dimension of science cannot be separated from the objective,
every one works with certain presuppositions. There is a social and historical
element to scientific reasoning and scientists need to be careful in their claims
for truth.
Charles Robert Darwin was contemporary of Whewell and Darwin’s
monumental work On The Origin of Species, documenting the process of
evolution, changed the frame of reference to explain life. Later on his theory
of evolution is known as “Social Darwinism” and had serious negative
implications also. His theory was not racist but unfortunately this was used to
justify genocide and racism. Darwin viewed nature as a struggle for survival.
He explored regions in Brazil, Argentina, Chile and some small islands in South
America to collect samples of plants, animals, rocks and fossils in order to
understand the processes of change of species over time. Results of his
experiments were later on included in his work On The Origin of Species.
According to his theory of evolution only the plants and animals best adapted
to their environment will survive to reproduce but those poorly adapted to
their environment will not survive to reproduce. He also gave explanations to
why different species of plants and animals look different. He suggested that
human being’s moral nature and religion had developed naturalistically.
Darwin’s work had great impact on contemporary religious philosophy and
many people did not accept his idea of evolution because it conflicted with
their religious conviction.
Albert Einstein who is considered as the pioneer of modern physics developed
the special and general theories of relativity. His theory of relativity and his
work in quantum physics laid the foundation of modern physics. In 1921 he
won the Nobel prize for physics. His theory of relativity provided explanation
of how gravitational forces worked and it was more accurate compared to
Issac Newton’s prediction of planetary orbits around the sun. His important
contributions through pioneering research papers in physical science are
summed up as follows:
‘One explained how to measure the size of molecules in a liquid, a second
posited how to determine their movement, and a third described how light
comes in packets called photons — the foundation of quantum physics and
the idea that eventually won him the Nobel Prize. A fourth paper introduced
special relativity, leading physicists to reconsider notions of space and time
202
that had sufficed since the dawn of civilization. Then, a few months later, almost Cultural and Intellectual
as an afterthought, Einstein pointed out in a fifth paper that matter and energy
can be interchangeable at the atomic level specifically, that E=mc2, the scientific
basis of nuclear energy and the most famous mathematical equation in history.’
(Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com).
Louis Pasteur was a biologist, microbiologist and chemist whose discoveries
in the field of science had immense impact on our everyday life. His discovery
of the principles of microbial fermentation provided the method of food safety.
He demonstrated that without contamination, microorganisms could not develop
and thermal processing would inactivate unwanted microorganisms. He found
that unwanted microorganisms could be destroyed by heating wine and then
this theory was used in all perishable items. This method later was popularized
as ‘pasteurized’. He proved that microbes were attacking healthy silkworm
eggs causing diseases which can be controlled if the microbes are eliminated.
This resulted in the development of a vaccine which saved silk industry in
France. He is also credited for the discovery of vaccines for Fowl Cholera
and Anthrax which proved beneficial for both humans and animals. He is
considered the architect of many other groundbreaking ideas in the field of
natural sciences. His invention of germ theory revolutionized the practice of
medicine and today sterilization is an essential component of medical surgery.
Marie Curie was a great woman scientist and before her professional science
was dominated by men only. She is remembered for her discovery of radium
and polonium. She along with her husband Pierre Curie worked in the field of
radioactivity. Inspired by Wilhelm Roentgen’s discovery of x-rays in 1895
and Henri Becquerel’s research into rays produced by uranium salts in 1896
Marie discovered new chemical elements: polonium and radium. In 1903 Marie,
Pierre and Becquerel got Nobel Prize in physics for their work into
radioactivity. In 1911 Marie was awarded the second Nobel Prize in the field
of Chemistry for her work in isolating radium. Treatment of cancer was
immensely benefitted by her research work. She is credited for initiating the
process of disproving that atoms are indivisible and unchangeable. Her scientific
contributions not only had phenomenal impact on future research but she
proved that woman had the potentiality to advance scientific knowledge which
was unthinkable before her.
Many other scientists besides the scientists mentioned above through their
research works contributed immensely in different branches of science. Their
contributions helped in developing a scientific spirit which helped future
generations. What is important to understand here that nineteenth century
Europe produced brilliant minds and their research works in physics, chemistry,
life sciences and medical sciences changed our way of understanding the world
around us. Development in scientific knowledge teaches us about scientific
method and objectivity which is very important for progress of human mind.
Scientific research and major discoveries not only helped in understanding
the physical world and solving many medical problems but also contributed
towards intellectual developments. It is important therefore to understand
contributions of major scientists which in a way brought revolution in science.
203
1) Explain the developments in social sciences giving reference to works of
social scientists.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) How did scientific researches in nineteenth century mark the beginning of
new scientific knowledge?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
15.5 LET US SUM UP

In this Unit we have explained to you how contributions made by philosophers,
social scientists and scientists brought revolutionary changes in understanding
different aspects of human mind, social processes and natural world. Analyzing
some great philosophers and their works we have discussed their importance
in the development of rational and scientific knowledge. Philosophers helped
in liberating human conscience from the shackles of morality prescribed by
Christianity. We find the emergence of new social and psychological questions
related to human society and individuality. This is the period which marked
the beginning of modernity in intellectual history. Whether in social sciences
and science great thinkers and scientists articulated logically new ways to
find answers to many unsolved questions of social life and natural world. In
true sense intellectual development in modern Europe helped in establishing
Europe’s supremacy globally.

EXERCISES
1) See Section 15.2
2) See Section 15.2
Check your progress 2
1) See Section 15.3
2) See Section 15.4
204
Creations of New Cultural
UNIT 16 CREATIONS OF NEW CULTURAL Forms: From Romanticism
to Abstract Art
FORMS: FROM ROMANTICISM
TO ABSTRACT ART
Structure
16.0 Objectives
16.1 Introduction
16.2 Romanticism
16.2.1 Literature
16.2.2 Art
16.2.3 Music
16.3 Realism
!6.4 Modernism
16.5 Let Us Sum Up
16.0 OBJECTIVES
 development of new cultural forms in modern Europe;
 the concept of romanticism and its influence on literature, art and music;
 the meaning of realism and its influence on various forms of culture; and
 modernism and how did it bring change in the world of culture represented
through literature and art.
16.1 INTRODUCTION
Europe since 1780s witnessed major transformation in politics, economy and
society. Two important revolutionary developments, namely, the French
Revolution and the Industrial Revolution, which you have read in the earlier
course on Modern European history, influenced significantly the cultural world
of European society. The French Revolution inspired people to address themes
of democracy and human rights in their creative expressions, similarly the
Industrial revolution produced a new urban civilization with complex realities.
These developments changed the lives of people at all levels. With the rise of
the middle class and disposable income in the hands of a section of society,
also the concept of leisure, we find during this period a new urge for creative
expressions encompassing diverse fields of culture. Writing on the
transformations in the field of art during this period in Europe E. J. Hobsbawm
wrote, “What determines the flowering or wilting of the arts at any period is
still very obscure. However, there is no doubt that between 1789 and 1848
205
History of Modern the answer must be sought first and foremost in the impact of the dual
revolution. If a single misleading sentence is to sum up the relations of artist
and society in this era, we might say that the French Revolution inspired him
by its example, the Industrial revolution by its horror, and the bourgeois society,
which emerged from both, transformed his very existence and modes of
creation”. (E. J. Hobsbawm, The Age of Revolution, 1789-1848,p. 310). In
this background we have to understand the developments taking place in the
field of culture in Europe. In this Unit we are going to introduce you to the
rise of new cultural forms like romanticism, realism and modernism and how
these cultural forms shaped literature, art and music of modern Europe.
16.2 ROMANTICISM
Preceded by Enlightenment, Romanticism is considered as an artistic and
intellectual movement which took place in Europe between the late eighteenth
and mid-nineteenth centuries. This developed as a reaction to the Enlightenment
– which established reason as the foundation of all knowledge. Intelligentsia
questioned rationality, scientific temperament, and logical thought of the
Enlightenment and their usefulness for mankind. Romanticism is characterized
by deep thought and emotion and it emphasized the importance of emotional
sensitivity and individual subjectivity. Imagination, rather than reason, was the
most important creative faculty for romantics. A revolutionary spirit was at the
core of romanticism which influenced not only literature but all the arts like
painting and music. Romantics valued the natural world, discarded social
conventions and valued the life of the common man. France, Germany and
England were the three European countries which first were influenced by the
movement of romanticism. Beauty of nature, romance, and freedom of thought
were the themes dealt with by the Romanticists. These became the favoured
themes of intellectuals in all European languages. Novel as a literary form was
popularized during this period. In music, Romanticism, provided new
opportunities for earning a livelihood as a musician or composer and also
helped in the development of the large theatre for musical activity. We will
now explain how romanticism influenced literature, art and music of Europe
and from Europe Romanticism spread to other parts of the world. In the creative
expression of romanticism there was a general dissatisfaction with the society
emerged out of the French revolution and the Industrial Revolution. They had
reasons to disregard bourgeois society and criticized human alienation. The
romantics were concerned for the lost unity of man and nature.
16.2.1 Literature
As discussed above the last decades of the eighteenth century and the first
decades of the nineteenth century European countries faced new realities as a
result of the revolutions in polity and economy. Ideas of liberty and freedom
promoted by the French Revolution and the dislocation of life caused by the
Industrial Revolution touched the creative mind. Literature is in a way the
reflection of the social reality. Romantic writers through their literary works
tried to redress the social wrongs and to create a sense of freedom and salvation
to mankind. Imagination and nature formed the core of literary expression in
romanticism. Romanticism in English literature began in the late eighteenth
206
century and William Blake is considered as the forerunner of romanticism. Creations of New Cultural
Forms: From Romanticism
He was disappointed by the downfall of the French Revolution and showed to Abstract Art
his devotion to the cause of freedom. William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor
Coleridge, two great poets of English literature, disillusioned by the failure of
the French Revolution and the perils of industrialization and urbanization,
moved to the quiet life of the countryside amidst the purity of nature. They
believed in imagination and considered it as the most essential faculty of a
poet. Through their writings they drew attention to the evils of industrial
cities and rejoiced beauty in the purity of nature seen in the quiet of country-
life. Together they published a volume of poems entitled Lyrical Ballads. ‘It
was accepted among romantics of all shades that “the folk”, i.e. normally the
pre-industrial peasant or craftsman, exemplified the uncorrupted virtues and
that its language, song, story and custom was the true repository of the soul of
the people. To return to that simplicity and virtue was the aim of the Wordsworth
of Lyrical Ballads.’ (E. J. Hobsbawm, The Age of Revolution, 1789-1848,p.
321). The ‘union of the Universal and the Individual’ was defined by Coleridge
as the Ídeal’. Walter Scott and Byron also represent the great generation of
romantic poets in English literature. Scott is also credited for inaugurating a
new era in the history of the English novel. Shelly believed that without the
working men of England liberty could not be achieved and he appealed to the
working class to rise against oppression. He created new imagery and rhythms.
John Keats’s poetry expressed romantic idea of freedom, love and beauty. In
beauty he found the true source of happiness and moral freedom. Let us read
the famous closing lines from Óde on a Grecian Urn’ by Keats:
“When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say’st,
‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty,’-that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know”.
Emotional sensitivity and reverence for nature characterize the literary works
of the romantics. They sought refuge in nature. Romanticism encouraged people
to imagine and dream again. One should also take note of the fact that there
was variety in theme and content in the writings of this period. We will give an
example from poetry depicting the beauty of nature.
“Daffodils” by William Wordsworth
Í wandered lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o’er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host, of golden daffodils;
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.
Continuous as the stars that shine
And twinkle on the milky way,
207
History of Modern They stretched in never-ending line
Along the margin of a bay:
Ten thousand saw I at a glance,
Tossing their heads in sprightly dance.’
France being the centre of the political revolution in 1789 witnessed significant
development in new ideas. Particularly ideas of Rousseau had major influence
in shaping new intellectual trend, romanticism. Most important writer of the
romantic period in France was Victor Hugo. He was born in 1802 and in his
earlylife he experienced political chaos and the regime of Napoleon Bonaparte.
His early childhood experience made him a proponent of free-thought. His
realization of injustices done by monarchical regime made him a supporter of
republicanism. He was influenced by literary figures like Fyodor Dostoevsky,
Albert Camus and Charles Dickens. Through his writings he highlighted the
miseries and injustices faced by the lower strata of society in France. Les
Miserables published in 1862 is considered a major landmark of his literary
works and influenced writers not only of France but in other countries also.
This book reflects his concern for those who were treated unfairly in society.
Hugo summed up ideas and the themes contained in the book Les Miserables
in the following communication to an Italian minister:
“You are right, sir, when you say that the book Les Miserables is written for
all people. I don’t know if it will be read by all, but, I wrote it for all. It speaks
to England as much as Spain, to Germany as much as Ireland, to republics
that have slaves as well as to empires that have serfs. Social problems know
no borders. The wounds of the human race, those great wounds which cover
the globe, do not halt at the red or blue lines traced upon the map. Wherever
man is ignorant and despairs, wherever woman is sold for bread, wherever
the child suffers for lack of a book to instruct him and a hearth at which to
warn him, the book Les Miserables knocks at the door and says:”open to
me, I come for you.”’(Hugo, “Letter a M. Daelli”, appendix to Les
Miserables, Volume III).
Beside Hugo, there were a number of writers in early nineteenth century France
who through their writings voiced for individual freedom and portrayed the
importance of imagination, emotion and nature in human life. Romanticism
encouraged people to look inward and to believe in their intuition.
Interest in individual liberty and nature was also the guiding spirit behind the
German romantic movement in literature. Political developments in France
starting with the French Revolution and ending with the fall of Napoleon played
important role in shaping the genesis of romanticism in Germany. But German
romanticism was also influenced by German idealist philosophy and
contemporary science. Lyric poetry and folk traditions made its way in German
literature. Romanticism in Germany in the early nineteenth century contributed
to the rise of German nationalism. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe was the
most prominent face of German romanticism in literature. He is remembered
in German history as an exemplary poet and great human being. He was
hostile to both the French Revolution and the German nationalist movement.
Goethe reveals himself in Goethe’s Autobiography: Poetry and Truth from
My Life. From the huge corpus of his literary works we are referring here a
poem written by him to illustrate his passion for nature.
208
“EVER AND EVERYWHERE” Creations of New Cultural
FAR explore the mountain hollow, to Abstract Art
High in air the clouds then follow!

To each brook and vale the Muse
Thousand times her call renews.
Soon as a flow’ret blooms in spring,
It wakens many a strain;
And when Time spreads his fleeting wing,
The seasons come again.
(Archive of Classic Poems, websource: everypoet.com)
Goethe is popular in literary circle for his epic poem Faust. Portrayal of a
young scholar frustrated by limited nature of education, power and enjoyment
of life took the help of the devil at the cost of own life. He drew extensively
from Christian, medieval and classical sources and tried to find what constituted
ultimate human fulfilment. Friedrich Schlegel, contemporary of Goethe, was
another important literary figure who contributed to German romanticism. He
shared the values of equality, fraternity and freedom associated with the French
Revolution. Unlike the English romantics who found inspiration in nature and
country-life, Schlegel was drawn to urban culture and also developed interest
in learning Sanskrit. His most famous literary work, Lucinde, was based on
his own life experience. He faced criticism for frank treatment of sexuality in
this novel. Here he presented love as the synthesis of physical and spiritual
elements.
In Russian literature Alexander Pushkin brought the trend of romanticism and
perfectly combined Russian historical and folk consciousness with the French
enlightenment values. Pushkin is credited to create a new age in Russian
literature with the attributes of romantic realism and an aesthetic spirit. His
ideas were given expression in revolutionary poems, like “Ode to Liberty”,
“The Village”, etc. His novel Eugene Onegin earned the status of a trendsetter
in Russian literature and the main character in this novel served as a model for
the unconventional literary protagonists. His closeness with traditional Russian
culture and use of new literary forms marked the beginning of a new literary
form in Russian literature. Because of his revolutionary ideas Pushkin was
exiled by Czar Alexander I, the Russian Emperor.
16.2.2 Art
Romantic movement left its significant imprint in art. A new artistic aesthetic
developed and the presence of nature in art provided new meaning to visual
arts. Tradition of historical and allegorical paintings based on events from history
or the Bible as principal source of subject matter lost its importance. In its
place romantic artists chose to depict the natural world, most notably
landscapes. Moving away from Enlightenment representations of nature as
orderly, Romantic artists depicted nature as beautiful as well as powerful and
unpredictable. Explaining French romanticism and art Charles Baudelaire, the
209
History of Modern French poet wrote in 1846 that “romanticism lies neither in the subjects that
an artist chooses nor in his exact copying of truth, but in the way he feels....
Romanticism and modern art are one and the same thing, in other words:
intimacy, spirituality, color, yearning for the infinite, expressed by all the means
the arts possess.” Romantic impulse in French art was visible in the works of
Louis David, Theodore Gericault, Eugene Delacroix and Francois Rude.
Romantic artists were also influenced by human instinct and emotion and
explored emotions and violence depicted in literature as the basis for their
paintings. They employed varied subjects which included natural world,
emotion, ‘the orient’, contemporary political developments, etc. In Britain the
art works of John Constable and J. M. W. Turner represent the presence of
nature. One may sum up by saying that interest in supernatural and exotic,
emotion, nature, contemporary events, country-life characterized the art
movement under the influence of romanticism.
16.2.3 Music
The rise of the middle class following industrialization and urbanization brought
new changes in the world of music. Earlier musicians were engaged by the
aristocratic circles and musical performances were primarily for their
entertainment. With the emergence of the middle class and disposable income
and leisure time available with them new urge for musical performances
developed. Musicians and composers gained importance to perform for the
new audience. The new trend in music began with Beethoven. Beethoven’s
symphonies and piano sonates with emotive expressions created a new genre
of music and are recognized as the beginning of romantic movement in music.
Emotion with imagination represented the musical compositions during the
romantic period. Musicians who could perform as per the demands of the
new audience could free themselves from the closed circles of the noble families
and new orchestras grew. Musical performances for small groups of people
were popularized. Opera also became a major mode of expression. Many
composers used their historical past, legends as plots for their operas and
inspiration for their musical performances. Moving away from the discipline of
classical forms composers focused more on new melodic styles. Hobsbawm
wrote, “The ‘classic’ period of instrumental music was mainly one of German
and Austrian achievement but one genre, opera, flourished more widely and
perhaps more successfully than any other: with Rossini, Donizetti, Bellini and
the young Verdi in Italy, with Weber and the young Wagner in Germany, Glinka
in Russia and several lesser figures in France.” ((E. J. Hobsbawm, The Age of
Revolution, 1789-1848,p. 309).
1) What do you understand by Romanticism?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
210
2) Write in brief about impact of Romanticism in literature. Creations of New Cultural
.................................................................................................................. to Abstract Art
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
3) Romanticism gave new meaning to art and music. Explain.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
16.3 REALISM
Realism is a departure from idealism and emotion of Romanticism. Ideas of
romanticism were thought not rooted in the real world. Realism in a way
began as a reaction to romanticism and the rise of the bourgeoisie in Europe.
Realists were influenced by the spread of democracy in Europe and ordinary
life became their subject. Middle and lower class people gained more
importance in their ideas. Second half of nineteenth century is considered the
beginning of realism in literature and arts. Hobsbawm wrote, “Realism is the
term which has come most naturally to the lips of contemporary and later
observers about this period, at all events when dealing with literature and the
visual arts…It implies the attempt to describe, to represent, or at all events to
find a precise equivalent, of facts,images, ideas, sentiments, passions…”(E.
J. Hobsbawm, The Age of Capital 1848-1875, p.339). New material culture,
social problems and the spirit of resistance stimulated the growth of realism.
Literary realism attempts to tell a story as truthfully as possible in stead of
dramatizing or romanticizing it. Realism in literature was part of a wider
movement in culture to focus on ordinary people and events beyond the
romanticized world. Realist writers tried to depict the contrast in the lives of
the poor and the aristocrats both in urban and rural settings. When we look
back to European history since mid-nineteenth century we find that this was
the period marked by the end of series of revolutions in 1848, rise of Napoleon
III in France, Bismarck in Germany, emergence of movements for nation-
states, expansion of imperialism and colonialism, population upsurge in urban
centres following industrialization, oppressive working and living condition of
the urban poor, etc. This historical reality got reflected in the writings and
many novels written in the second half of nineteenth century portrayed this
reality. It is said that literary realism started from France and novels written
by Balzac and Flaubert demonstrated social reality. Honore de Balzac is
credited for starting realism in French literature and influenced other European
writers. In his famous literary series La Comedie Humaine (The Human
Comedy) he provided a sweeping portrayal of French society and also little
details of individual life. He tried to capture the variety of life in France in the
mid 19th century. In his literary works he focussed on different strata of French
society- from noblemen to peasants, artists to businessmen, Churchmen to
prostitutes. Let me reproduce few words of a character from The Human
Comedy.
211
History of Modern “You grow used to seeing evil done, to letting it go; you begin by not minding,
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) you end by doing it yourself. In the end, your soul, spotted daily by shameful
transactions always going on, shrinks, the spring of noble thoughts rusts, the
hinges of small talk wear loose and swing unaided”.
After Balzac, another leading exponent of literary realism in France was
Gustave Flaubert. He is known for his acclaimed novel Madame Bovary.
He was a critic of the new middle class comprising of merchants and capitalists
and their sense of morality. In the novel he dealt with themes like marriage and
adultery and after the publication of his novel Madame Bovary he drew
criticism for violation of public morals.
Charles Dickens, the greatest realist of English literature, devoted his writing
skill to represent the social world, habits and customs of the poor people. He
was against oppression, injustice, hypocracy and expressed his love for
humanity. David Copperfield and Oliver Twist, great novels of Dickens
represent his social concern and an indictment of the whole system. Dickens
was a fierce critic of poverty and stratification of society and in his writings
there was a growing concern for social reform. Oliver Twist, published in
1839, giving details of poverty and crime challenged middle class attitudes
towards criminals. Through his work he talked about the poor and oppressed
in society. In Oliver Twist Dickens portrays the character of a boy who
possessed good values which were not subverted in the company of
pickpocketers. David Copperfield, published in 1850, is an autobiographical
novel talking about his journey of life and various stages of development he
encountered with in his life. Dickens drew attention of readers to many aspects
of social life like rigid class structure, status of women in marriage, child
labour, schooling for children, etc. which personally he wished to change.
George Eliot, the pen name of Mary Ann Evans, was another major novelist
who witnessed the transformation of the countryside as a result of
industrialization very closely. Her important works include Adam Bede,
Romola, Daniel Deronda and masterpiece Middlemarch. She used the
male name to disguise her identity and also to conceal her social position
which was considered not normal as being an unmarried woman she lived with
a married man. In her novels one gets the pulse of small-town politics which
was the fabric of English society. Her novels brilliantly talk about the limitations
imposed on women by society. In her masterpiece, Middlemarch, we find
the representation of country-life in England during the Victorian era. We
learn about various social classes and their intricacies within a community
life.
In Russian literature Ivan Turgenev is remembered for his detailed descriptions
of everyday life in nineteenth century Russia. He provided a realistic picture
of the peasantry and the rising intelligentsia. His major work Fathers and
Sons, published in 1862, is based on nihilist philosophy and personal and
social rebellion. Hostile reaction to this novel compelled him to leave Russia.
In this novel he talked about the conflict between the older generation and the
idealist youth, Bazarov, the conflict is centred round to accept reforms.
Bazarov rejected all traditional values and institutions and was a staunch
critique of the established order. The novel was written in the background of
the social ferment arising out of the Russia’s defeat in the Crimean War and
the emancipation of the Serfs. Gustave Flaubert was Turgenev’s close friend
212
in France with whom he shared same concern about social values. Both of Creations of New Cultural
them were non-judgmental and had somewhat pessimistic view of the world. to Abstract Art
Turgenev described the reality as he saw. He presented the serf as more than
a slave and more human and genuine compared to landowners in A
Sportsman’s Sketches. These stories were seen as a protest against the serf
system and it is said that liberal Czar Alexander II acknowledged Turgenev’s
stories in emancipating the Russian serfs. Another eminent writer of nineteenth
century Russian literature was Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Among his important
works Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov are
considered most influential. His journey in life through troubled times gave him
inspiration to reflect on those experiences in his writings. His prison life gave
him an insight of the criminal mind and also an opportunity to understand Russian
lower classes. In Crime and Punishment, the protagonist Raskolnikov is
caught in agonizing dilemma of tormenting passions and lofty realizations. The
novel is about the murder of an old pawnbroker by a student, Raskolinikov,
when he was committing robbery to help his family and at the end driven by
his conscience surrenders himself for punishment. Throughout his life and work
he advocated for freedom and inviolability of the self. Leo Tolstoy also
belonged to the same generation and his most memorable work is War and
Peace. This novel is a historical account of the Napoleonic wars and he
advocates here that one’s life is derived from his day-to-day activities. This
represents one of the best European realistic novel where social structures
and psychological rendering found fullest expression.
In the field of art a new style developed in Europe in the middle of the nineteenth
century and this new form is called Realism, characterized by its focus to
everyday subject matter. Realist movement in art started from France. With
the decline of romanticism focus shifted away from idealism to the present
materialist world and harsh reality of life, social relationships, individual and
society. Artists belonging to realism approached their work in a spirit of
objective observation. Realist art is free from imaginary and mythological
themes. One can get an idea of the change in focus of the realist artists from
the remarks of Gustave Courbet, the leading figure of realism, Í have never
seen angels. Show me an angel and I will paint one’. France witnessed political
revolutions inspired by nationalism, liberalism, socialism and also economic
crisis pushing the workers in miseries. Harsh reality of working class life and
the poor inspired artists to represent their life through their art works. Realist
artists believed that they should draw attention to social issues of modern life
and their art should provide a truthful representation of the plight of ordinary
people. Realist art movement spread from France to other European countries.
In this backdrop we will now discuss some of the important artists associated
with the realist art movement. First name in the movement of realist in art is of
Gustave Courbet of France who laid the groundwork for the movement in the
1840s by portraying peasants and labourers. He visualized society not as an
idealized one but with sense of individuality and society’s best and worst. In
his paintings provinces, its half-bourgeois half-rural population and market
towns found much prominence. The Stone-breakers (1849), The Artist’s Studio
(1855), The Return from the Lecture (1863) are proofs of his firm believe in
social art. Like Courbet, Jean-Francois Millet also chose working class people
as subject matter of his paintings. Being based in rural France peasants were
his subject of choice. “Peasant subjects suit my nature best,” he said, “for I
213
History of Modern must confess . . . that the human side is what touches me most in art.” Millet
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) played significant role in starting the Barbizon school-formed by a group of
artists to challenge romanticism. Another leading figure of realist art movement
in France was Honore Daumier. He is best remembered for his caricatures of
nineteenth century French political and social life. His art work offers details
of life in nineteenth century France. Among his realist works three paintings
depicting the experience of modern rail in first, second and third class carriages
are considered classic. Rosa Bonheur, famous female painter of nineteenth
century France, is known for her masterpiece painting, Ploughing in the
Nivernais, which represents the realist movement. In Germany Adolph Menzel
is known for amazing detail and precision with which he painted the everyday
life. In Russia Ilya Repin was the most important painter of the period and he
portrayed the suffering of the people. He was a member of the Itinerants’
Society formed by a group of Russian realist artists who were critical of the
social environment in Tsarist Russia. He captured the peasant life in his works.
16.4 MODERNISM
Modernism as a movement in literature and art started in late nineteenth and
early twentieth century. Modernist movement continued till the end of World
War II, when post-modernism developed. However, there is no unanimity
among intellectuals about definite meaning of modernism. The death of Queen
Victoria of England in 1901 is regarded as the end of an era which was marked
by some values like morality and convention in literature and art. The First
World War in 1914 created a sense of doom and despair which provided the
context of modernist literature. Changes in politics and society in early
twentieth century and the debates around it formed the basis of modernist
writings. Modernism is seen as a departure from tradition and a reaction
against established religious, political and social views. It rejected the ideology
of realism. Opposed to objectivism, modernism emphasizes on subjectivism,
denies the existence of truth and considers all things are relative. At the centre
of modernist thinking is living in the moment. Industrial societies, urbanization
and the horror of world war acted as catalyst in shaping modernism.
Challenging traditional moral and social conventions modernism created new
artistic forms and idioms. Modernist ideals influenced art, architecture,
literature and other cultural domains. Modernist literature introduced new
form and content and also explored new avenues in style and semantics. The
end of modernism and beginning of postmodernism is also a debatable issue,
many are of the opinion that modernism ended around 1940. In the field of
literature some important writers representing the spirit of modernism are T.
S. Eliot, Virginia Wolf, James Joyce in England, Marcel Proust in France,
Franz Kafka in Germany, Andrei Platonov in Russia.
Virginia Wolf is remembered for her important modernist classics like Mrs.
Dalloway, To The Light House and Orlando. In Mrs. Dalloway Wolf
dealt with issues of feminism, mental illness and homosexuality faced in England
in post-World War I. Clarissa Dalloway, the main character in the novel, was
a high society girl of London and through her life and thought Wolf explored
the society. Again in the backdrop of World War I Wolf wrote the novel To
The Light House and in this novel she explored the effects of war more
comprehensively. Through the story of three members of the Ramsay family
214
she narrated the hardships the family faced living in a house on the coast of Creations of New Cultural
Scotland. Orlando is the portrayal of an aristocratic poet who visited Queen to Abstract Art
Elizabeth’s court frequently and here Wolf dealt with the question of gender
and identity. ‘…Wolf left behind the traditional form of the novel to explore
the tenets of Modernism, whereby character and plot are of less importance
than the flow of thought passing through the minds of the main protagonists’.
(Ian Mackean (ed.), Literature in English Post-1914, p.256). Wolf was a
keen observer of the changes taking place in her times and was very much
influenced by the despair of the contemporary changes. T. S. Eliot who won
the Nobel prize in literature was an influential poet of twentieth century. His
most famous work The Waste Land is considered one of the great poems of
the twentieth century. His interest in philosophy and spiritualism gets reflected
in his poem. Written in the backdrop of social and cultural despair following
the World War I in The Waste Land Eliot provides a sense of hope through
spiritual fulfillment. Structural complexity, constant movement between satire
and prophecy made this poem the model for modern literature. Through his
writings Eliot became the most important voice of modernism in English
literature. Contemporary of Eliot James Joyce was a great novelist and with
the publication of Ulysses he became a literary celebrity. Based on Homer’s
The Odyssey and his style of telling events through small experiences in
everyday lives Ulysses is the story of a single day in Dublin. The book drew
both praise and criticism. Joyce used popular culture as well as classical literary
and cultural heritage. In France Marcel Proust best remembered for his great
novel In Search of Lost Time (A La recherché du temps perdu) is
considered as the father figure of Modernist literature. Moving away from
nineteenth century social realism Proust used memory and consciousness to
recreate the past in a period of social upheaval in France. In German literature
Franz Kafka is credited to set a new trend with his most popular novel The
Metamorphosis. He is remembered as one of the major figures of twentieth
century literature. He explored in his work issues like alienation, guilt and
anxiety. In The Metamorphosis Kafka expressed the difficulties of living in a
modern society and the book is a portrayal of his personal life through his
dream-like fantasies. The narrative is the story of a travelling salesman who
woke up one morning to find his transformation into a giant insect. Andrey
Platonov is remembered for his literary works in Russia providing a realistic
history of revolution and civil war in Russia. His two books Chevengur and
The Foundation Pit deal with political, philosophical and ethical questions
faced by Soviet Russia following the Revolution of 1917. His works portrayed
aptly the hope and disillusionment of the people with the communist rule. In
Chevengur a group of workers influenced by idealism moved to a city where
they can organize their lives better in a cooperative fashion. But they failed in
providing basic needs of the people and their leaders are blamed for the failure.
This was a reflection of his thinking on communist idealism. In The Foundation
Pit the central theme is about the attempts made by inhabitants of a small
village to build a community house where they can live happily. But this project
could not succeed because of differences on how to build the house. This was
again a direct reflection of the contemporary Russia and its dominant ideology
on social reality. From this brief account of some great literary works of early
twentieth century we have tried to make you understand the new trend of
modernism in European literature.
215
History of Modern In the field of visual arts modernism refers to the use of new forms and styles
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) in creating abstractions and fantasies. Modernism rejected past traditions of
artworks and marked the beginning of a wide range of personal visions. In
place of conventional methods of using perspective, colour and composition
to create their own visions, modernist artists depicted their world as they
perceived it. They chose abstraction as form to portray their perceived world.
Modernist is not simply depicting the present but it reflects the artist’s critical
examination of the art. Artists try to represent their experience of modern life
in innovative ways. Actually modern art applies to a large variety of art works
using different forms and expression since late nineteenth century to late
twentieth century. In history of modern art movement Avant Garde is
considered the beginning of a cultural revolution. The term Avant Garde is
used to describe art that is radical in nature and reflects originality of vision.
‘The avant-garde is a term that derives from the French “vanguard,” the lead
division going into battle, literally advance guard, and its designation within
modern art is very much like its military namesake. Generally speaking, most
of the successful and creative modern artists were avante-gardes. Their
objective in the modern era was to advance the practices and ideas of art, and
to continually challenge what constituted acceptable artistic form in order to
most accurately convey the artist’s experience of modern life. Modern artists
continually examined the past and revalued it in relation to the
modern.’(Websource: theartstory.org). The basic thrust of avant garde was
to go against the academic understanding of art. Among a large number of arts
associated with modernist art two most prominent names are Paul Cezanne
and Pablo Picasso. Paul Cezanne is remembered for starting modernism and
is often designated as ‘Father of Modernism’. He was a French artist. His key
ideas are explained as follows:
‘Unsatisfied with the Impressionist dictum that painting is primarily a reflection
of visual perception, Cézanne sought to make of his artistic practice a new
kind of analytical discipline. In his hands, the canvas itself takes on the role of
a screen where an artist’s visual sensations are registered as he gazes intensely,
and often repeatedly, at a given subject.
Cézanne applied his pigments to the canvas in a series of discrete, methodical
brushstrokes as though he were “constructing” a picture rather than “painting”
it. Thus, his work remains true to an underlying architectural ideal: every portion
of the canvas should contribute to its overall structural integrity.’ (Websource:
theartstory.org).
Pablo Picasso was born in Spain and spent much of his time as artist in Paris.
He is credited for giving a new direction to modern and contemporary art
through creating a new movement in art known as Cubism along with Georges
Braque. Cubism paved the way for the pure abstraction that dominated Western
art for over fifty years. It had influence on future art movements like Futurism,
Constructivism, Dada and Surrealism. Picasso’s most famous art work ‘Les
Demoiselles d’Avignon’ is considered a great representative of modern art.
‘The painting originally raised significant controversy for its depiction of a
brothel scene and for the jagged, protruding, and abstract forms used to depict
the women. It is also widely considered the artwork that launched the Cubism
movement. The multiplicity of styles incorporated within this work — from
216
Iberian sculpture referenced in the women’s’ bodies to the sculptural Creations of New Cultural
deconstruction of space derived from Cézanne — not only represent a clear to Abstract Art
turning point in Picasso’s career, but make the painting an incredibly distinct
achievement of the modern era.’ (Websource: theartstory.org).
1) Write a brief note on Realism as reflected in literature.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) Define Modernism and explain its influence on literature and visual arts.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
16.5 LET US SUM UP

We have explained in this Unit that how political, economic and social
developments in Europe influenced the cultural world. New cultural forms
developed to give expression to the new ideas emerged as a response to the
changing reality. Three important cultural movements, Romanticism, Realism
and Modernism characterized the history of modern Europe. Under
Romanticism, Realism and Modernism we have discussed their meaning and
influence in the fields of literature and visual arts.

EXERCISES
1) See Section 16.2.
3) See Sub-sections 16.2.2 & 16.2.3
1) See Section 16.3
2) See Section 16.4
217
History of Modern
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) UNIT 17 CULTURE AND THE MAKING OF
IDEOLOGIES: CONSTRUCTIONS
OF RACE, CLASS AND GENDER
Structure
17.0 Objectives
17.1 Introduction
17.2 Ideology of Race
17.3 Ideology of Class
17.4 Ideology of Gender
17.5 Let Us Sum Up
17.0 OBJECTIVES
 meaning and development of ideology of race;
 the idea of class and emergence of the ideology of class; and
 the development of the ideology of gender.
17.1 INTRODUCTION
In the domain of economics and politics two major developments in nineteenth
century Europe, namely industrialization and colonization, had far reaching
significance in the development of ideologies of race, class and gender.
European expansion in Africa, Asia and other parts of world made it necessary
for the Europeans to establish its cultural supremacy to retain its political and
economic control over the colonies. The concept of race is generally viewed
by many social scientists as a cultural construct and used as a means to justify
social, political and economic order of colonialism. History of imperialism is
inseparable from the ideology of race. Throughout later half of nineteenth and
early twentieth century intellectual deliberations around race and racial
classifications changed the mindset of people in a big way. Similarly the
ideology of class and gender was the outcome of the changing socio-economic
necessity following industrialization. Industrialization produced new economic
and social conditions giving birth to socialist philosophy and the emergence of
class society. More women taking part in industrial economy brought new
consciousness among women and they raised their voice for equal right with
men in different spheres of life. Right to education, right to property, right to
vote, etc. caught the imagination of the new industrial society and urban
population. Ideology of gender believes that there is no natural and biological
foundation in the differences between men and women. It argues that society
and culture create distinct roles for men and women. This Unit will explain the
historical perspectives of the development of ideologies of race, class and
gender.
218
Culture and the Making of
17.2 IDEOLOGY OF RACE Ideologies: Constructions
of Race, Class and Gender
In the late nineteenth century Western imperialism represented by scramble
for Africa and parts of Asia was based on the belief that the Europeans had
the right to rule over Africans and Asians. The assumption of the white man’s
burden to civilize the brown- and black-skinned brothers of the colonized
country strengthened the European racist beliefs. Reflection of European racist
beliefs is very much found in the classifications of race and ethnicity in
population censuses done by colonial administrators. Through official
documentation and colonial education ideas of racial distinctions were made
part of local belief system and these ideas became deeply rooted among
colonial peoples. Let us now try to explore how the racial ideology developed
and became part of general beliefs of descent.
Many anthropologists, both biological and social, and other social scientists
believe that ‘race is a cultural construct’. Joseph Arthur Count de Gobineau, a
French aristocrat, is considered to be the man whose ideas greatly influenced
the development of racist ideology in Europe. He believed in his origin of a
noble race and he despised democracy. He tried to explain the rise and fall of
civilizations in terms of race. In a lengthy essay entitled ‘An Essay on the
Inequality of the Human Races’ Gobineau argued that civilization is marked
by the rise of a superior pure race but in course of time mixing with inferior
race it lost its vitality. Among the three races, the blacks, the yellows and the
whites, the whites were intelligent and handsome and among the whites the
Aryans were superior. He advocated for Germanic ‘Aryans’ which he
borrowed from the study of ancient languages as pure race with superior
characteristics. Gobineau’s idea was used for white domination and
propagation of three distinct races of man: Europeans, Africans and Asians.
His idea of white superiority was used by pro-slavery advocates. Charles
Darwin in his most memorable work, ‘On the Origin of Species’ provided
an explanation for the diversity of species through the theory of evolution by
natural selection. He explained the origins of species differentiation in response
to environmental change. Although he did not apply this for human being and
his theory was also contested but intellectuals used his theory as a justification
for racial differences. This further laid the foundation of physical anthropology
as a new science to classify different races and their attributes. Two important
writers, Francis Galton and Herbert Spencer, contributed in expanding the
idea of racial superiority. Francis Galton in his book ‘Hereditary Genius’
showed that the Britishers had the highest level of human progress and their
superiority was the result of their civilization which was superior. He propagated
the idea of inherited characteristics and argued that people of the best stock
should be encouraged to produce together. His arguments supported the cause
of white domination and colonization. Herbert Spencer was not in agreement
with Darwin’s idea of natural selection. He developed the themes of biological
evolution and social progress. It was not Darwin but Spencer who coined the
phrase ‘the survival of the fittest’. Based largely on notions of competition and
natural selection the concept of ‘Social Darwinism’ was developed. Believers
in Social Darwinism argue that the powerful in society are naturally better than
the weak and that success proves their superiority over others. Rich people
would survive and poor people would loose. ‘Social Darwinistic’ arguments
219
History of Modern were used by European powers to justify their control over non-European
peoples. Imperialists argued that a nation is strong because it is the fittest in
the struggle for survival. Darwinism became an instrument in the hands of
intellectuals advocating theories of race and civilization struggle. The European
states believed that superior races have the right to control inferior races.
‘Social Darwinism’ thus provided the rational for the civilizing mission of
Europeans to non-Europeans.‘Not until the nineteenth century, with the
beginnings of the industrial revolution, were European powers able to dominate,
militarily and politically, the landmasses and peoples of Asia and Africa.
European colonialists created sharp divisions of prestige, power, and economic
status between the rulers and the ruled in the Victorian Age. Because these
divisions coincided with differences in color and other physical attributes
between whites and the peoples of Asia and Africa, racism provided a powerful
legitimation of imperialism.’ (Source: ‘The Origins and Demise of the Concept
of Race’ Author(s): Charles Hirschman in Population and Development
Review, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Sep., 2004), pp. 395) Besides imperialism, slavery
was another institution where the racial ideology of white supremacy was
effectively in use. White plantation owners used the racial ideology to retain
their control over slaves and exploit them economically. Thus the ideology of
race became an instrument of control in the hands of western powers. This
helped the imperialist powers to create the distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’.
Emergence of nationalism provided further impetus to racist thought, particularly
in Germany. The worst form of racism was manifested under the Nazi rule in
Germany. Anti-colonial movement and democratic struggles in Asian and
African countries for the first time raised voices against racist ideology and its
perpetrators. (For further details on origin of racism you may read the article,
‘The Origins and Demise of the Concept of Race’Author(s): Charles Hirschman
in Population and Development Review, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Sep., 2004).
17.3 IDEOLOGY OF CLASS

Hierarchical rankings in European society used to be described in terms of
rank and order before the usage of class in nineteenth century to define social
ranking. Class and class relations in nineteenth century Europe were shaped
by economic, political and cultural factors. A variety of social classes existed
in Europe and relationships among classes changed significantly over time.
Class concept had its origin in feudal social system which was a highly
organized hierarchy. In feudal society monarch or sovereign occupied the top
of hierarchy, followed by the aristocrats, the gentry, the lawyers, merchants,
clergy, freehold farmers, down to tenant farmers, peasants and serfs. It was
the ownership of land which was the source of wealth and also determinant
of social hierarchy. There was a belief that social hierarchy was determined
by the divine order and needed to be respected and maintained. However,
with the advent of industrialization first in Britain and then in other European
countries the notion of social hierarchy got changed. It is no longer birth but
wealth, education and occupation became the determinant of class hierarchy
in society. Religious justification of social hierarchy had lost its relevance and
new ideas of social equality based on individual natural rights gained ground.
220
Social mobility both from upward to downward and vice-versa became very Culture and the Making of
Ideologies: Constructions
common. Let us now see how social thinkers explained this social of Race, Class and Gender
transformation and importance of class.
Karl Marx and Max Weber are two great thinkers who analyzed the social
class in the newly developed industrial society in Europe. Karl Marx talked
about two great classes- the owners of the means of production, capitalists,
and the workers who owned their ability to work. As capitalists or owners
paid wages to workers so owners had control over workers. Workers
dependence on the owners was the source of their exploitation and the basis
of class conflict. Both the owners and the workers were aware of their positions
and rights which according to Marx is class consciousness. Although he talked
about owners and workers but he was aware of the existence of a third category
petit bourgeoisie. Marx emphasized that distribution of wealth and work is the
basis of the class structure. According to Marx, Ít is not the consciousness of
men that determines their existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence
that determines their consciousness.’ (Karl Marx, A Critique of Political
Economy). He viewed that social stratification or class differences were the
result of the economic system of capitalism which put different classes in an
adversarial relationship. He found class divisions as the most important source
of social conflict. Marx wrote in Communist Manifesto, ‘The history of all
hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave,
patrician and plebeian, lord and serfs, guild-master and journeyman, in a word
oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried
on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended,
either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common
ruin of contending classes.’ Max Weber was influenced by class analysis of
Marx but in Weber’s view social status is also significant contributor of social
difference. He introduced the ideas of power and status in determining an
individual’s position in society. Instead of Marx’s classification of two social
classes-the haves and the have nots, Weber argued that the rise of the middle
class was the result of a person’s market position. In his opinion social
stratification does not necessarily lead to class consciousness and eventually
a revolution.
Although there are differences in defining class, there is general agreement
among social scientists that there are three major social classes- upper class,
middle class and working class. Historically in feudal society upper class was
represented by the aristocrats who owned land. In industrial society marked
by capitalism upper class is represented by those who possess wealth and
inherit large amounts of property. They have distinctive life style and enjoy
considerable power in economic and political decision making. The middle
class is comprised of those who work in technical and professional occupation,
white collar jobs, small business persons, etc. Explaining the rise of the middle
class E. J. Hobsbawm wrote, ‘The new men from the provinces were a
formidable army, all the more so as they became increasingly conscious of
themselves as a class rather than a ‘middle rank’ bridging the gap between
the upper and the lower orders. (The actual term ‘middle class’ first appears
around 1812.) … Moreover, they were not merely a class, but a class army of
combat, organized at first in conjunction with the ‘labouring poor’’ (who
must, they assumed, follow their lead) against the aristocratic society, and
221
History of Modern later against both proletariat and landlords, most notably in that most class-
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) conscious body the Anti-corn-Law League. They were self-made men, or at
least men of modest origins who owed little to birth, family or formal higher
education.’ (E. J. Hobsbawm, The Age of Revolution 1789-1848, pp.227-
28.)
In industrial society it is the working class comprising of manual workers,
skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled represents the majority of population and
they are the main driving force of the society. The working class generally did
not own property and depended on wages. The life of workers was unjust
and inhuman. They were the source of all wealth but they lived on the mercy
of their masters. They made the rich richer by working for them in their factories
but the workers remained poor and destitute. The workers did not remain
silent for their exploitation by the rich, became conscious of their rights and
got organized to fight for their rights. By 1830s proletarian consciousness was
very much visible in Britain and other European countries and they organized
democratic movement for their rights. In Britain between 1829 and 1834
workers mobilized themselves for higher wages and resorted to mass protest
and strike. This was the beginning of mobilization of the working class against
the upper class and the bourgeoisie and this reflected the development of
political consciousness of the laboring poor.
Thus we find that transition from feudalism to capitalism and development of
industrial society in Europe produced new social system and new classes.
Society became more fluid and opened up opportunities for mobility within
classes which was not possible under feudalism. In feudal society birth
determined your social position but under industrial capitalism possibilities
opened up for those at the bottom of society to climb up through education,
employment and wealth. (For further discussion on evolution of classes
you have also read Unit 12 in the course BHIC-111)
1) Write in ten sentences about the development of racial ideology and its
implication.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) How did the concept of class develop? Write a note on Marx’s ideas on
class.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
17.4 IDEOLOGY OF GENDER

Gender ideology is based on the idea of roles played by men and women in
society. The distinction between sex and gender is at the centre of gender
222
ideology. It is not only the question of gender but also the cultural construction Culture and the Making of
of the ideology of gender is also very important to understand the complexities of Race, Class and Gender
of societies. It is believed by many ideologues that there is nothing natural in
the distinction between men and women. Social or sexual roles associated
with men and women are purely cultural construction by men to subjugate
women in society. Struggle for women’s rights started before the advent of
the term feminism and the feminist movement began in Europe since late
nineteenth century. Feminists and women movements contested all patriarchal
prejudices prevailing in society. Let us now discuss the development of ideas
challenging the justification for women’s subjugation and treating them less
than equal as work force.
Intellectuals and activists including even men became vocal about women’s
rights. Marry Wollstonecraft in a treatise, A Vindication of the Rights of
Woman, talked about how women in her time in late eighteenth century were
oppressed and denied rightful place in society. She considered that neglect of
girls’ education was the main cause of their suffering as adult women. They
were projected as attractive, elegant and meek and they did not have means
to vindicate their fundamental rights. She condemned prevailing notions about
women as helpless. She wanted to promote reason and rationality in order to
empower women.
William Thompson is considered first male advocate for women’s rights in
nineteenth century. He authored ‘Appeal of One Half the Human Race:
Women against the Pretensions of the Other Half, Men to Retain Them
in Political, and thence in Civil and Domestic Slavery’. Expressing his
indebtedness to Mrs. Anna Wheeler he wrote, ‘In the following pages you will
find discussed on paper, what you have so often discussed in conversation-a
branch of that high and important subject of morals and legislations, the condition
of women, the one half of human race, in what is called civilized society. Though
not to me is that “divine inspiration given”, which can clothe with the grace
and eloquence of your unpremeditated effusions the calm stream of argument;
though not having been in the situation you have been, to suffer from the
inequalities of sexual laws, I cannot join with a sensibility equal to yours, in
your lofty indignation and contempt of the puerilities and hypocrisy with which
men seek to cover or to palliate their life-consuming and mind and joy-
eradicating oppressions, tempered always however with benevolence even to
the foolish oppressors themselves; though I do not feel like you-thanks to the
chance of having been born a man-looking lonely on the moral desolation
around; though I am free from personal interest in the consideration of this
question; yet can I not be inaccessible to the plain facts and reason of the
case. Though long accustomed to reflect on the subject, to you I am indebted
for those bolder and more comprehensive views which perhaps can only be
elicited by concentration of the mind on one darling though terrific theme. To
separate your thought from mine were now to me impossible, so amalgamated
are they with my own; to the public this is indifferent; but to me how flattering,
could I hope that any suggestion of mine had so amalgamated themselves in
your mind.’ (Cited in Vandana Joshi, ‘From a Bonsai To a Banyan Tree: The
Trajectory of European Feminism, in Vandana Joshi(ed.), Social Movements
and Cultural Currents 1789-1945, pp. 235-36).
223
History of Modern Advocating for political rights of women William Thompson wrote in ‘Appeal
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) of One Half the Human Race: Women against the Pretensions of the
Other Half, Men to Retain Them in Political, and thence in Civil and
Domestic Slavery’,
‘The unvaried despotism of so many thousand years, has not so entirely
degraded you, has not been able to extinguish within you the feelings of nature,
the love of happiness and of equal justice. The united exertions of law,
superstition, and pretended morals of past ages of ignorance, have not entirely
succeeded... To obtain equal rights, the basis of equal happiness with men,
you must be respected by them; not merely desired, like rare meats, to pamper
their selfish appetites. To be respected by them, you must be respectable in
your own eyes; you must exert more power, you must be more useful. You
must regard yourselves as having equal capabilities of contributing to the general
happiness with men, and as therefore equally entitled with them to every
enjoyment. You must exercise these capabilities, nor cease to remonstrate till
no more than equal duties are exacted from you, till no more than equal
punishments are inflicted upon you, till equal enjoyments and equal means of
seeking happiness are permitted to you as to men.’(Source:
womhist.alexanderstreet.com).
John Stuart Mill in his essay, ‘The Subjection of Women’, published in 1869
argued in favour of legal and social equality between men and women. He
wrote, ‘the legal subordination of one sex to the other is wrong in itself, and
now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement’. When Mill wrote
this essay women did not have a separate legal entity from her husband and
their ideal place was at home away from public place. He insisted that unless
society treats men and women equally, it is difficult to understand natural abilities
of women. Mill suggested reform to change existing social structures and voiced
his concern against subjugating women as second class citizens just because
of their birth as women. It is argued that education is responsible for subjugating
women in society. Society and education are primarily responsible in creating
inequality between men and women. Mill wrote,
‘Ever since there have been women able to make their sentiments known by
their writings (the only mode of publicity which society permits to them), an
increasing number of them have recorded protests against their present social
condition: and recently many thousands of them, headed by the most eminent
women known to the public, have petitioned Parliament for their admission to
the Parliamentary Suffrage. The claim of women to be educated as solidly,
and in the same branches of knowledge, as men, is urged with growing intensity,
and with a great prospect of success; while the demand for their admission
into professions and occupations hitherto closed against them, becomes every
year more urgent. Though there are not in this country, as there are in the
United States, periodical conventions and an organised party to agitate for the
Rights of Women, there is a numerous and active society organised and
managed by women, for the more limited object of obtaining the political
franchise.’ (J. S. Mill, The Subjection of Women).
Mill’s work had significant impact among Women in Europe and other
countries. Issues raised by intellectuals were primarily about women’s right
to education, property, political and economic rights and legal reforms
224
changing marriage laws giving women equal right. We will not cover here Culture and the Making of
feminist movement as we have discussed about gender in an earlier unit on of Race, Class and Gender
population, family and gender in the course BHIC-111. What is important to
note here, as a result of socio-political and economic changes there were
growing consciousness among women for equal rights which were denied to
them. Women’s movement for voting right first started in Britain in the second
half of nineteenth century and thereafter the movement became more radical
and spread to other countries. There was increasing demand for abolition of
patriarchy and institutions like the family, the Church, the academy and other
cultural institutions responsible for women subjugation were in the line of attack
of women activists. Differences between men and women began to be seen
more as socio-cultural construct than any natural difference. Initiatives taken
for emancipation of women resulted in visible changes in position of particularly
middle-class women in education, economy, politics and other spheres of life.
E. J. Hobsbawm wrote,
‘It may seem absurd, at first sight, to consider the history of half the human
race in our period in the context of that of the western middle classes, a
relatively small group even within the countries of “developed” and developing
capitalism. Yet it is legitimate, insofar as historians concentrate their attention
on changes and transformations in the condition of women, for the most
striking of these, “women’s emancipation”, was at this period pioneered and
still almost entirely confined to the middle and — in a different form — the
statistically less significant upper strata of society. It was modest enough at
this time, even though the period produced a small but unprecedented number
of women who were active, and indeed extraordinarily distinguished, in fields
previously confined entirely to men: figures like Rosa Luxemburg, Madam
Cutie, Beatrice Webb’. (E. J. Hobsbawm, The Age of Empire 1875-1914,
p. 192).
1) Define the ideology of gender.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
2) Write in brief about the views of William Thompson and John Stuart Mill
regarding women empowerment.
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
17.5 LET US SUM UP

We have discussed in this Unit that how political, social and economic
developments in nineteenth century Europe had impact on cultural life.
Expansion of colonial empire in Africa and Asia made it necessary for the
225
History of Modern imperialist powers to establish its dominance over the colonial people by
Europe-II (C.1780 To 1939) developing an ideology of cultural supremacy. Ideology of racial difference
and white supremacy was the result of colonial cultural construct. We explained
how Joseph Arthur Count de Gobineau, Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer
contributed through their research in establishing the ideology of race which
later on gave birth to racism and its worst manifestation was seen under the
Nazi regime in Germany. Transformation from feudalism to industrial
capitalism produced concept of new class formation. Land no longer remained
the sole determinant of class and in its place capital owned by a selective few
in society produced new class differentiation. Marx and Weber’s writings
represent this emergence of new class formation and its contradiction.
Particularly the rise of middle class and the working class and the mobilization
along class lines for protection of class interest became very visible in nineteenth
century. Women were denied of their right to equality, education, property
and vote. We find few women of upper strata of society through their writings
raised their concern about unequal treatment of women and some male
intellectuals also raised their voice for women rights. Industrialization brought
a large number of women out of home to work in factories and gradually
more women broke the barriers of patriarchy to demand for equal status with
men. Women voices forced the authority to acknowledge their right to equality
and gender ideology influenced the rise of feminism in Europe.
17.6 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS AND

EXERCISES
1) See Section 17.2
2) See Section 17.3
1) See Section 17.3
2) See Section 17.3
226
Culture and the Making of
SOME USEFUL BOOKS FOR THIS COURSE Ideologies: Constructions
of Race, Class and Gender
Hobsbawm, E. J., The Age of Revolution
Hobsbawm, E. J., The Age of Empire
Joll, Jnmes, Europe Since 1870: An International History
Carr, E.H., The Russian Revolution From Lenin to Stalin, 1917-21
Sitzpatrick, Sheila, The Russian. Revolution.
Robert, J.M., Penguin History of Europe.
Mackenzie, J. R., Imperialism and the Natural World
Joshi, Vandana (ed.), Social Movements and Cultural Currents 1789-1945
Admas Ian and Dyson, R. W., Fifty Major Political Thinkers
Mahajan, Sneh, Issues in Twentieth Century World History
Leo Huberman, Man’s Worldly Goods
P Sweezy and P Baran, Introduction to Socialism
Sharon A Kowalsky, ‘Justice: Modern European Socialism, 1850-1940’, in
Vandana Joshi (ed.) Revisiting Modern European History.
See Writings of Marx in www. marxist.org.
227
History of Modern
NOTES
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................
228
MPDD/IGNOU/P.O./4K/JUNE, 2022
BHIC - 114
ISBN : 978-93-5568-411-0
MPDD/IGNOU/P.O./2.5K/JUNE, 2022
BHIC-114 History of Modern Europe-II (c. 1780-1939)
ISBN : 978-93-5568-412-7

BHIC 114 (English)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BHIC 114 (English)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BHIC 114 (English)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MPDD/IGNOU/P.O./2.

HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE-II

School of Social Sciences

Prof. Srikrishna (Retd.) Prof. S.B. Upadhyay Shri Ajay Mahurkar

Prof. Swaraj Basu (Convenor)

Course Editor Course Coordinator

Course Preparation Team

6 Prof. Arup Banerjee (Retd.)

7, 8 Prof. Sucheta Mahajan

9 (Late) Dr. Visha Lakshmi Menon

3, 10, 11 Prof. Sri Krishna (Retd.),

2, 5, 12, 13, 14 Dr. Nalini Taneja (Retd.),

This course is based on the earlier courses on European History,

Unit 1 Liberal Democracy 9

1.6 The Crisis of Diplomacy

1.3 VERSAILLES AND AFTER

1.4 THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC AND LIBERAL

1.5 SOCIAL STRUGGLE AND THE SEARCH FOR

1.6 THE CRISIS OF DIPLOMACY

1.8 UNDERSTANDING THE 1920s

1.9 LET US SUM UP

1.10 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

2.3 Marxian Socialism

2.4 Let Us Sum Up

2.2 ORIGINS OF SOCIALIST THOUGHT

2.2.1 Early Socialist Thinkers

2.2.3 Charles Fourier

2.2.4 Robert Owen

2.3 MARXIAN SOCIALISM

2.3.2 Political Theory

2.3.3 Theory of Revolution

2.3.4 Impact of Marxism

2.4 LET US SUM UP

2.5 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

3.4.5 The Fall and Solo Republic

3.5 Right Wing Dictatorship and Movement in Spain

3.7.4 Baltic States

3.8 Let Us Sum Up

3.2 FASCISM : GENERAL FEATURES

3.3 THE POLITICAL ANTECEDENTS OF FASCISM

3.4 FOUNDATION OF FASCIST STATE IN ITALY

3.4.1 The Emergence of the Fascist Movement and Conquest

3.4.2 Consolidation of the Regime

3.4.3 Major Types of Fascist Mass Organizations

3.4.4 Nature of the Fascist State

3.4.5 The Fall and Solo Republic

3.5 RIGHT WING DICTATORSHIP AND MOVEMENT

3.6 THE FRENCH RIGHT AND VICHY GOVERNMENT

3.7 THE RIGHT WING MOVEMENTS AND

3.7.4 Baltic States

3.8 LET US SUM UP

3.9 KEY WORDS

3.10 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

4.7.8 Religious Intolerance

4.8 Genocide of the Jews

4.3 GERMAN POLITICS IN THE AFTERMATH OF WAR

4.4 FORMATION AND EARLY YEARS OF THE NAZI

4.5 THE CRISIS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY

4.6 THE POLITICAL CONSOLIDATION OF THE NAZIS