Robinson and Gallagher: The Imperialism of Free Trade

R Robinson and J Gallagher, “The Imperialism of Free Trade,” Economic History Review 6, no. 1 (1953): 1-15.

The authors begin by arguing that standard definitions and explorations of imperialism and empire are lacking, as they focus solely on formal rule. "The conventional interpretation of nineteenth-century empire continues to rest upon study of the formal empire alone, which is rather like judging the size and character of icebergs solely from the parts above the water line" (1).

One argument put forth and reinforced through example is that both standard, 19th century accounts of imperialism as well as radical critiques of imperialism reinforced one another in understanding imperialism as formal rule as opposed to less formal economic control.

"To sum up: the conventional view of Victorian imperial history leaves us with a series of awkward questions. In the age of 'anti-imperialism' why are all colonies retained? Why were so many more obtained? Why were so many new spheres of influence set up? Or again, in the age of 'imperialism', as we shall see later, why was there such reluctance to annex further territory? Why did decentralization, begun under the impetus of anti-imperialism, continue? In the age of laissez-faire why was the Indian economy developed by the state? These paradoxes are too radical to explain as merely exceptions which prove the rule or by concluding that imperial policy was largely irrational and inconsistent...The contradictions, it may be suspected, arise not from the historical reality but from the historians' approach to it. A hypothesis which fits more of the facts might be that of a fundamental continuity in British expansion throughout the nineteenth century" (5).

"Therefore, the historian who is seeking to find the deepest meaning of the expansion at the end of the nineteenth century should look not at the mere pegging out of claims in African jungles and bush, but at the successful exploitation of the empire, both formal and informal, which was then coming to fruition in India, in Latin American, in Canada and elsewhere" (15).

Cohen: The Question of Imperialism

Cohen, B., The question of imperialism, Basic Books.

Ch. VII: Toward a General Theory of Imperialism

“Chapter I suggested that there are two issues of particular importance to any study of the subject of imperialism: (1) the form of dominance-dependence relationships, and (2) the force(s) giving rise to and maintaining them” (229). While imperialism can take many forms, is there a common essence that can be uncovered? Is there a taproot?

The core of imperialist logic, according to Cohen, is clearly not rooted in radical Marxist accounts of under consumption or the changing composition of capital. “The theories are all much too highly deterministic” (230). “All through history there have been innumerable examples of imperialism having nothing to do with the international capitalist economy or the presumed needs of its most advanced constituents” (230). “In short, Marxist and radical theories of economic imperialism do not stand up to close analytical scrutiny. All that needs to be said about them has by now been said. As intellectual constructs, they are like elaborate sand castles—a few waves of the incoming tide, and much of their substance gradually dissolves and washes away” (231).

While Cohen glibly dismisses any radical economic explanation for the drive towards imperialism, he also promotes his own universal understanding of the cause of international economic expansion and dominance: power politics. However, this drive to power should not simply be stated and left without an explanation. That is the mistake of many scholars who posit power politics as being the cause of war, etc., but who have not sufficiently explained why this is the case. Cohen argues that this logic derives from the international system level of analysis, and not the state-based level of analysis. The system level contains a homogenizing characteristic: anarchy.

Anarchy creates a situation in which states can never feel completely secure. This insecurity arises from the fact that no state can ever insure themselves against the actions of another state. The account is a very standard structural realist one. Marxist accounts fail because they look at the level of the state for international affairs explanations, and this simply misses the larger picture. The problem for states comes when they try to “operationalize” this insecurity in foreign policy.

The comparison is drawn between states in anarchy and firms in an oligopolistic market to demonstrate how foreign policy can be derived from this position of insecurity. In an oligopolistic market there is insecurity and vulnerability. Each firm would like to have a monopoly, but they understand this to be unfeasible. Firms must scheme and plan for their long-term stability.

States in this situation want to avoid dependence. One way to accomplish this is through dominance. “This means that imperialistic behavior is a perfectly rational strategy of foreign policy” (242).

This is the core of the argument. Cohen then goes on to list some possible criticisms of his argument: too narrow, too broad and too shallow (three iterations).

Arendt: The Origins of Totalitarianism: The Political Emancipation of the Bourgeoisie

(Arendt, 2004)

Arendt, H. (2004). The origins of totalitarianism (1st ed.). New York: Schocken Books.

The Political Emancipation of the Bourgeoisie

This chapter outlines the development of society towards a system of imperialism. This occurs through the “emancipation” of the bourgeoisie politically, as they become more active and promote their interests.

The bourgeoisie where the, “…first class in history to achieve economic preeminence without aspiring to political rule” (167). This transition marks the first stage in the transition to imperialist economic and political policies. In previous stages of development, this class left the decisions of policy to the state, as long as these groups protected their property rights and thus left a milieu for business interests to take place.

“Imperialism was born when the ruling class in capitalist production came up against national limitations to its economic expansion. The bourgeoisie turned to politics out of economic necessity; for if it did not want to give up the capitalist system whose inherent law is constant economic growth, it had to impose this law upon its home governments and to proclaim expansion to be an ultimate political goal of foreign policy” (170).

Arendt criticizes the movement towards imperialism in the early 20^th century as not having the same moral authority as earlier movements towards empire, specifically she mentions Rome and the empire moves of Alexander the Great. Those classical empires were not an export of capital for profit (entirely), but rather an export of law, culture and people. The two differ in their quality and their substance. “What imperialists actually wanted was expansion of political power without the foundation of a body politic” (181).

As the bourgeoisie class continued to save and accumulate capital, outlets for investments domestically dwindled. This is one of the drivers of the imperialist need to invest abroad in under developed markets. “Imperialism must be considered the first stage in political rule of the bourgeoisie rather than the last stage of capitalism” (185).

She goes on to bring Hobbes into her argument, positing that the bourgeoisie class was the first to really take his teachings and bring them both to the political and economic sphere. “Power…is the accumulated control that permits the individual to fix prices and regulate supply and demand in such a way that they contribute to his own advantage…therefore, if man is actually driven by nothing but his individual interests, desire for power must be the fundamental passion of man” (187).

The emerging society was one of power and not of rights. The relationship between the state and bourgeoisie society shifted, with the later being chiefly concerned with their own power through amassed capital, and the former being destined to bring about the latter’s security and freedom from crime, etc. “This process of never-ending accumulation of power necessary for the protection of a never-ending accumulation of capital determined the ‘progressive’ ideology of the late nineteenth century and foreshadowed the rise of imperialism” (191). “The so-called accumulation of capital which gave birth to the bourgeoisie changed the very conception of property and wealth: they were no longer considered to be the results of accumulation and acquisition but their beginnings; wealth became a never-ending process of getting wealthier” (193).

“Death is the real reason why property and acquisition can never become a true political principle” (194).

“Hobbes was the true, though never fully recognized, philosopher of the bourgeoisie because he realized that acquisition of wealth conceived as a never-ending process can be guaranteed only by the seizure of political power, for the accumulation process must sooner or later force open all existing territorial limits” (195).

She ends this section of her work by tracing out a gradual decline of industrialized nations and a movement towards base nationalism. This decline can also be seen in Lenin’s account of the inner-decay of imperialist countries.

Gramsci: Selections from the Prison Notebooks (pp. 245-76)

Gramsci, A., Hoare, Q., & Nowell-Smith, G. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. London,: Lawrence & Wishart.

“…there exists an art as well as a science of politics" (251).

Gramsci begins this brief selection from Selections From the Prison Notebooks by making a comment about separations of powers: “…is a product of the struggle between civil society and political society in a specific historical period. This period is characterized by a certain unstable equilibrium between the classes, which is a result of the fact that certain categories of intellectuals…are still too closely tied to the old dominant classes” (245).

The process of socialization, or the important power of ideas, is one feature that shapes Gramsci’s thought. “If every State tends to create and maintain a certain type of civilization and of citizen…and to eliminate certain customs and attitudes and to disseminate others, then the Law will be its instrument for this purpose” (246).

The State is controlled by those who are in power in civil society. “In reality, the State must be conceived of as an ‘educator’, in as much as it tends precisely to create a new type or level of civilization” (247). The power is exerted, when it can be, through socialization. When it can not be, it is imposed by Law. “The Law is the repressive and negative aspect of the entire positive, civilizing activity undertaken by the State” (247).

“Political intuition is not expressed through the artist, but through the ‘leader’; and ‘intuition’ must be understood to mean not ‘knowledge of men’, but swiftness in connecting seemingly disparate facts, and in conceiving the means adequate to particular ends—thus discovering the interests involved, and arousing the passions of men and directing them towards a particular action” (252). Power is not crude deployment of material resource, but rather though ideational influence.

The Ethical State: “…every State is ethical in as much as one of its most important functions is to raise the great mass of the population to a particular cultural and moral level, a level…which corresponds to the needs of the productive forces for development, and hence to the interests of the ruling classes” (258).

Ability of a group to have influence in society without having to take the power of the state is Gramscian hegemony. “State = political society + civil society, in other words, hegemony protected by the armour of coercion” (263).

“The expressions ‘ethical State’ or ‘civil society’ would thus mean that this ‘image’ o fa Satat without a State was present to the greatest political and legal thinkers, in so far as they placed themselves on the terrain of pure science…” (263).

“A totalitarian policy is aimed precisely: 1. at ensuring that the members of a particular party find in that party all the satisfaction that they formerly found in a multiplicity of organizations, i.e. at breaking all the threads that bind these members to extraneous cultural organisms; 2. at destroying all other organizations or at incorporating them into a system of which the party is the sole regulator. This occurs: 1. when the given party is the bearer of a new culture—then one has a progressive phase; 2. when the given party wishes to prevent another force, bearer of a new culture, from becoming itself ‘totalitarianism’—then one has an objectively regressive and reactionary phase, even if that reaction (as invariably happens) does not avow itself, and seeks itself to appear as a bearer of a new culture” (265).

“..hegemony and dictatorship are indistinguishable, force and consent are simply equivalent; one cannot distinguish political society from civil society; only the State, and of course the State-as-government, exists, etc” (271).

Lenin: Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism

Lenin, Vladimir Il Ich. (1996). Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism: Pluto Press.

This text, originally published in 1916, explains a historical materialist perspective on the imperialism of the early twentieth century. Lenin describes how imperialism is a late, in his word “moribund” stage of capitalist development that came about after the monopolization of production domestically and the need to search for markets abroad. This eventually led to the partition of the globe into different spheres of economic and political influence which also contributed to imperialist wars either between different imperial powers or to subdue native populations.

The first chapter of this book is used to outline the beginning development of late capitalist production’s tendency towards monopolization. “The enormous growth of industry and the remarkably rapid process of concentration of production in ever-larger enterprises represents one of the most characteristic features of capitalism” (11). Enterprises grow, eat other enterprises and eventually become monopolies. These grow into cartels and these cartels eventually grow and become imperial in nature. Another characteristic of this production is that it has become social—the factory has grown to the size of a corporate, social endeavor—however, the “appropriation remains private” (20).

The second chapter is dedicated to the new role of the bank in this late capitalist development. However, because this industry also has a tendency to monopolize, “they become powerful monopolies having at their command almost the whole of the money capital of all the capitalists and small businessmen and also a large part of the means of production and of the sources of raw materials of the given country and in a number of countries” (27). This development both highlights and promotes the next driver of imperialism that Lenin highlights: that of finance capital.

Chapter 3 is dedicated to this factor. “Capitalism, which began its development with petty usury capital, ends its development with gigantic usury capital” (52). Countries are now able to, with the power that they wield through their consolidated banks and finance capital, sit back and lend money to industry which goes out and invests and is productive. The financier sits back and reaps the rewards while having not produced anything.

Chapter 4 looks at the process of exporting capital abroad. “Under the old capitalism, when free competition prevailed, the export of goods was the most typical feature. Under modern capitalism, when monopolies prevail, the export of capital has become the typical feature” (61). Lenin also criticizes those who would like to redistribute the profit to those who are less well off. He says that, “…if capitalism did these things it would not be capitalism; for uneven development and wrenched conditions of the masses are fundamental and inevitable conditions and premises of this mode of production. As long as capitalism remains what it is, surplus capital will never be utilized for the purpose of raising the standard of living of the masses in a given country, for this would mean a decline in the profits for the capitalist” (62).

The next chapter is titled, “The division of the world among capitalist combines”. The word “combine” here should be read as the word “cabal”. At this even higher stage of capitalist production, “we see plainly here how private monopolies and state monopolies are bound up together in the age of finance capital; how both are but separate links in the imperialist struggle between the big monopolists for the division of the world” (72-3).

The next chapter deals with the colonial division of the globe by the superpowers of Lenin’s time. He makes a point that there is a deterministic link between the movement from monopoly capitalism, to finance capitalism and then to colonialism (79). He also highlights how different proletariat groups are united under their imperialist flag, and against the internationalist cause (80). While colonialism has existed at least since the Romans, this is the first time that all of the raw materials were held in the hands of so few private interests.

Chapter 7 is about imperialism and how it represents a unique stage in the development of capitalism. The briefest definition of imperialism by Lenin is that of monopoly capitalism, but this is too parsimonious. He lists 5 characteristics: 1. concentration of production in monopolies; 2. merging of bank and industrial capital; 3. export of capital; 4. international capitalist monopolies dominate and divide globe; 5. territorial separation of world by capitalist powers. (90). This then leads to a struggle amongst existing world imperial powers and newly arrived imperial powers (see Japan in the early 20^th century) (98).

Chapter 8 regards the decay of capitalism, and highlights an earlier theme of laziness and usury. There is, in Lenin’s eyes, a tendency to stagnation and decay. Chapter 9 is a critique of imperialism focusing on its ineffectual nature. Chapter 10 places imperialism in a historical context and argues against other theorists who do not conform to Lenin’s theoretical framework.