Passage

Marxist View

1．How do we think about these differences(between the old and new colonialisms)?Was it that Europeans established empires far away from their own shores?Were they more violent or more ruthless?Were they better organised?Or a superior race?All of these explanations have in fact been offered to account for the global power and drastic effects of European colonialisms．Marxist thinking on the subject locates a crucial distinction between the two:whereas earlier colonialisms were precapitalist，modern colonialism was established alongside capitalism in Western Europe．Modern colonialism did more than extract tribute，goods and wealth from the countries that it conquered—it restructured the economies of the latter，drawing them into a complex relationship with their own，so that there was a flow of human and natural resources between colonised and colonial countries．This flow worked in both directions—slaves and indentured labour as well as raw materials were transported to manufacture goods in the metropolis，or in other locations for metropolitan consumption，but the colonies also provided captive markets for European goods．Thus slaves were moved from Africa to the Americas，and in the West Indian plantations they produced sugar for consumption in Europe，and raw cotton was moved from India to be manufactured into cloth in England and then sold back to India whose own cloth production suffered as a result．In whichever direction human beings and materials travelled，the profits always flowed back into the so-called“mother country”．

2．These flows of profits and people involved settlement and plantations as in the Americas，“trade”as in India，and enormous global shifts of populations．Both the colonised and the colonisers moved:the former not only as slaves but also as indentured labourers，domestic servants，travellers and traders，and the colonial masters as administrators，soldiers，merchants，settlers，travellers，writers，domestic staff，missionaries，teachers and scientists．The essential point is that although European colonialisms involved a variety of techniques and patterns of domination，penetrating deep into some societies and involving a comparatively superficial contact with others，all of them produced the economic imbalance that was necessary for the growth of European capitalism and industry．Thus we could say that colonialism was the midwife that assisted at the birth of European capitalism，or that without colonial expansion the transition to capitalism could not have taken place in Europe．

Leninist View

3．In the early twentieth century，Lenin and Kautsky(among other writers)gave a new meaning to the word“imperialism”by linking it to a particular stage of the development of capitalism．In Imperialism，the Highest Stage of Capitalism(1947)，Lenin argued that the growth of“finance-capitalism”and industry in the Western countries had created“an enormous superabundance of capital”．This money could not be profitably invested at home where labour was limited．The colonies lacked capital but were abundant in labour and human resources．Therefore it needed to move out and subordinate non-industrialised countries to sustain its own growth．Lenin thus predicted that in due course the rest of the world would be absorbed by European finance capitalists．This global system was called“imperialism”and constituted a particular stage of capitalist development—the“highest”in Lenin's understanding because rivalry between the various imperial wars would catalyse their destruction and the demise of capitalism．It is this Leninist definition that allows some people to argue that capitalism is the distinguishing feature between colonialism and imperialism．

4．Direct colonial rule is not necessary for imperialism in this sense，because the economic(and social)relations of dependency and control ensure both captive labour as well as markets for European industry as well as goods．Sometimes the words“neo-imperialism”or“neo-colonialism”are used to describe these situations．In as much as the growth of European industry and finance-capital was achieved through colonial domination in the first place，we can also see that imperialism(in this sense)is the highest stage of colonialism．In the modern world then，we can distinguish between colonisation as the take over of territory，appropriationofmaterialresources，exploitationoflabourand interference with political and cultural structures of another territory or nation，and imperialism as a global system．However，there remains enormous ambiguity between the economic and political connotations of the word．If imperialism is defined as a political system in which an imperial centre governs colonised countries，then the granting of political independence signals the end of empire，the collapse of imperialism．However，if imperialism is primarily an economic system of penetration and control of markets，then political changes do not basically affect it，and may even redefine the term as in the case of“American imperialism”which wields enormous military and economic power across the globe but without direct political control．

5．Thus，imperialism，colonialism and the differences between them are defined differently depending on their historical mutations．One useful way of distinguishing between them might be to not separate them in temporal but in spatial terms and to think of imperialism or neoimperialism as the phenomenon that originates in the metropolis，the process which leads to domination and control．Its result or what happens in the colonies as a consequence of imperial domination is colonialism or neo-colonialism．Thus the imperial country is the“metropole”from which power flows，and the colony or neo-colony is the place which it penetrates and controls．Imperialism can function without formal colonies(as in United States imperialism today)but colonialism cannot．

Questions for Understanding:

1．How does Marxist thinking differentiate the new colonialism from the old one?

2．What do you think Marx examines in order to bring to the fore modern colonialism?

3．What is imperialism or capitalism?What marks off imperialism from colonialism?

4．Should imperialism be approached from political and economic aspects?Why?

5．Different as they are，what might be the essence both colonialism and imperialism share?