HISH 113 Lecture Notes

Dr J Chakawachakawaj@msu.ac.zw

or chakawajoshua@yahoo.com

IMPERIALISM AND DEVELOPMENT

Introduction

Bernard Porter has argued that throughout history people have settled among other peoples, invaded, dominated, ruled, robbed, exploited, civilised, enslaved and exterminated other peoples. At the centre of his argument is that imperialism is just natural and driven by materialist interests rather than the inherent need to dominate. He should be understood because he did indicate in his book that he is a patriotic Briton and was writing for the British audience. To the consumers of imperialism, the negatives are known in as much as the positives are acknowledged. Therefore, there is no historically reliable record in trying to completely humanize that phase in world history.

Imperialism did not come to an end with the close of the 19 th century. Throughout history, it continued to manifest itself. This is reflected in the Anglo-Boer war, the First World War, the Second World War, the Cold War and even in economic wars. The latest imperialism in the old-fashioned full-blooded sense of the term is Israel’s 20th century colonization or re-colonization of the Holy Land. The American invasion of Iraq in 2003 also qualifies. The spread of Islam and Christianity equally qualify. It prepared and softened people for what was to come. In all cases however, imperialism has led to the underdevelopment of those regions dominated.

Originally, the term was used for Napoleon after he dubbed himself emperor in 1804. During that era, the British were reluctant to apply it on themselves. However, they became major players of that process and actually controlled 25% of colonies in Africa. Westernization itself was a form of imperialism because it dispossessed other peoples culturally.

Whenever one is to understand and appreciate imperialism, the development paradigm also requires serious attention. The colonised throughout the developing world complain that their current situation of languishing in poverty was largely caused by colonialism. At the same time, former colonisers argue that they did all they could to develop the periphery. They accuse postcolonial governments of mismanaging their countries hence the current status.

The module takes a wider perspectives which takes into consideration the role of imperialism to the development discourse.

Understanding Imperialism

Loosely defined as the scramble for overseas territory which began in Europe during the last quarter of the 19th century.

Territories were curved out in Africa and Asia. Also Called New Imperialism.

Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936) captured it in his poem as the White man’s burden. On the other hand, a British journalist, Edward Morel who spent some time in the Congo where he saw the destructive effects of white imperialism saw it as the black man’s burden.

Kipling defined Africans in the following zoological terms: sullen peoples, half devil and half child.

It is also to be understood as first globalization or colonialism. It is understood differently by its perpetrators and victims who were the colonised or subjugated.

Asia was also one of the victims of imperialism. The Dutch for example became established in the East Indies, the Spanish were in the Philippines, the French and the Portuguese had trading posts on the Indian coast. The British took Australia but gave her self-government in 1850. India was subjugated by the British East India Company. The British government took over from the government in 1858.

Russia expanded and consumed the whole of Siberia. They also claimed Alaska which they sold to the USA in 1867. They also advanced into the Ottoman Empire. Russians were fast moving into Central Asia by the 1830s. In 1907, Russians and the British agreed to make Afghanistan a buffer state between Russian Turkestan and British India and to divide Persia into 2 spheres of influence.

The British, French, Germans, Russians, Japanese and Americans had long term leases of Chinese territory by 1842.

SCRAMBLE AND PARTITION OF AFRICA: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Europeans did establish colonies in the 1st half of the 19th century. The last quarter however saw unprecedented expansion of the process. By WW1, only Ethiopia and Liberia were not partitioned. There are a number of factors which accounted for this process.

The 1st was the formation of new large states of Italy and Germany. The later was a military and economic giant. Expansion was associated with prestige for countries such as Germany. Having colonies would also raise status and influence in international affairs. France also wanted prestige following her defeat by Germany in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1. Prestige influenced Italian expansion into North-east Africa.

Another equally important factor was strategy. For example, France occupied Tunis because she feared that Italy might occupy the North African coast owing to her increased influence there. As will be discussed, strategic reasons influenced British occupation of Egypt. That argument is advanced and explained in detail by Robinson and Gallagher. Britain feared that she would lose the Suez Canal to France. Britain also feared Russian entrance from the Black Sea. Survival of Egypt depended on the Nile. To prevent sabotage of the lifeline, she saw it imperative to also occupy Sudan, Uganda and Kenya.

Another equally important factor was public opinion. By the last quarter of the 19 th century, the vote had been extended to ordinary citizens in most of Europe. Although these voters did not have details about imperialism, they greatly supported the idea of their country taking up colonies. Public pressure compelled the French Assembly to ratify De Brazza’s treaty with Chief Makoko. Public opinion also influenced establishment of British protectorate over Uganda. In Germany parliamentary elections compelled Bismarck to change his stance over colonies. Initially, he had been opposed to the acquisition of colonies. His candidates would only win if he supported colonization. In the end Germany established colonies over South West Africa, Togo, Cameroon and Tanganyika. Press and colonial societies in many European countries increased support for colonies. In England, The Daily Mail and The Times were imperialistic. In 1884, Karl Peters founded the Society for German colonization. There were also geographical societies which supported colonization.

Investments became less lucrative in Europe because of the 1875-1900 economic Depression. Colonization was the way out for most businessmen. For Leopold, this was correct as he made a profit of 28 million francs between 1878 and 1908 from his ventures in Africa. Rhodes came to Zimbabwe anticipating to get a lot of gold. Businessmen also exerted pressure on their governments because they were not realizing enough profits hence needed government protection against trade rivals. For example, in some parts of West Africa, Europeans were not able to compete with African commercial organizations such as Jaja of Opobo. He was overthrown by Harry Johnston. Businessmen from Europe wanted to boot each other out by inviting their home governments. For example, in West Africa, British traders began to impose customs against French and German traders in the 1870s. Efficient collection of customs required political protection hence imperialism.

Missionaries also played an important role in facilitating the process of colonization. Their arguments were that they wanted home governments to come in and stop wars, slave trade and to protect them from Muslim attacks. They also intended to destroy traditional religion. Civilizing mission provided a moral justification for colonization. That way, missionary activities would be made much easier. Furthermore, Europeans considered their race superior. As such, they had a moral duty of bringing civilization to the African race which they considered as the damned of the earth. Such Englishmen who strongly believed in the superiority of their race included Harry Johnston, Cecil John Rhodes among others.

In the wake of the Industrial Revolution, Europe wanted colonies for purposes of exporting her manufactures. Each country was producing far much more than she could consume. There was need for a solution to the problem of overproduction. Europe also wanted to control the sources of raw materials

such as cotton, rubber and minerals. According to Carlton Hayes, Europe was pushed to Africa because of undersupply of raw materials. This argument will be pursued further as we discuss Hobson’s theory.

Another equally important reason was investing surplus capital. Those in business became interested in opening new areas where such capital could be invested. Of course, this does not discount the investment of capital in independent countries such as the United States, Brazil and Canada.

Factors within Africa also facilitated the imposition of colonial rule. Some of the factors included lack of unity, old-fashioned military tactics and so on. Europeans were also helped by the discovery of quinine to treat malaria. It meant that they could venture into the interior without any fear.

Several theories have been advanced to explain this sudden increase of interest in colonies. The first such group of theories are known as Marxist. However, Marx himself did not use the term. Below is a discussion of the Marxist theory of imperialism.

Marxist Theory of Imperialism

The word imperialism is used to describe the general changes which occurred in the political, economic and social activity of the bourgeoisie of Western countries from the last quarter of the 19th century. Marx died early to see this process but nevertheless, he left profound remarks in his writings which then provided a starting point for the Marxist theory of imperialism. In the 21st century and into the first millennium, imperialism and the theorizing associated with it was one of the key concerns of the Marxist thinkers of the past 100 years. The end of the First World War has also provided grounds for rethinking imperialism.

For Lenin and others such as J A. Hobson, Rudolf Hilferding and Nikolai Bukharin, imperialism grew out of developments of the late 19th century and early 20th century capitalism. Competitive capitalism of the 1800 culminated in more organized and concentrated forms of manufacturing found in Germany and the USA. In 1902, Hobson was one of the first writers to produce a ground breaking thesis on the connection between imperialism and developments in the economies of advanced capitalist countries. Hilferding wrote Finance Capital in 1910 though he did not define imperialism, he made it clear that it was a result of changes to capitalism leading to what he called finance capital. Bukharin made the link between capitalism and imperialism clearer. Lenin claimed that it was a necessary product of a particular stage of capitalism.

There were also other factors connected to capitalism such as political, social, ideological and psychological. For the writers identified above, imperialism is a specific phenomenon; it was and is capitalist imperialism. For David Harvey, imperialism is a product of the territorial and capitalist logistics of power where interstate relations and flows of power are manifested within

a global system of capital accumulation. Almost always, less powerful states are subordinated to the powerful capitalist states. Subordination is maintained through formal political ties for example direct rule or with independence masking dependence. Capitalist rivalries over control of resources feature prominently in the causes of WW2. Such capitalist competition has not come to an end. For example, the invasion of Iraq was intended to control oil resources. From 2000, Marxist writers have been assessing globalization.

Marx’s theory of Imperialism

Marx did not use the word imperialism. He had a theory of capitalism together with its impact on none-European societies. Marx argued that European capitalism could develop and grow on its own without expanding to surrounding pre-capitalist societies.

Marx did not have a term to describe the rule of a more advanced nation state over a backward area. He used the term imperialism in as far as it applied to European settlement in areas for which indigenous inhabitants had been chased away such as Australia and America. His analysis of capitalism is found in Capital Volumes 1-3. According to the capitalist mode of production, labour power has a single price governed by the value of labour power and when prices of production are included, a single rate of profit accrues to all capitalists. In this abstract theory, there is no difference in economic conditions between countries. Therefore, his theory is diametrically different from that of Andre-Gunder Frank who uses the centre periphery theory.

Marx made a distinction between use value and exchange value of a commodity. Use value is essential for the survival of any society. Exchange values are determined by (labour) value. Value of a commodity is defined as the socially necessary labour time (measured in hours) which is required directly or indirectly to produce it. Labour theory of value has been subject to debate by Morishima, 1974, 76 & Steedman, 1975, 1977 & Wright, 1979. The problem is that goods do not exchange at their value but at market prices which regularly fluctuate. Values are difficult to define satisfactorily.

Karl Marx wanted to expose the source of surplus value or roughly profit. The worker sells his labour power, that is, ability to work rather than his labour. Capitalist buys labour power. Capitalist also buys the means of production (materials, equipment) for the worker to put to use. Value created by labour is determined by the number of hours put in it through the wage paid by the capitalist which corresponds to the value of labour power, i.e. the value needed to reproduce the day’s labour power which in turn is the value of commodities needed for subsistence of the worker. Therefore if the value created in a day exceeds the value of a day’s labour, there is surplus value which the capitalist pockets.

Surplus value comes about when workers produce more than what they can get. It also depends on the prices of goods since they do not have the same price even if the same amount

of labour has been expended in them. Surplus value corresponds to surplus product. If wages rise, they threaten surplus value. The capitalist starts with money, then the means of production and labour power, then commodities are produced then money. The process starts again. Marx assumed that workers do not profiteer and soon they would have used up their wages and they will be back at work. He further assumed that there will always be a reserve army of labour. These would help to keep wages down. If all potential wage labourers are employed, there will be a crisis.

The next question is how capitalists would sell everything they produced given that there was under-consumption in Europe. Marx’s answer was that capitalists consume the surplus product by selling each other since each specialises in a particular product. Under-consumption has been discussed by Luxemburg, Hobson and Sweezy. It explains the search for external markets to make up for deficient demand at home.

Labour needed to buy wage is necessary labour and the rest is surplus labour. Surplus value can be created by increasing working hours. This is called absolute surplus value which can be likened to colonial labour exploitation. It can also be realized by increasing productivity- this is called relative surplus value. Absolute value was easily realised in colonies where working hours were extended to the maximum. Wives and children could also be called upon to beef up the labour.

As firms compete, capital will first be concentrated (concentration of capital), then amalgamation will follow (centralization of capital). Marx asserted that there is a tendency for the rate of profit to fall. Marxists suggested that imperialism is a response to falling profits. The merchant’s capital comes from idle money which industrial and commercial businesses have. This money is deposited into banks which in turn lend it to capitalists. This money is called finance capital. Savings of individuals can also be put into use that way. Marx defined the capitalist means of production in terms of the relationship between workers and capitalists.

Origins of capitalism

Emerged in Europe and colonies of European settlement (America, Australia) and developed independently in Japan. In the rest of the world, it was alien and introduced at the point of a gun. Europe was initially dominated by feudal mode of production and most of Asia by the Asiatic. Decay for the feudal mode paved way for the growth of capitalism. Asiatic mode of production was also practised in Africa where whites pegged large tracts of land and began taxing people. This mode was more despotic.

End of feudalism created proletariats. Landlords began to farm the same land producing the same amount of food. Previous producers were now turned into propertyless wage earners. Marx called this process primitive accumulation of capital. It is similar to the destruction of peasant agriculture in Rhodesia. In Europe, landlords did not work but rented out their land to tenant farmers. In Russia, landlords were called kulaks. State assisted primitive accumulation by repressing the newly forming working class and keeping wages down.

Expansion of capitalism

Competition drives out others to seek profit. Laggards go bankrupt. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx argued that competition chased the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. Capitalists went out of Europe in search of fresh labour power. That labour was usually cheap. This explains why today American firms are in China.

Colonialism

He did not discuss it but information comes from scattered statements about Ireland, India and British dealings with China. He argued that Ireland was poor because she was being exploited by Britain through the expulsion of the peasants and the creation of capitalist farms by the landed aristocracy. Each time Ireland was about to develop industrially, she was crushed and re-converted into a purely agricultural land.

Ireland had no protective tariffs hence her industries could not compete with those of Britain. The Irish were compelled to migrate and seek work in England’s industrial cities.

Articles for India and China were written for the New York Daily Tribune. Indian textiles were destroyed by British textiles as from 1813. Feudalism was destroyed and peasants were chased away from the land. British rule in India caused massive misery and preconditions for massive advance. In practice, India did not develop under British rule into an industrial country.

Main Source : Anthony Brewer, Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey, London and New York, Routledge, 1990.

John Atkinson Hobson and the theory of under-consumption

(*1858, Derby, England- 1940, London, England)

J.A. Hobson's political thinking was shaped by the conditions in England of the second half of the 19th century, where the doctrine of laissez-faire liberalism seemed ill-equipped to deal with the challenges of alleviating poverty, poor housing and health, working conditions and education. Hobson was one of the leading minds—together with T.H. Green and L.T. Hobhouse —of the so-called New or Social Liberalism. Hobson was a member of such progressive ethical societies as the “Rainbow Circle” and “South Place Ethical Society”, a prolific journalist, active political campaigner and political theorist.

Hobson compared the workings of society to a biological organism and took the concept of a “social organism” further than any other thinker of his time. He made the “organic” perspective the linchpin of his social philosophy. He incorporated natural science into his analysis of social relations without adopting authoritarian, deterministic undertones often associated with those theories. Society to him was “rightly regarded as a moral rational organism in the sense that it has a common psychic life, character and purpose, which are not to be resolved into the life, character, and purpose of its individual members”. (Hobson,The Crisis of Liberalism, 1909).

Hobson carved out a new intellectual and political middle-ground, evident in three areas: first, he advocated a greater role for the state than laissez-faire liberals, yet smaller than socialists. Second, he criticised both classic liberals and socialists for the hard-and-fast lines drawn by them between individualism and collectivism.  Third, while rejecting an atomistic view of society, and advocating public property in addition to individual property, he nevertheless also opposed socialist blueprints of a central-planned economy. He thought of human nature as combining collectivist and individualist characteristics, and on this basis he aimed to intertwine individualism with collectivism in society.

His approach was highly original, in that he introduced a shift in perspective in liberal thinking. Earlier liberalism held the view that the individual agrees to hand power over to the state in order for the latter to safeguard personal freedoms. The beneficiary and raison d'etre of the state was the individual and the state was a means to an end. Hobson turned that perspective around and argued that society as a social organism has an interest in each member's individual development and well-being in order to remain healthy. In other words, he viewed the individual as a means to an end, the end being a healthy society with social progress, akin to an organism depending on healthy cells. Here, society was the beneficiary and raison d'etre of the greatest possible advancement and liberty of each of its individual members.  Although in marked contrast to the core liberal creed that the individual is not to be regarded as a means to an end but as an end in itself, this viewpoint allowed Hobson to advocate both individual freedoms and welfare reforms simultaneously and outside the framework of an either socialist or liberal atomistic ideology --

and hence to avoid their respective infringements on personal liberties/ eschewing of communal responsibility.

In the field of economic theory, his unorthodox blend of economics with a qualitative, humanist approach paved the way for ways of looking at utility and rationality and hence later welfare economics. His work “Imperialism: A Study” (1902), he saw the mal-distribution of wealth, leading to over-saving on part of the rich and under-consumption on part of the many poor as well as elitist self-interests as the causes of imperialism.

Although one can point to shortcomings in his analysis of imperialism in that he focused on the economic dimension and a Euro-centric view, left unanswered questions of how to measure social welfare (through subjective or objective criteria, or by quantifiable results?) as well as letting community values seemingly at times prevail over individual liberties, Hobson contributed to liberal thought by departing from the exclusive focus on the individual and concerning itself with social reforms. Seeing social reform as an ethical process as much as a socio-political one, he greatly enriched the understanding of “reform” and “social progress”, away from a quantitative, limited view towards a comprehensive, truly humanist understanding.

Hobson, together with other progressive liberal thinkers, can be credited for having provided the ideological underpinning for the British welfare state and helping to discredit imperialism. Finally, reading Hobson and other thinkers of new liberalism will prevent one from adopting either one of two myths: first, that the welfare state did come about though an unplanned reaction and not due to political theorizing. Second, that the British mind abhors theorizing. The opposite is ample to see in the thinkers of social liberalism.

Imperialism as an outlet for population

Supporters of imperialism argued that imperialism was an outlet of excess British population which the national economy was unable to effectively assist. Surprisingly most of the migration was directed to old colonies of USA, Canada and Australia.Ecological redemption - to step in and utilize resources which lay unused and to compel inhabitants to utilize them.According to this line of thinking, Britain was one of the most congested areas in the world. Her growing population could not find enough remunerative occupation within these islands to earn a decent and secure living. The labour market was overstocked. All these have been served to the empire through the process of imperial expansion. Deemed to have settled either in vacant places of the world which they seized and kept under British rule . Imperial control was necessary to cover the new homes Thus would facilitate British trade and investmentAreas would also attract a certain British population of engineers, traders, overseers, merchants etc. The government therefore had the duty to protect outlanders hence its participation in the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902.They were protecting British property.

Economics of Imperialism- At the turn of the century, sir Robert Griffen’s estimate of the size of the British empire

was at about 13 000 000 square miles with a population of about 400-420 million people of whom 50 million were of British race and speech .

- Noted that Britain is not alone in the imperial game. That France and German went to war in 1870 so testifies.

- Claimed to be extending political and civil liberties through imperialism.

Commercial value of imperialism - Argued that colonialism furnished a small proportion of real income to the nation.

Economic taproot of imperialism

- Supporters of imperialism had the following arguments: Large savings are made which cannot find profitable investment in Britain - they find employment elsewhere Markets are opened for British goods, employment created for British citizens- Such a change in the late 19th century emanated from the industrial revolution in not

only Britain but United States as well.- Cut throat competition which culminate in amalgamation throw a lot of wealth into the hands

of a few captains of industry.Power of production has exceeded/outstripped rate of consumption and it was not possible to increase rate of consumption through lowering prices for the industrial classes would resist such efforts - What people earn are mostly low wages therefore unable to buy all manufactures- Accordingly therefore, there was overproduction in industry and under consumption by the

British- Trusts are not willing to invest their profit locally- USA and British products / manufactures are saturated with capital and can absorb no more - Trusts in USA are seeking investments abroad to pay loans from the UK and other

countries for development of their railroads, mines manufactures etc - The Republican Party in the USA thus went for imperialism - invaded parts of Mexico.- Because many countries were resorting to protectionism the solution was to establish

special political relations in the markets - imperialism - That appetite is solved by colonizing the Philippines, Hawaii, Cuba etc -that is, American

imperialism. - American imperialism is because of advanced capitalism which cannot find a home market.- Over production forces Britain, Germany, Holland and France to place larger and larger

portions of their economic resources outside the area of their political domain and to take over new areas.

- It was pointed out that by the late 19th century Germany was suffering from a glut of capital and of manufacturing power - she must have new markets, her consuls all over the world are ‘hustling for trade – trading settlements are forced upon Asia Minor , East and West Africa, China etc - Germany is forced to a policy of colonization and protectorates as outlets from her commercial energy.

- Merchants use governments to achieve their ends eg De Brazza used French government, Karl Peters the Germany government, Rhodes, the British government etc

- Powers of production are exceeding consumption, more goods are being produced than can be sold for profit. More capital exists than can find remunerative investment.

- This economic condition is the taproot of imperialism. - According to Hobson, such is the state of affairs because owners of consuming power

refuse to apply that power in effective demand for commodities- Large banks have idle money seeking any sort of profitable investment and finding none.Why is consumption failing to keep pace with the power of production? Why does under consumption or over saving occur? - Saving in excess cause mischief (imperialism) - Distribution is not fixed to the needs - Some people have excess economic consuming powers vastly in excess of needs or possible

uses yet others are destitute of consuming power enough to satisfy even the full demands of physical efficiency

- Mines from rich and poor mines get the same low wage.- The rich spend their fortunes in luxury of imperialism - Imperialism is the endeavor of great controllers of industry to broaden the channel for the

flow of their surplus wealth by seeking foreign markets and foreign investments to take off the goods and capital they cannot use or sell at home.

- Imperial expansion is a necessary outlet for progressive industry.- However, it is not industrial expansion which leads to search for new markets but

maldistribution of consuming power which prevents absorption of commodities and capital within the country.

- Over saving is the economic taproot of imperialism - Thus it is not logical to fight imperial wars such as the 1899-1902 Anglo Boer war. It was

fought against a background of hungry mouths, ill clad backs, ill furnished houses and countless materials wants of British citizens / population.

- 25% of the urban population lived below the poverty datum line - Struggle for markets, the greater eagerness of producers to sell than consumers to buy is the

crowning proof of a false economy of distribution.- Imperialism is the fruit of the false economy social reform is the remedy. - Social reform implies to raising the standard of living for the people, rate of

consumption for the nation so as to enable the nation to live up to its highest standard of production .

- Industry resisted social reform.- Trade unionism and socialism are natural enemies of imperialism because they challenge its

excesses. In the words of Hobson, they take away from the imperialist class the surplus, incomes which form the economic stimulus of imperialism.

- The tendency of imperialism is thus to crush trade unionism and to nib in the bud state socialism.

- To Hobson, imperialism is wasteful.

The politics of imperialism - Those supportive of imperial expansion forwarded that colonialism was intended to spread

democracy, civil freedom which are deemed to be lacking in the greater majority of British subjects.

- Even in west Australia which is deemed to have responsible representative government, democracy is tempered with. Same applies to the Cape Colony and Natal where the Boers were excluded from enjoying political rights. Colonization selects a portion of representatives in Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad, Bahamas, British Guinea, Windward Islands, Bermudas, Malta, Mauritius, Ceyclon. Attaching property qualification also excludes the majority. The British Empire thus not an educator of free political institutions. Less than 5% of British citizens enjoy political and civil liberties. Self government is only in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. It is not possible to expect liberties because colonies were dumping grounds for surplus population, including criminals, paupers etc. Britain therefore failed to spread the arts of government except maybe in Australia and Canada.

V.I.Lenin, Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism

He hailed from a Russia which was weak. Defeated in 1904. Again defeated in WW1

therefore he was angry.

- Thinks that the WW1 was imperialist i.e. annexationist, predatory and plunderous war on

the part of both sides. It was a war for the division of the world, for partition and

repartitioning of colonies, spheres and influence and finance capital etc.

- Fowards that imperialist wars are absolutely inevitable as long and private property as the

means of production exists. Look at invasion of Russia in terms of her wealth, Alsace

Lorraine for her iron.

- Railway construction has been used to exploit millions in colonies- use Uganda

railway

- Growth of capitalism has led to colonial exploitation and financial strangulation of the

overwhelming majority of the world’s population by advanced countries.

- Brest-Litovisk peace treaty and Versailles were all indications of imperialism judged

from the way they parcelled out the world

- Millions were maimed and killed by the war only for the victors to share the spoils

of war .

- Concentration of production and monopolies are some of the most characteristic

features of imperialism

- Large concerns are controlling almost every sector of the economy

- Concentration is also leading to monopoly

- Giant enterprises also control the market through agreements. Competition is also

reduced by moving towards monopoly. try to understand indigenisation from this

angle

- Another feature of imperialism at its highest is combination of production ie

grouping in a single enterprises of different branches of industry.

- Factory organization entered into a fierce struggle with handicraft and domestic industry

which it destroyed. This became more pronounced in the colonies.

- As from 1899, cartels became the foundation cornerstones of economic life.

- Monopolies grew in the following stages

- 1860-1870 free competition. Monopoly was at its embryonic stage.

- 1873-1900 transitional period also covers economic depressions.

- Boom at the end of the 19th cartels become foundations of economic life.

- At this stage, capitalism is transformed into imperialism

- cartels agreed on terms of payment and salaries literally choking the consumer and

worker.

- Germany had about 250 cartels in 1896, 385 in 1905. USA had 250 in 1907.

- Monopolies concentrate / monopolize skilled labour eg engineers

- Kestener observed that monopolies take a number of measures against outsiders

( outside capitalists)

i. Stopping supplies of raw materials

ii. Stopping the supply of labour by means of alliances

iii. Stopping deliveries

iv. Closing of trading outlets

v. Agreement with buyer

vi. Systematic price cutting

vii. Stopping credit

viii. Boycott

- Imperialism constitutes the stage in which the globe has been divided among the

biggest capitalists powers.

- Kautsky (1915) thought that imperialism is not a stage but a definite deliberate

policy which is preferred by finance capital. His definition is as follows

o Imperialism is a product of highly developed industrial capitalism. It consists

in the striving of every industrial/ capitalist nation to bring under its control

or to annex larger and larger areas of agrarian territory irrespective of

what nations inhabit those regions .

- Not a precise definition- colonies are not always agrarian. Industrialised regions

are annexed eg Germany appetite for Belgium, Alsace and Lorraine.

The Egyptian Connection

- Central to the colonisation of Africa were events taking place in Egypt. The country

was crucial because it was the cornerstone to security in the Mediterranean and as

the best shortcut of India .

- In the 1840s, the French had opposed the building of the Cairo- Suez rail line on the

grounds that it would strengthen British influence in Egypt and for the same reasons the

British in the 1850s and 60s opposed the French project of the Suez Canal.

- In short both of them wanted to establish supremacy in Cairo.

- Though divided both had great interest in Constantinople which they did not want

it to fall into Russian orbit

- Britons were opposed to Russian advance to Dardanelles, Persia , India and China.

The French were worried about Mediterranean which is why they wanted to

strengthen Turkey so that she could withstand external pressure .

- The British PM Palmerstone also thought that through free trade, he could

protect British strategic interests in the Near East . If the sultan of Turkey had

enough money in his treasury, he could pay the army. Through British influence, he

could introduce liberal reforms and give his people representation in government.

- Ultimately through this enlightenment, the British would be praised as mentors .

Trade went well but Muslim conservation and Russian interference blocked

liberal reforms .

- As from the Crimean war , it was clear that the sultan was very weak partly as a

result of having borrowed heavily from Britain and France

- Its regime went bankrupt in 1876

- The British and the French who wanted to use the sultan as shield had to act

fast

- Though he had invested in irrigation and agriculture that was not enough to keep

the sultan strong enough .

- The sums invested were going into unproductive works ie processing of agricultural

products (cotton ginnery and sugar refinery).

- The sums invested were going into unproductive works.

- Khedive Ismail was then living from loan to loan.

- These monies which the French and the British were pouring went a long way in

undermining the regime

- The danger of the Otoman collapse set off the partition of Africa

- Robinson and Gallagher claim that the occupation of Egypt was an involuntary

response to the continuing collapse of the khedival regime .

- In Cairo , bankruptcy too led to financial control

- An English and French controller came to supervise Egyptian financial

departments. At first these looked like private matters

- When the financial arrangements were failing the French decided to thoroughly

intervene in order to reform the Egyptian fiscal systems so as to secure payment of

debts. Crisis was also caused by low Nile in 1877 destructive floods in 1878 followed

by disease and famine.

- Compelled Khedive to surrender autocratic powers , his personal revenues etc

- Attempts at reform alarmed privileged classes of the old regime. It also united the

army and landlords against foreign control . Khedive owned 20% of the land. His

elites (10000) land again workers paid tribute

- Same time the British felt that French were getting an upper hand. They were

extensively squeezing the Egyptian peasantry.

- As Alfred Milner puts it, Egypt was financially ... tied hand and foot , unable to

move, almost unable to breathe without the consent of Europe.

- Foreign control was frustrating to both Egypt and Turkey.

- What is crucial to take note of is that Gladstone had originally been opposed to British

imperialism . At one time when campaigning, he described the inference at the Straits,

in Cyprus, Egypt that the Transvaal as gratuitous, dangerous, ambiguous, impracticable

and impossible. In the end he won the election of April 1880 .

- In the early days of his reign, Britain withdrew from Transvaal and Afghanistan . He

abated interference in Tunis and Morocco.

- Egyptian national revolt against financial control unsettled Gladstone. Liberals

increasingly found it almost impossible to maintain both peace and non interference.

- Bismarck was doing his best to exploit the Egyptian crisis in order to drive Britain

and France apart .

- Gladstone found himself alone supporting non interference

- In the end, the British government had no choice but to request Italian and French

assistance to put down the revolt .

- With Gr moral support , France and then Britain agreed to occupy Egypt together

- What was the logic? It is summed up in this quotationEngland has a double interest, it has a predominant commercial interest because 82% of

the trade passing through the canal is British trade , and it has a predominant political

interests caused by the fact that the canal is the principal highway to India, Cyclone, the

Strait and British Burma where 250 million people live under our rule and also to China

where we have vast interests and 84% of the external trade of that still more enormous

empire. It is one of the roads to our colonial empire in Australia and New Zealand.

- Ministers such as Hatington, Chamberlain and other ministers argued that by suppressing

the revolt , they were protecting the canal.

- The vote in the House of Commons in favour of interference was 275 to 19. (24

July 1882)

- Once they had intervened, the British wanted to make their presence supreme

- Intended to try leaders from the rebellion, restore the Khedive, train and equip him in

power . Above all, French influence was to be swept aside. Why?As long as India remains under British rule and the interests of England and of India

demand that no other nation should be allowed to dominate Egypt

- Thus no date was set for leaving the canal

- Again they found the khedive with no authority they had thought except that coming

from them.

- Disaster in Sudan where khedive‘s power was weak meant that it was impossible

for the British to leave.

JAH ,27,(1986) pp 363-391, The Victorians and Africa : A Reconsideration of the

occupation of Egypt, 1882 by A.G. Hopkins.

Egypt’s contribution to theories of imperialism.

Once occupied, Egypt became a great academic debate and property of historians by the

1920s . Occupation represents the interests of politicians, diplomats, French influences, vested

interests , Anglo Egyptians ideas etc according to A M Broadly . If occupation was due

to the need of maintaining order, there was no attempt to do so. Blunt therefore concludes

that the British were out to defend pecuniary interests in that country. His ideas were

gathered together in his secret history of the English occupation of Egypt which appeared

in 1907. Blunt explains occupation of Egypt as illustrating new form of imperialism which

he attributed to a change of policy and to the increased importance of overseas investment .

He cites the bond holder Rotschild who had a large financial stack there and emphasise

on forward policy advocated by Britain’s men on the spot eg controller general Calvin,

whom ( he claimed) had managed to convince London that Urabi and the National Party

were a set of financial individuals who would burn down the Stock Exchange if they

could get a chance. That way, he was entering into the arguments of Hobson and Lenin

At the same time, route to India could not be guaranteed by an unjust and above all

incompetence khedive. Policy did not turn into rescue and retire but into one of rescue

and reside. A propaganda campaign was mounted to justify Britain’s continued presence.

Theory needs to be taken with caution - by 1882,the partition of tropical Africa was already

in full swing in the Niger, Sudan, on the Guinea coasts on the Congo and in Madagascar.

- For nearly 2 years after September1882, the Egyptian and Anglo French confrontation

was hardly a crisis at all. Paris still believed that friendship could come out all

the same. The French consuls cooperated actively with the British

representatives

- Elsewhere in Guinea and Madagascar, France had become combative 18 months

before the crisis / occupation of Egypt

- Anglo-French relations over financial control of Egypt collapsed in the summer

of 1884

- There was no evidence that France‘s forward policies Africa were prompted the

desire to retaliate or compensate for Egypt .

- Franco-German alliance against Br was thus born in 1882

- It appears that the British had seen no threat to the Nile waters until 1889 , and

none from the French until 1893

- Egyptian crisis had no relevance to the partition from WA

- However Franco-German alliance against Britain did help Bismarck to secure a few

territories from Africa from Britain’s informal empires

- Sudan occupied not so much to protect the Nile but to distract the Mahdists

from attacking Italian outposts in Eritrea and Sudan after Italy ‘s catastrophic defeat

at Adowa.

- Theory is Eurocentric if not Afrocentric

- Interest in Congo had begun in 1876 courtesy of treaty making by H.M Stanley led

to Berlin conference

AFRICAN AND THIRD WORLD THEORIES OF IMPERIALISM

- Emphasizes the effect of imperialism on African societies

- Relationship between the colonizers and the colonized is defined in terms of socio

political and ideological attitudes and beliefs with which it is inevitably accompanied.

- Such theories have been developed by the victims or consumers of imperialism.

- Some of the authorities are Edward Blyden and Marcus Garvey- though not African but

have come to appreciate the effect of imperialism on its victims.

- Also Franz Fanon, Jamal al-din-al-Afghani etc. generally belonging to 2 peridical

categories - 1900-45 and post 45.

- Paris -based Africans include Lamine Senghor, Garan Kouyate and Emile Faure.

- Views were imbedded sometimes in political and propaganda works, in newspaper

articles, lectures, speeches and reports concerned with immediate contemporary

problems.

- These are unlike Eurocentric writers such as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg etc.

- Influenced by the process of decolonization

- Emphasize the social consequences of imperialism on victims

- Fanon describes the colonial situation in terms of concepts such as violence.

- Country is divided into colonizers’ town - a town of well-fed whites, its belly full of

good things and the native town, the medina, the reservation, a hungry town, a town

of niggers and dirty Arabs

- The native is dehumanized by colonizers, the European regards him as a kind of

animal and refers to him in zoological terms.

- From the standpoint of imperialists, the Algerians and Annamites are not men but dirt

‘nha que’ and bicots

- Third world theorists see European penetration as barbarious.

- Out of African sweat , western cities were built

- To quote Sultan Galiyes --- Chicago, New York and other towns of Europeanized

America were built on the bones of red skins and of the negroes murdered by inhuman

planters, and on the smoking ruins of African cities.

- Faure expressed the barbarity of Latin civilization using Italian invasion of Ethiopia.

- It is deemed that Europeans stand in the way of Negro civilization.

- Technological and social changes were already evident in African societies eg Samori

Toure.

- Africa therefore contained the seeds of its own civilizations / modernization- the effect

of European colonial systems was to retard that progress.

- Conventional imperialists thesis praised collaborators and denigrated resisters .

- Collaborators were regarded as forward-looking and guided by rational considerations of

national interests and gods

- Resisters were backward -looking, misguided and bad.

- Nationalist historiograghy changed this.

- Agreed with Lenin and Marx that the primary purpose of understanding imperialism is to

end it.

- Agree with Lenin on the destructive, disturbing effects of imperialism on the economies

institutions and cultures of the colonized societies.

- Agree with the corrupting effects of imperialism on the colonizing society.

- Agree that imperialism led to hatred between imperialist powers and those

international wars.

- Were so emotional because most of the developing world especially Africa was

undergoing the process of decolonization.

- They think that fascism and Nazism represented imperialisms turned inwards.

Leopold’s Congo

Territory was 2,5 million km2 . Owner never visited possession

- The activities of Leopold ll of Belgium were of great concern to late 19th imperialism .

- Wanted to give them Belgians colonies whether they liked or not.

- Used any means necessary to obtain territory .Others he bought or leased .

- The Congo was his personal fiefdom.

- He ventured without support from capitalists at his home .

- Leopold founded the Congo Free State

- Would you describe Leopold‘s brand of imperialism as voracious (sheer territorial

greed)?

- Between 1880 and 1884, he established outposts through Stanley’s expeditions. Most

of these stations were far apart and usually established along major waterways

- At the Berlin Conference though alarmed , Bismarck still gave Leopold what he

wanted

- He went further to negotiate with France for recognition of some of his territorial

rights bordering French territories

- CFS was set up in 1885

- The owner was not financially sound

- Though he had a huge territory in his position, he couldn’t effectively occupy it

- Surprisingly he even eyed upper Zambezi , lake Nyasa, lake Victoria and upper

Nile.

Methods of exploitation

- Exploitation is presumed on doubts that Africans are really human- world hierarchy

of races puts Africans at the bottom of the social ladder.

- The activities of Leopold ll in the Congo Free State constituted the worst examples

of colonial exploitation

- The colony had been recognised by USA and Europe on the understanding that

he was out to end slavery and slave trade.

- While he kept his promise to end these , he replaced them with a worse evil

- In order to exploit both the land and minerals, he granted rights to European

companies mostly from Belgium

- In 1886 he granted CCC1 a contract to build the Matadi Leopoldville (Kinshasa)

railways in return for 1500ha of land for every km of line erected

- Similar contracts were also extended to other companies for the sake of building

lake Tanganyika to Katanga railway.

- Areas under companies earned him money because they were leased on a profit

sharing basis .

- Companies made money by compelling Africans to work for them .

- No trader was to buy ivory or rubber from the African without becoming a

receiver of stolen goods . Private enterprise was stopped .

- They had to provide wild rubber or ivory as levy or tax. Demands increased following

the invention of pneumatic tyres in Europe for the motor car industry as from 1895.

it is estimated that the concessionaire company began with a paid up capital of 9280

pounds yet made an estimated profit of 720 000 pounds in 6 years - of course

normal revenue was limited between 1885 and 1895

- Leopold himself got a profit of 3 million pounds between 1896 and 1905 yet

one wonders why he complained that I am poor because of Congo . Most of these

profits were invested in various public works in Belgium. As for the use of these

proceeds it was up to him hence it is incorrect to forward that as the Congo was

entirely a financial drain to him. One version is that it is not what he earned

which future economists used to arrive at conclusion that colonial ventures were

lucrative but that he was generous to Belgium who he gave all his proceeds. One

concessionaire company working in Kasai started with a paid up capital of 40 200

pounds and made a profit of 736 680 pounds in 4 years.

- For handing over rubber and ivory, Africans received next to nothing. They were

often not paid because the rubber which they brought was taken as tax .

- Failure to deliver either rubber or food was punishable by public flogging, chaining,

mutilation , imprisonment, burning of villages or death .

- Soldiers were used to drive people to the bush

- Those who resisted or did not surrender enough rubber could be shot down and

their left hands cut as proof that the soldiers did not waste ammunition .

- Women and children too were shot

- Africans in the Congo were left with no time to cultivate their land and fish . Forest

began to encroach into their fields. Some abandoned villages and fled to the forest

to escape harassment. His activities among Africans led to starvation, famine and

depopulation .

- The 1911 census showed a population of 8500 000 but it was estimated that the

population had been 20 million 2 decades back .

- The British consul at Kinshasa, Roger Casement revealed these abuses. He showed

that free trade did not exist, the Congo was property of a single individual.

- Belgian government took over the property from the king in 1908 though

without immediate change , companies were still left with their powers unaltered

- The same forces who had pillaged villagers were recruited by the Belgian government

into the force publique

- Only with the collapse of the rubber boom between 1906 and 1910 did the abuses

end .

- In 1890 the Congo exported 100 metric tonnes of rubber in 1896, 1300 metric

tonnes, in 1898, 2000 metric tonnes and in 1901, 6000 metric tonnes.

- Last figure corresponded to a tenth of the world’s production of rubber .

- Financially speaking the bonanza was great

- In 1890, the state took from its domain 150 000 francs. In 1901 it took 18

million francs

- The Congo soon began to have budgetary surpluses for the occupiers

- Surplus was used to build Brussels , museums , castles

- Urban developments were planned which changed the face of Brussels

Development and underdevelopment of Latin America

Steven Topic - Historical Perspectives on Latin America underdevelopment, The History

Teacher , Volume 20 no 4 August 1987.

- Wherever one thinks of Latin America, the first thing to cross the mind is economic

underdevelopment .

- Annual per capita income is less than $10000 per year, life expectancy is 20 years

less than that of the US, infant mortality is high. There is also rampant unemployment,

malnourishment, homelessness etc

- What are the reasons for its backwardness

- The Spanish at first did not believe that Latin America was underdeveloped .

Columbus remarked on its wealth not poverty. He noted that Hispaniola was

fertile to a limitless degree . In it were marvellous pine grooves and there were

very large tracts of cultivable lands , the was honey and there were birds of

many kinds and fruits of great diversity. In the interior were mines of metals

and the population is without number .

- Amerigo Vespucci reported that sometimes I was so wonder struck by the

flagrant smells of the herbs and flowers and the savor of fruits and the roots

that I fancied near the terrestrial paradise

- Columbus thought he had found an earthily paradise by the mouth of

Venezuela’s Orinoco river

- Even the cartels and his band of conquistadores first entered the lsland of

Tenochtitlan capital of the Aztec empire, they did not believe that they were

confronting a military and economically weak empire

- His soldiers too had never seen such a big market as found in this city despite

have fought on Constantinople and all of Italy and Rome .

- Not all Latin Americans had reached this stage of development. Most were

paleolithic and Neolithic.

- Generally these people were not living in barbarism and poverty .

- Abundance of food and longevity of life was striking to Europeans who came

from a continent of plagues and famines

- The label of barbarian on Latin Americans struck and stung. Used as justification

or mistreat them.

- They were referred by Pedroe de Magallaes as lacking fourth, law and ruler

- Theologian Juana Gines Sepulveda forwarded that these people were barbarious

because they scarified humans, clearly were not Christians. Therefore they were

noble savages or ignoble savages - the point was that they were savages.

- In the beginning, there was neither underdevelopment or development but

noble hierarchy

- The Spanish and Portuguese conquerors wanted to christianize and Europeanise

people from the New World but not to bring economic development

- For 3 centuries of colonial rule, Latin America was not considered so backward

- There were legendary silver mines of Potosi in upper Peru Guanajuato in

Mexico , Our Preto in Brazil

- Underdevelopment of Latin America can be explained using the catalytic

destruction of up to 90% as population through exploitation, war, disease,

enslavement and plunder of many of the survivors , harsh treatment of African

slaves etc .

- The famous black legend and priest Bartolome de las Casas denounced the

Spanish for these brutal crimes

- In the second half of the 18th century; Latin America began to be criticized for

its economic backwardness.

- Von Humboldt while finding beautiful buildings and an upsurge in scientific

activity was also disagreeably struck with great technical imperfection of

Mexican textile factories.

- He judges that Mexican metallurgy was still in its infancy and Mexican agricultural

techniques backward

- Latin America underdevelopment was the product of European development

- The Agricultural Revolution of the 17th century and the industrial Revolution of the

18th an 19th century brought rapid eco growth and technological advances in

history .

- Latin America was milked and isolated from development

- The North American consuls to Mexico Joel Poinsett expressed views even

more pointedly after Mexico‘s independence in 1829 when he explained the

country’s backwardness

- He accused Latin Americans of being ignorant and vicious people

who were notoriously a century behind the rest of Christian Europe

- Therefore as long as Spanish influence persisted , development was hampered

- It was therefore necessary to remove not only the Spanish but also their institutions

eg aristocracy, guilds, power of the church . This was the materialist analysis

which argued that Latin America could and should follow the path of northern

Europe and the US by becoming more closely tied to them.

- This was strong in the 19th century and continues today though in an altered from

- Climate and environment were also used in the 19 th century to explain the

backwardness s of Latin America

- An American, Robert de Coucry ward notedIn the tropics is where animal and vegetable life are most developed in these zones food is

obtained by man with a minimum of work .. and where housing and clothing are easily obtained

and often are little necessary so that life becomes excessively easy. Nature works too much

leaving too little for man to do. In a debilitating and enervating climate without the obligation

to work , the desire to work and develop the resources of the tropics is lacking. One cannot

hope that there is sufficient voluntary effort to reach the most elevated level of civilisation.

Therefore the reputation attributed to natives of the tropics as indolant and untrustworthy has arisen.

- In short, culture and climate is said to have created people who are not rich

because they do not work hard. This notion ignores the fact that African slaves and

American Indians toiled in mines and plantations yet Latin America did not

develop .

- Racial element was made use of to explain underdevelopment. Indians were

labelled lazy thus partly the need to import the African race to augment labour

- Real development did include only the civilised white race. For most of history ,

African races were not even counted .

- According to Frantz Fanon, the colonised accepted these views of the colonizers that

indeed they were indeed inferior .

- As Sartre puts it, the European elite had the word while the colonised has the use

of it.

- Such alienation was manifested by Joaquin Nabuco one of Brazil’s most respected

intellectuals and statesman when he observed that : When I enter the Chamber of Deputies I am entirely under the influence of English

liberalisms , as if I were working under the orders of Gladstone lam an English liberal …

in a Brazilian parliament .

- Liberals throughout the 19th century believed that Spain had caused them to lag

behind .

- They thought in terms of riding Spanish feudal legacy therefore after civil

wars, they established republic and abolished monopolies, guilds , castes and

privileges, reduced the church‘s authority and encouraged immigration of

European people and capital.

- In the late 20th century there was a paradigm shift following the Mexican

Revolution. As regimes fell and others came in the 1920s and 30s as world

economy was disrupted by WW1 and the Great Depressions, a greater population

became included in the political society and nationalism grew.

- Brazilian modernism grew

- Cultural movements had broad impact

- There was a thinking that Latin America should not just follow European culture

but develop differently. Conservatives felt that materialism, rapid economic change

and foreign immigrants all threatened the status quo, traditional harmony and

national souls

- Emphasis was put on state economic planning

- Made the mistake of thinking that Latin America was still at a younger

stage of development but would follow Rostow terminology the same stages of growth

that Europe and US has undergone .To develop they needed special help such as

foreign capital and influence -this was the view of development economists of the

1950s

- To modernise Latin America required closer ties with the West , more capital

investment and cultural modernisation to strengthen capitalism

- Alexander Gerschenkron argued that the relative advantages of backwardness meant

that Latin America could skip stages of development by introducing the most

advanced technologies from elsewhere. They did not have to reinvent the wheel

- Critiques from the Left arose also in the 1950s and came to fruition in the

1960s- the dependency analysis.

- The Left had historically agreed with Marx that European influence was

benign and the 3rd world will follow the same path as the industrialised

countries.

- This was inspite of Trotsky and Luxembourg’s thinking that imperialism could

reinforce pre capitalist formations rather than introduce progressive ones .

- Pal Baran , Andre Gunder Frank and many students development began to contest

the paradigm of development economists

- Latin Americans such as Raul Prebish , Oswald Sunkel and Fernando Henrique

Cordoso challenged the notion that Latin America needed to strengthen

capitalists ties with Europe and North America

- Their points were as follows

- Latin America cannot follow the same path to development as Europe because the

world economy and domestic social structures are disadvantageous to the less

developed or peripheral countries

- Latin America’s problem is not lack of capitalist development but the disturbing effects

of capitalist development in the periphery which creates unequal distribution, small

internal markets, large foreign control, inadequate capital accumulation and poor

social services

- Capitalism in the periphery does not bring modernisation but pre existing

traditional elite, pre-capitalist labour relations and inefficient land tenure.

- World economy drain capital by enforcing unequal trade inappropriate technology

and negative Balance of Payments.

- Dependency advocates concerned themselves with righting existing injustices

- To them development meant social justice for the masses.

Andre Gunder Frank

- A German. His family fled Hitler and went to Switzerland and then emigrated

to the US. Earned a PhD in Economics at the University of Chicago

- In the 50s and 60s, he taught at American universities

- Moved to Latin America in 1962. Was Professor of Sociology and Economics at

the University of Chile.

- In 1991 he retired an Emeritus Professor at the University of Amsterdam. Died in

2005.

- Dependency theory was viewed as a possible way of explaining persistent

poverty eg poor countries Prebiscsh - liberal reformer

- Andre Gunder - Marxist

- Wallerstine -world system theorist

- Theotonio defines dependency as an historical condition which shapes a certain

structure of the world economy such that it favours some countries to the determinant

of others and limits the development possibilities of the subordinate economies a

situation in which the economies of a certain groups of countries is conditioned

by the development and expansion of another economy , to which it is subject .

- Dependency characterizes the international system as made up of two sets of

states namely dominant / dependent, center / periphery or metropolitan/ satellite

- Dominant states are the individualised countries in the Organisation of Economic

Cooperation and Development ( OECD)

- Dependent states are those states of Latin America, Asia and Africa that have low

per capita GNPs and which rely heavily on the export of a single commodity for

foreign exchange earnings.

- External forces in a dependent states include MNCs, international commodity

markets, foreign assistance, communications etc.

- Relationships intensify inequality

- International capitalism is taken as the major cause of dependency

- One of the earliest dependency them Andre Gunder Frank points out that

‘historical research demonstrates that contemporary underdevelopment is in

large part the historical product of past and continuing economic and other

relations between the satellite underdevelopment of the now developed

metropolitan countries. Furthermore, those relations are an essential part of the

capitalists system on a world scale as a whole.

- According to this view , capitalism has generated a rigid international division of

labour which is responsible for the underdevelopment of many parts of the world.

- Dependent states supply cheap minerals, agricultural commodities, cheap labour etc.

- Economic and political power is heavily centralised and concentrated in

industrialised countries - an assumption shared by Marxist theorists of

imperialism.

- Marxists theorists of imperialism explain reasons why imperialism occurs

while dependency theorists explain the consequences of imperialism.

- For a Marxist, imperialism is part of the way the world is transformed and therefore

a process which accelerates a communist revolution.

- For a dependent theorist, underdevelopment is wholly negative condition which

offers no possibility of sustained and autonomous economic activity in a

dependent state .

- To Lenin, the end of imperialism comes when imperial powers go to war over

shrinking resources. WW1 was the proof of his proposition

- Dependency theorist disregard this and see poverty persisting in the same part

of the world regardless of which state is in control.

There are a number of propositions which make the central core of the dependency

theory.

Underdevelopment is a condition that is fundamental different from undevelopment.

The later refers to a condition in which resources are not being used eg colonialists

viewed North America as an undeveloped region. Underdevelopment refers to a situation

in which resources are being actively used but in a way which benefits dominant

states not those where resources are found .

Poor countries are neither behind nor catching up in the richer counties of the world.

They are not poor because they lagged behind the scientific transformation of

Europe. They are poor because they were forcibly integrated into the international

system as respositories of cheap labour and were denied the chance of marketing

their produce in the way they want

Dependency suggests alternative use of resources. It does not define these alternative

patterns but first gives some criteria. It criticises export agriculture and argues that those

agricultural lands should be used for domestic food production in order to reduce rates

of malnutrition

Dependency theorists rely upon a clear national interest which can and should be

articulated for each county. Its proponents think that the national interests can be

satisfied by addressing the needs of the poor rather than government needs

Diversion of resources over time is maintained not only by the dominant state.

dependency theorists argue that these elites maintain a dependent relationship

because their own private interests, coincide with the interests of the dominate state.

The elites are typically trained in the dominant states and share similar values of culture

with the elites in the dominant states. Therefore dependency relationships is voluntary.

Elites area continuously betraying the poor of their countries .

- In Andre Gunder Frank’s view underdevelopment of the periphery was an

inevitable product of the development of the core

- Frank argued that Latin America’s periods of growth coincided with the period

when external ties were minimal eg during world wars , depressions and that the

return of Latin America to the world market led to stagnation and crisis

- Suggested opting out of the world market and base development on autonomous

growth.

Modernisation Theory

Historical background of modernization theory

- Posts WW2 deepening poverty in some countries

- Ideological competition from communism

- Increasing unrests in some countries

- Threat to capitalism especially in USA

- Led to development and modernisation theorists mainly by US economists and

policymakers

Modernisation theorists aimed to

- Explain why poorer countries fail to evolve to modern societies

- Reduce the spread of communism by resenting capitalists solutions to poverty

It posits that traditional values block development while modem values promote

development

Modern values include traditional values

Achievement ascription

universalism particularism

Individualism collectivism

- Supports role of the West in investment, funding programmes mass media to

disseminate ideas, encouraging urbanization

- With western help, poor countries would develop a vibrant middle class to develop

business opportunities

- High mass consumption

- Urban population

- Lifestyles of conspicuous consumption

Criticism

- It is ethnocentric –it devalues traditional values and social institutions eg extended

family, it ignores inequality within and between states, it is not a neutral theory since it

promotes western capitalist values

- Education us benefits the small top elite

- It assumes unlimited natural resources for industrial expansions and ignores ecological

issues

- There’s no one single way to advancement and historical context is also important

Influence of modernisation theory today

- Paternalism of NGOs putting people first policies are absorbed on western help as it

is deemed poor countries cannot help themselves

- Neo liberals want a free market and advocate helping poor countries

- It stated in Rostow’s market oriented explanation

- Says if low income societies can develop economically, they should give up their

traditional ways and adopt modern eco institutions, technologies and cultural values

- These according to Rostow, inhibit eco development

- Accused that many people in developing counties are in lacking the work ethics eg

would, they would rather consume today than invest in the future.

- Held back by large families.

- Problems much deeper than that .

- Rostow’s stages of economic development.

- Traditional stage

- Take off to eco growth

- Drive of technological maturity

- High mass consumption

- Read Anthony Giddens- sociology.

-

Psychological Effects of Colonialism as forwarded by Fanon

Black Skin, White Masks

Of importance is that the blackman wants to be white and the whiteman wants to reach a

human level.

This follows that black is not a man. Fanon represented voices of people from various corners

of the world agonizing against the yoke of colonial rule.

Includes those in the fringes in countries such as Latin America and the Caribbean

The book is about the anger of all whose cultures, knowledge systems and ways of being that

area ridiculed, demonized and declared inferior and irrational in some cases eliminated.

Represents universal fury against oppressions and perpetual domination of western civilization

in particular.

- It is anger emanating from experience of oppressions

- Blackman is fighting for dignity not equality with the Whiteman and his civilization.

- Black Skin, White Masks was the first book to investigate the psychology of colonialism.

- When the black man comes into contact with the white world, he goes through an

experience of sensitization. His ego collapses. His self-esteem evaporates.

- Entire purpose and his behavior is to emulate the white man, to become like him, and

thus hope to be accepted as a man.

- Blackness stands for ugliness, sin , darkness, immorality

- To become moral, it is important to cease to be a negro.

- The idealized negro is equally a construction of the white man.

- He is constructed not as real person in real history but in image.

- The idealized Negro, the noble savage is the product of utopian thinkers such as

Thomas Moore who comes from ‘no place’ and in the end no person.

- Negro was born not of the need of European humanism. Humanism to rescue itself

from its moral purgatory and protect itself and displace the original inhabitants and Latin

America

- Liberation begins by recognizing these constructions for what they are.

- Black man must be able to say no to degradation of man, to exploitation. No to the

butchery of what is most human in man freedom.

-

Do you agree to the view that today China is a god of development in Africa.

To a greater extent, China is a god of development today in Africa. China brought social

order in Africa, improved agriculture, infrastructure, empower the economy of African

countries, to mention just a few. However we cannot down play the underdevelopment

part which China is playing in Africa. This is evidenced with some of the goods they

import which are less durable.

To commence with the development of infrastructure in Africa, China's effort is to

support factories manufacturing goods for export along with roads and ports. In countries

like Nigeria, China constructed railway projects along the coastline, a 1400 km railway

line from Lagos to Calabar. This created employment whereby about 200 000 people

were recruited in the construction of this railway line. China Daily noted that in 2007,

two Chinese engineering firms signed an agreement with the DRC for a massive

development package. 1. In the original agreement, Chinese banks were slated to finance

two separate lines of Credit which would be used for the repair and reconstruction of the

war-torn country. These two Chinese engineering firms constructed 3402 km of paved

roads, including an auto-route and bridges connecting the main cities of the DRC

(Lubumbashi, Buzau, Goma, Kisangani) and construction and repair of 450 km of roads

within the capital district of Kinshasa; 3213 km of railway construction or rehabilitation;

construction and equipping of 145 health centres, 31 hospitals, 5000 units of low-cost

housing, and two universities. A later list included rehabilitation of two airports and two

electricity distribution systems, and the construction of two hydroelectric dams. This is

quite clear that china is a god of development in Africa as evidenced above.

Furthermore China has become by far Africa’s biggest trading partner, exchanging a lot

of goods a year. The mutual adoration between governments continues, with ever more

African roads and mines built by Chinese firms. According to the Financial Gazette

during the year 2011, trade between Africa and China.2 This increased staggering to 33%

from the previous year to US $166 billion according to The Chronicle. 3 This included

Chinese imports from Africa consisting largely of mineral ores, petroleum, and

agricultural products and Chinese exports to Africa consisting largely of manufactured

goods. Outlining the rapidly expanding trade between the African continent and China,

trade between these two areas of the world increased during the first five months of the

year 2012. Imports from Africa were also increased during these first five months of

2012 and exports of Chinese-made products, such as machinery, electrical and consumer

goods and clothing, footwear increased too. China remained Africa's largest trading

partner during 2011 for the fourth consecutive year thereby labeling her as the god of

development in Africa.

China is also playing a fundamental role in agricultural sector of Africa. She supplies

expertise, technical assistance, and agricultural equipment, including tractors and agro-

processing in countries like Zimbabwe. The Chinese state-owned firm has been

contracted to farm 250,000 acres in southern Zimbabwe. Chinese and Zimbabwean

developers believe the project will yield 2.1 million tons of maize every year according to

The Herald..4 This requires the building of a massive irrigation system. It remains unclear

how Zimbabwe will pay for the project, although unconfirmed reports claim payment

will be made in tobacco, which China purchases in large quantities.

Furthermore, China is also creating social order in Africa. In order for China to protect

her investments in Africa, she has driven a shift away from China's traditional non-

interference in the internal matters of other countries to new diplomatic and military

initiatives to try to resolve unrest in South Sudan and Mali. According to Xinhua this has

created social order in the sense that China strongly supported African Independence

Movements.5 She gave aid to newly independent African nations in the 1960s and 1970s.

Among the most notable early projects was linking Zambia and Tanzania, which China

helped to finance and build from 1970 to 1975. Some Chinese engineers and workers of

about 50 000 were sent to the continent to complete the project. By 1978, China was

giving aid to more African countries than the United States.

China has been engaged in a kind of health diplomacy towards Africa since the 1960s.

Health care development and medical assistance have been one of the main successful

areas of cooperation. Between the early 1960s and 2005, more than 15,000 Chinese

doctors have been sent to Africa to help treat different cases in more than 47 countries.

The medical teams, known as yiliaodui, have treated more than 170 million patients

during the same period.

China also developed military force of African countries cooperation. China was keen to

help African liberation movements. During Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle, some of the

soldiers were trained in China. Guns, food, clothing and military training were given to

the Zimbabwean forces and it helped to improve their ways of attacking the British.

Apart from some traditional allies such as Somalia and Uganda, China also had military

ties with non-aligned countries such as Egypt. Military equipment worth hundreds of

million dollars was sold to African countries between 1955 and 1977 and military

relations are now based on business interests rather than ideology.

In addition to the above point, China has sent troops to the continent to participate in

peacekeeping. In 2004, China sent around 1 500 military personnel under the UN

umbrella, dispatched between Liberia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Apart

from peacemaking, China provides military training and equipment to a few countries,

though this does not require military forces to be deployed. China strongly believes

Africa belongs to the African people and African problems should be handled by the

African people. China's latest military efforts are to combat terrorist radicalism, and not

the local African conflicts according to Johannesburg radio (6) .Thereby saying she is the

god of development of Africa.

However, though China is the god of development in Africa, to a lesser extent she has

caused under development in the sense that some of her goods are not durable. This is

evidenced by the China Complex and the Zimbabwe National Sports Stadium who

collapsed after construction. This led to underdevelopment since there was need to raise

other funds to re-construct these objects. Their building materials are not durable that

they can sustain for a long period of time without falling if they are not used properly.

Chinese goods have flooded all over African countries. This has reduced the development

of African companies and factories because people are now purchasing cheap and

affordable goods manufactured by China, therefore promoting Chinese investments.

Chinese are also engaging in illegal foreign currency deals. Zimbabwe’s markets are

flush with cheap Chinese goods and traders, thereby causing underdevelopment of

Zimbabwean factories.

China has also diluted African culture with her own culture. African people are now

changing their staple foods. For instance, in Zimbabwe people are now eating rice more

than sadza which is their staple food. This is due to a lot of rice that is being imported

from China. Maize production has been reduced since people are now relying on rice. It

has flooded in Zimbabwe and therefore people of Zimbabwe have relaxed and are now

obtaining maize from other countries like USA. This has caused underdevelopment in

Africa.

In summation, to a greater extent China is the god of development in Africa. This is

evidenced by the creation of infrastructure, improvement of agriculture, military and

health services brought by the Chinese. Though China is the god of development, she has

also caused underdevelopment to a lesser extent in the sense that she is offering some

goods which are not durable, hence under developing Africa.

End Notes

1“China-Africa co-op forum ministerial meeting opens,” China Daily, December 15, 2003.

2. “Chinese Demand Coal Guarantees,” Financial Gazette May 20, 2005.

3. “China, Zimbabwe Sign Technological Cooperation Agreement,” Chronicle, July 15, 2003.

4. “Take Cue from China’s Transformation, Zimbabwe urged,” The Herald (Harare) May 25, 2005.

5. “China, further Zimbabwe friendship strengthened ambassador,” Xinhua, April 23, 2005.

6. “Zimbabwe: Editor Discusses State’s Purchase of Fighter Jets from China,” Johannesburg Radio 702 (English) June 10, 2004.