Raging Hard for Counter-Imperialism

Dear Classier Hoeing,

I largely agree with your argument. To a certain degree, imperialism has allowed us to lead a "first world" lifestyle in the United States, Europe, and other "select" parts of the globe. Economies stagnate without new markets, raw materials, and resources; imperialism allowed Europe to jump start the long process of globalizing. However, I don't believe that standards of living would be less had the invisible hand not extended itself over the "unoccupied" territories of Africa, the Orient, and the Americas. Every region of the world had experienced the flux of empire. China, Egypt, the Aztecs and Incas. I think that had the natural rise and fall of isolated empires continued, new technology would gradually emerge, and the process of forming the so-called "global village" would arise from the integration of these disparate technologies.

This counter-imperialistic theory is by no means all about flowers and peace signs and cute furry animals living together in uninterrupted harmony. There is no way to avoid the violence that would inevitably come of power play. In fact, without European imperialism, some attempt at integration and conquer would most likely be made, and the world's wealth would still become heavily concentrated on select regions. (If Africa stayed in control of its plentiful resources, they would prove to be a major power in the world market, perhaps even an imperialist one.) So would much change? Perhaps there would be an equalization of world power. Perhaps there would be less oppression, racism, and debt. Regardless, allowing the rise-and-fall cycle of empires to continue without intervention would not drastically alter the contemporary standard of living. We're not eating the cake that we somehow have. This is just the way things happened.

Tired of Your Neighbors? Just Take Over the World! (783-93)

The European imperialist urge first emerged in 1869 with the opening of the Suez Canal. Over 100 miles long and connecting the Mediterranean and Red Sea, the Suez Canal not only opened up an easier trade route with then-Bombay; the canal was tangible evidence of the Europe's increasing financial, political, and commercial involvement outside of the mainland. Egypt, through which the canal cuts, was a semi-autonomous Ottoman state steeped in debt and political hardship. It was not long after the opening of the foreign-funded Suez Canal that European interests (namely Britain) decided to intervene before the Suez Canal itself was at risk of damage from internal conflict. Thus, "new imperialism" was born. Unlike "formal imperialism," also known as "colonialism," new/informal imperialism refers to a more subtle exercise of power in which a stronger state allows a weaker state to maintain its independence despite a reduction in the latter's sovereignty (789). Such was the nature of British rule in Egypt, and although imperialism itself was not new to the European powers practicing it, this 19th century practice allowed for the advent of a second empire built on the back of industrialization, liberal revolutions, and the establishment of nation-states. The imperialist powers in Europe took a very utilitarian view of their international intervention; with just a little external push, these non-European countries would surely improve, and thus the international community would also benefit. The result of such utilitarian and interventionist thinking was the spread of informal rule of which Britain was the champion.

Imperialism was not without its opponents, however, the most influential of which were the social critic J.A. Hobson and the Marxist Vladimir Lenin. Hobson equated imperialism with capitalism and the financial monopolies to indirect rule. In Hobson's view, the bankers were as key to imperialism and governments; he observed that once Britain established power outside of its borders, London became the banking center of the world. Naturally, the Marxists were opposed to this unapologetic spread of capitalism. Lenin, as acutely aware of the economics of imperialism as Hobson, argued that imperialism was a product of the "internal contradictions" of a capitalist economy (790). However, non-European markets proved to be too poor to meet European needs, a fact which negates the economically based criticisms of Hobson and Lenin. Advocates of imperialism saw it as more essentially rooted in nationalism and cultural improvement, pioneering a 19th century sense of European supremacy which only hinted by Romantic exoticism. The various motivations for new imperialism worked with each other in such a way that the geographic and cultural landscape of the world would be forever changed; thus, the international community began the long process of globalization which would establish some powers, diminish others, and integrate races.