|
The theory goes on, however, and soon
imperialism breaks with capitalism:
after several Western states
“simultaneously felt the same need for
colonies as fields for investment,” a
race for colonies ended “in the
partition of the world.”[7]
Yet a capitalistic state will not turn a
foreign “[field] of investment” into a
colony unless this is necessary to
protect its citizens’ property rights
there – it will not enter a
race for colonies, just for the
sake of having colonies, nor will it
compete with other states over
prestige or GNP. As detailed
above, its only function (and sole
warrant for taxation) is to protect
property rights; it may not (and cannot
afford to) subsidize any extraneous
causes. If it does, it is not
capitalist; rather, some other force
fuels it. Which force?
More detailed strains of the above
theory openly conflate capitalism with
corporatism: Hobson focused on
explaining how “surplus capital” arises
and pressures government to “secure for
[its] use some distant undeveloped
country by annexation and protection.”[8]
Capitalist imperialism may
resort to “annexation” to protect
business’ property rights from other
governments, yet will not use
“protection” to shield business from
foreign competition. A
true capitalist government will not ally
with business to restrict trade
(creating a protectionist world in which
each government may choose to annex as
many colonies – markets – as possible,
and even wage war over them). It
is corporatist government,
then, that generates imperialism as
described by Hobson. Hilferding
and Lenin made variations on this same
mistaken theme.[9]
Although these economic theories fail to
indict capitalism of nineteenth
century imperialism’s political and
military excesses, even corporatism,
it seems, is not wholly culpable:
“Imperialism,” writes Kaiser, “was not a
carefully calculated strategy…to secure
necessary outlets for investment
capital;” the “acquisitions of the
decades before the First World War
absorbed very little European
investment.”[10]
Instead, “European politicians…annexed
large territories…mainly in response to
factors beyond their control,” at the
periphery of their empires. Fieldhouse
reaches a similar conclusion.[11]
Capitalism and corporatism, then, may be
most strongly linked to imperialism by
their respective abilities to foster
what Gellner terms
Europe’s “economic and
technological superiority.”[12]
This, in turn, gave imperial metropoles
the option of responding to an unruly
periphery by simply annexing it.
[1]
D. K. Fieldhouse,
Economics
and Empire 1830-1914
(Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1973), p. 38.
[2]
Because capitalism prohibits any
party from initiating the use of
force [Ayn Rand,
The Virtue
of Selfishness (New York:
Signet, 1964), pp. 126-129.],
the organization with a monopoly
on the legitimate use of force
may only use its powers in
defense – never in
aggression or for the sake of
gain. Under pure
capitalism, then, individual
citizens give government only
the funds it needs to
protect their property
rights (via the military,
police, and law courts).
Citizens may not be obliged to
pay taxes, and if they do not,
government may not be obliged to
protect their rights.
[4]
“In general,” writes Landes of
“international capital flows”
from more-developed to
less-developed states within
Europe, “money
a-plenty followed opportunity
a-plenty.” Capitalism
simply legalizes the fact that
“[businessmen] have always been
‘in it for the money’ and will
make it and take it where they
can.” David S. Landes,
The Wealth
and Poverty of Nations (New
York: W.
W. Norton & Company, Inc.,
1999), p. 269.
[6]
Capitalism, in recognizing the
exploitation of previously
un-owned resources [John Locke,
The Second
Treatise on Civil Government
(Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus
Books, 1986), p. 20.] and the
trade of wages for labor as
absolute rights, lets the
individual invest in such
activities at home or abroad.
If any entity – whether a
criminal or a foreign government
– obstructs such investment, or
confiscates its fruits, a truly
capitalistic government must
fight back to defend its
citizens’ property rights (under
capitalism, after all, this is
the reason for government’s
existence, and the only
acceptable use of government’s
funds).
[8]
J. A. Hobson,
Imperialism: A Study (New
York: James Pott & Company,
1902), pp. 86-90.
[9]
Although “Hilferding’s
argument…specified export of
capital to less-developed
countries but did not require
that they should become formal
colonies,” he attributed
corporatist features to
capitalism in his theory.
He wrote that protective
tariffs would increase
domestic profit (and thus the
quantity of surplus capital),
while decreasing the exportation
of commodities to
tariff-protected countries
(encouraging businesses to
export capital rather than
goods).
Lenin’s argument “more closely
resembles that of Hobson” (Fieldhouse,
p. 44). As evidence of
“[the] division of the world
among capitalist combines” (the
title of the fifth chapter of
Lenin’s Imperialism),
he cites cooperation of the
German government with
“German oil magnates” and “big
German banks” in a plot to
weaken “[the] Rockefeller ‘oil
trust.’”
Here government effectively
subsidizes its citizens’
industries. It hereby
steps away from the
capitalistic ideals discussed
above (which make no
distinctions among businesses
based on the nationalities of
their owners), and toward
a world economy divided along
the lines of competing
nations. Truly
capitalistic governments cannot
wage war over economics, while
governments that support
domestic business against
foreign business
automatically hold contradictory
economic stances. In other
words, wars for the
redivision of laissez-faire
colonies are not likely to be
wars between truly
capitalist governments; if
the colonies are not
laissez-faire, their metropoles
are not truly capitalist.
That government is willing to
carve out exclusive
zones of investment for its
national industries, then, is
evidence that corporatism, not
capitalism, generates
imperialism.
Lenin rhetorically asks: “what
means other than war could there
be under capitalism of
removing the disparity between
the development of productive
forces and the accumulation of
capital on the one side, and the
division of colonies and
‘spheres of influence’ for
finance capital on the other?”
A truly capitalist state would
not view this situation as a
disparity – it would see no need
for a link between the political
“division of colonies” and the
economic division “of productive
forces and the accumulation of
capital.” Vladimir Illyich
Lenin,
Imperialism: The Highest Stage
of Capitalism, 1916,
Modern
History Sourcebook, ed.
Paul Halsall, July 1998, Fordham University, 6 October 2006,
<http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1916lenin-imperialism.html>,
p. 1.
[10]
David Kaiser,
Politics
and War: European Conflict from
Philip II to Hitler
(Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1990), p. 282.
Fieldhouse makes the same point
with a variety of statistics.
Fieldhouse, pp. 54-62.
[11]
These “factors” include: “the
breakdown of informal
arrangements in the tropics,
moves by other powers, and
initiatives by soldiers and
administrators in existing
colonies.” Politicians
took advantage of these
developments “because the
climate of public opinion
increasingly seemed to require
it, and because the costs of
acting were usually small.”
Kaiser, p. 283.
[12]
Ernest Gellner,
Nations
and Nationalism (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1983),
p. 43. It is here, then,
that industrialization
may play a major role in
imperialism; nevertheless,
within this model, it remains a
secondary force, causally
sandwiched between
capitalism/corporatism and
economic/political imperialism.
WORKS CITED
Fieldhouse,
D. K.
Economics
and Empire 1830-1914.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1973.
Gellner,
Ernest.
Nations
and Nationalism.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983.
Hobson, J. A.
Imperialism: A Study.
New York:
James Pott & Company, 1902.
Kaiser,
David.
Politics
and War: European Conflict from
Philip II to Hitler. Cambridge:
Harvard University
Press, 1990.
Landes, David
S.
The Wealth and Poverty of
Nations.
New York:
W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.,
1999.
Lenin,
Vladimir Illyich.
Imperialism: The Highest Stage
of Capitalism.
1916.
Modern
History Sourcebook.
Ed. Paul Halsall.
July 1998.
Fordham University. 6 October 2006.
<http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1916lenin-imperialism.html>.
Locke, John.
The Second
Treatise on Civil Government.
Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1986.
Rand, Ayn.
The Virtue
of Selfishness. New York: Signet, 1964.
|
