Imperialism: expansion of state power, forms, history, and consequences

Traditional use of terms

The terms imperialist (English) and impérialiste (French) originated in the 16th century: in the early modern period they usually referred to supporters of the Roman-German emperor. It was in this sense that the term imperialism was intended at its first documented appearance: in 1791 the mindset of supporters of the Habsburg imperial house was first described as impérialisme in France. From the beginning of the 19th century onwards, in both English and French-speaking countries, an imperialist was understood to mean a partisan of Napoleon and later a supporter of his family's claims to power. With this meaning, the word imperialist also appeared in German in 1826. However, the term did not become widespread until the middle of the 19th century, prompted by Napoleon III's coup d'état in 1851. Subsequently, imperialism was usually used in roughly the same sense as Caesarism, Napoleonism, and Bonapartism. It was not concerned with territorial expansionism, but with the claim of the ruling family to rule the state. In addition, however, a somewhat different usage had already occurred in isolated instances in the first half of the century, in which the focus was not on the person of the ruler, but on the idea of military success and national greatness associated with the name Napoleon. Whoever cultivated such an oriented nationalism in France was an impérialiste, but not necessarily a Bonapartist.

In the 1850s, 1860s and 1870s, a slow change in meaning became apparent. First and foremost, imperialism continued to be understood in the same way as Caesarism: the autocracy of a ruler who, following Caesar's example, relied on military means of power and on his personal prestige, thereby concealing a lack of constitutional legitimacy. According to the understanding of the time, this type of ruler was embodied by Napoleon III, who was increasingly associated with the idea of an expansionist tendency and striving for world domination - again in connection with the ancient Roman model. Therefore, the term imperialism was now also used for the British Empire, although there was no autocracy in the sense of Caesarism. However, the traditional meaning continued to dominate; for example, in the autumn of 1870, after the capture and deposition of Napoleon III, William I commented that "imperialism lies to the ground", by which he meant Napoleon III-style imperialism. As late as 1888, Meyer's Konversations-Lexikon defined imperialism as a political state in which "not the law, but the arbitrariness of the regent based on military power prevails".

More recent uses of the term

A more recent use of the term first gained acceptance in England in the 1870s. This involved a domestic political dispute between the advocates of a strong link between the overseas territories and the mother country and their liberal opponents. The liberal critics, opponents of the policies of Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, used to label the opposing side's position as imperialism. In doing so, they deliberately drew on the traditional negative connotation of this term in connection with Bonapartism, which was hated in England. They were suspicious of an official policy of world empire, since it was based on the unhesitating use of military power. They feared an accumulation of power as a result of imperialist expansion, which could create a mentality that would lead to a weakening of parliamentary control and ultimately to despotism in England itself.

However, the terms "imperialist" and "imperialism", originally meant in a pejorative sense, were soon taken up by the proponents of the expansion of imperial power and used as a self-designation in a positive sense. Since the term was prejudiced by the traditional negative connotation and the polemics of the critics of the expansionist policy, for the purpose of differentiation one spoke of "imperialism in its best sense" or "true imperialism". This new sense of the term slowly became established in Germany as a secondary meaning; "imperialists" were understood to refer to a certain current in domestic political disputes in England.

The use of the term imperialism in the 20th century and in the present day refers in particular to the wave of European expansion between 1870 and 1914 and its consequences. With regard to the German Reich, it is often ignored that the English translation of Reich is "empire". Therefore, in English-speaking countries abroad, the Imperial German Government was referred to as the Imperial German Government. The European powers' striving for great power then also led to the First World War, with which the "age of classical imperialism" ended.

After the First World War, the term "imperialism" was used quite generally for efforts that - for ideological-missionary reasons - strive for world domination or at least domination over large-scale territories outside one's own state. Thus one spoke and speaks in particular of "Soviet imperialism" and "US imperialism". In order to distinguish it from today's neo-imperialism, the "age of imperialism" is today referred to as "historical imperialism".

In Marxism, imperialism was first understood by Karl Kautsky, following Plato's dialogue "The State", as a particular policy for the subjugation of an agrarian territory lying outside the state. This was contradicted by Marxist economic theory, which described imperialism as a particular stage (of development) of capitalism. Rosa Luxemburg's older theory of imperialism took as its analytical starting point the saturation of the internal market, the conquest of the world market and the competition for it by national capitals. Lenin's later theory of imperialism, on the other hand, assumed empirically the occurrence of certain phenomena (such as the merging of industrial and bank capital into finance capital). Lenin also saw the monopolistic phase of capitalism, which he described as characterising imperialism, as its highest and last stage ever. At the end of his life, however, Lenin, departing from his earlier conception of imperialism, saw in his letter "On the Question of Nationalities" the possibility of imperialist relations of the socialist Soviet Union with other states. While Lenin, Luxemburg and Kautsky firmly rejected imperialism and colonialism as part of an overall system of capitalist oppression, there were, however, dissenting voices such as that of the Dutch social democrat Henri van Kol, who defended colonial conquests of non-European regions as a "policy of civilization." Such views, however, remained a small minority within Marxism; theoretically and politically, the analyses critical of imperialism were formative.

In strict contrast to the Marxist view, the economist Schumpeter did not see imperialism as a necessary result of competition in a capitalist economic order. Rather, he saw it as the expression of irrational chauvinism on the part of the upper classes in order to consolidate their power. In this respect, he argued, it could occur at all stages of history and in different political systems.

In 1940, Jawaharlal Nehru identified Nazism "as the 'twin brother' of Western imperialism," which was to function in Europe as Western imperialism did overseas. Pankaj Mishra argues that after 1945 the horrors of Nazism and Communism made people forget that modern British and US society were founded on racist imperialism.

The term "imperialism" overlaps in many respects with colonialism. According to Jens Flemming, however, one difference lies in the quest for power. In his view, not all colonialism has to be aimed at establishing an empire. At the same time, the category of imperialism includes not only direct forms of rule, but also indirect dependency relationships (indirect rule) of states.

In his theory of empire, Herfried Münkler draws parallels between contemporary US foreign policy and that of past empires, focusing on the subjective motivation of Macchiavellian actors.

Indigenous U.S. professor Jack D. Forbes sees imperialism as a symptom of what he calls the "Wétiko psychosis" of Europeans' collective fascination with evil, a collective psychotic greed and pathological inhumanity.

Historians John Andrew Gallagher and Ronald Robinson rejected the idea of formal legal control of one government over another as the basis of imperialism. Most historians would be taken in by differently coloured maps (literally "red coloured maps" in Cecil Rhodes' sense). However, most British emigration, trade and investment took place outside the formal British Empire.

While military force sometimes played a role in empire-building, in the case of the British Empire the decisive role was played by the involvement of local economic and administrative elites. Indirect domination of India was largely based on the political weakness of the Mughal states encountered.

Painter and Jeffrey go so far as to say that the second European expansion was based more on an accidental interaction of European powers and their domestic politics than on conscious imperialism. No European empire as such had a truly definable purpose, economic or otherwise. Empires represented only one phase of Europe's complex interaction with the rest of the world.

A counter-thesis to "imperialism" formulated early on (1902/12) is that of a possible peaceful ultra-imperialism. This implies that imperialism with its war-driving contradictions could be overcome - and indeed system-immanently within capitalism itself. This economic meaning is also used today to speak of "globalization", which, according to Thomas L. Friedman, can itself also have a peacemaking effect.