By: bwite lukama

What is Imperialism?

Definition of Imperialism: The policy of industrialized nations taking over

less developed nations for the purpose of increasing their economic, political, military, and social influence

Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial conquest or through indirectmethods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is often used to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire.

Insofar as "imperialism" might be used to refer to an intellectual position, it would imply the belief that the acquisition and maintenance of empires is a positive for all involved, probably combined with an assumption of cultural or other such superiority inherent to imperial power. Feelings of superiority canbe found in three main areas: cultural/ethnic, religious, and governmental. See "The White Man's Burden".

Imperialism is the process whereby powerful groups try to extend their power and increase their wealth by bringing ever more of the world under their domination.

Although the word comes to us from Roman times, imperialism has been around for a lot longer. In fact, pretty much every well-known ancient civilization was an imperialist power, sending armies abroad to conquer new lands, from the Egyptian pharaohs, to the Aztecs and Incas. Even Athens, birthplace of democracy, had its empire and there are several recorded instances of Athenian armies massacring their subjects in order to ensure they didn't get any notions of independence.

Imperialism is a direct consequence of hierarchical organisation. Power corrupts and leads to a thirst for more power. Thus, in any hierarchical society, once a group has attained power in their own realm, they will start to look outwards and continue to extend their influence through imperialism until they are toppled from within, or encounter a more powerful imperialist rival.

The modern history of imperialism dates from the 15th century, when technical advances in navigation and sailing suddenly opened up vast areas of the world to the European powers. This came at a time when their expansion to the East had been blocked by the Ottoman empire, and they had fallen into a prolonged period of inconclusive warfare amongst themselves. Their technical advantages over the people of the newly accessible lands, especially in warfare, made expansionin that direction a very attractive prospect. European armies and gunboats travelled the world. The British, Dutch, French, Spanish and Portuguese slugged it out over 4 centuries in a race to conquer these new lands and to appropriate their resources. Where they could, as in the Americas and Australia, they simply took over

the land and slaughtered the population or put them to work as slaves.

Although imperialism is often seen as one country oppressing another, this view clouds the picture. In this age of global capitalism, the group with real power is the big capitalists. They will use whatever political vehicle is most suitable to impose their power. In this era, the US is the undisputed centre of political power in the world and so it is through the US that the capitalists flex their muscles. The people of the US, sent out to kill and die for Chevron and GM,are victims of this imperialism as well as the Iraqis, Afghanis and Somalis whom they kill. So, rather than the US oppressing the rest of the world, we can best understand imperialism, and indeed fight against it, ifwe see it as the global class of capitalists oppressingthe rest of humanity.

Imperialism draws heavy criticism on the grounds that it is a form of economic exploitation in which the imperialist power makes use of other countries as sources of raw materials and cheap labor, shaping theireconomies to suit its own interests and keeping their people in poverty. When imperialism is accompanied by overt military conquest, it is also seen as a violationof freedom and human rights, as well as self-determination. However, an imperialist draws upon Social Darwinism to justify overtaking "weaker" nations.

In recent years, there has also been a trend to criticize imperialism not at an economic or political level, but at a simply cultural level, particularly the

widespread global influence of American culture - see cultural imperialism. Some dispute this extension, however, on the grounds that it is highly subjective (to differentiate between mutual interaction and undue influence) and also applied selectively (hamburgers being imperialist and black tea not). The debate continues.

Effects of Imperialism -

Imperialism is when a mother country takes over a smaller nation or colony for political, social, and/or economic reasons. Imperialism has been a major force in shaping the modern world. The effects of Imperialism have been interpreted from a variety of viewpoints. This major Imperialism occurred during thelate 19th Century and early 20th century. It had more negative effects in the modern world today then positive effects.

A positive effect is seen in document one called "Modern Progressive Nations," it shows how the larger nations gave to the smaller colonies. The nations built them roads, canals, and railways. Showed them the telegraph, newspaper, established schools for them,gave them the blessing of their civilization, and overall made them economized. They were part of modernculture after this occurred. Another positive effect is seen in document three called "Colonial Governments and Missionaries. " It shows how the colonial governments introduced improved medical care, and better methods of sanitation. There were new crops; tools and farming methods, which helped, increase food

production. These changes meant less death to smaller colonies, and overall improve the state of living. They now could live longer and have better sanitation compared to the earlier imperialism. (12/03/2012 (KC)

A negative effect is seen document two-called "Colonization." In the picture you can see that the colonies doing the mother country`s hard work did not civilize the smaller colonies. They were put to work as cheap labor. They had no freedom, had to do what the mother country said since it has so much towering power over them, they were exploited and were taken advantage of. Another negative effect is seen in document four called "Missionaries." In this quote youcan see that when the white people came to the Africansthey had nothing but power over them. They came with the Bible and no land, and instead took their land and forced the religion Christianity upon them. In document five-called "The White Man," another negative effect occurs. In this little tale or quote, David Diop talks about how the whites came and killed the innocent. This had many negative effects on Africa such as the African's were put to work as slaves but more like cheap labor. Many of them dies from this, they were resettled, exploited, weren't taken at their free will and took all of their land. The last negative effect can be seen in document seven called "The German Cartoon." This cartoon shows how severely the presence of imperialism affected such continents asAfrica. The man in the machine is being forced to drink hard liquor and alcohol, they were corrupted and given evil minds, their money was all taken away, and most of all religion was forced upon them. (14/03/2012 main campus)

Imperialism is never considered as a good cause and effect. At first when it occurs it may seem as a positive effect, but in the long run, for example in this case it was a negative effect. All Africans and Asians were heavily exploited and were given no rights to do anything even though the mother countries gave them modern culture. Colonies inside colonies would fight because they wanted independence and have their own government and rule. There were many ethnics groupthat had nationalistic feelings but could not accomplish anything and become a free nation because ofImperialism. The mother country's that did the taking over were only after a few things and unfortunately didhappen to accomplish what they were after. They wantedraw materials, markets for goods, national glory, balance of power and they also felt as though they needed to help smaller nations as though it was their burden, which Europeans called "White Man's Burden." In their point of view they thought they were helping people but really all they were doing was hurting the smaller colonies. Mother countries were destroying ethnic groups and causing civil wars between smaller nations. This newer modern Imperialism was never productive.

When a mother country took over a smaller colony for economic, political or social reason, they were Imperialistic. As shown they changed the modern world plenty and pretty much made it a harder world to live in at that time. It all depends on which viewpoints you may look at. Some may think it was a positive thing but overall, it only led to things in this world that were negative. Even thought the modern Imperialism occurred no more then 100 years ago, it

still affects us greatly, and how our nation is broken down.

Westerners monopolized resources, owning mines and ports and using all profits to pay for their own government.

They destroyed the African ruling system, kicking kings out or telling them to govern a certain way. They denied even the most educated, capable Africans top jobs in government.

Europeans did not emphasize general healthcare and limited Africans' access to education beyond primary level. This made it difficult for Africans to function in the modern world.

Imperialists changed borders between nations only for their own satisfaction and ruling purposes. They did not consider that theywere mixing enemy tribes and destroying traditional territories. This ruined much of the unity among Africans.

Wherever the english went they set up a caste system and formalized racism, which is how we get the wonder of rwanda. South africa's aparteid. Horrible civil war in ivory coast. Basically, everywhere in africa was under one european empire or another, they completely tear down the preexisting order, facilitate racism and homophobia to pit tribe against tribe, and then they left affairs in a complete mess for the warlord with the most guns to take over.

It still goes on, some of the pirates of somalia are fishers who were unable to work because of all the toxic dumping off shore. American evangelicals have stirred up anti-gay sentiment in uganda to the point where they're trying to get a death penalty. Africa's still the place to get really illegal stuff done.

Causes of Imperialism

Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world history over thelast four or five centuries, carving up whole continents whileoppressing indigenous peoples and obliterating entire civilizations.Yet, it is seldom accorded any serious attention by our academics,media commentators, and political leaders. When not ignored outright,the subject of imperialism has been sanitized, so that empires become“commonwealths,” and colonies become “territories” or “dominions” (or,as in the case of Puerto Rico, “commonwealths” too). Imperialistmilitary interventions become matters of “national defense,” “nationalsecurity,” and maintaining “stability” in one or another region.

Across the Entire Globe

By "imperialism" we mean the process whereby the dominant politico-economic interests of one nation expropriate for their own enrichmentthe land, labor, raw materials, and markets of another people.

The earliest victims of Western European imperialism were otherEuropeans. Some 800 years ago, Ireland became the first colony of whatlater became known as the British empire. A part of Ireland stillremains under British occupation. Other early Caucasian victimsincluded the Eastern Europeans. The people Charlemagne worked to deathin his mines in the early part of the ninth century were Slavs. Sofrequent and prolonged was the enslavement of Eastern Europeans that"Slav" became synonymous with servitude. Indeed, the word "slave"derives from "Slav." Eastern Europe was an early source of capitalaccumulation, having become wholly dependent upon Western manufacturesby the seventeenth century.

Of the various notions about imperialism circulating today in theworld, the dominant view is that it does not exist. Imperialism is notrecognized as a legitimate concept, certainly not in regard to theUnited States. One may speak of "Soviet imperialism" or "nineteenth-century British imperialism" but not of U.S. imperialism. A graduatestudent in political science at most universities in this countrywould not be granted the opportunity to research U.S. imperialism, on

the grounds that such an undertaking would not be scholarly. Whilemany people throughout the world charge the United States with beingan imperialist power, in this country persons who talk of U.S.imperialism are usually judged to be mouthing ideological blather.

Causes of imperialism

The Dynamic of Capital Expansion

Imperialism is older than capitalism. The Persian, Macedonian, Roman,and Mongol empires all existed centuries before the Rothschilds andRockefellers. Emperors and conquistadors were interested mostly inplunder and tribute, gold and glory. Capitalist imperialism differsfrom these earlier forms in the way it systematically accumulatescapital through the organized exploitation of labor and thepenetration of overseas markets. Capitalist imperialism invests inother countries, transforming and dominating their economies,cultures, and political life, integrating their financial andproductive structures into an international system of capitalaccumulation.

A central imperative of capitalism is expansion. Investors will notput their money into business ventures unless they can extract morethan they invest. Increased earnings come only with a growth in theenterprise. The capitalist ceaselessly searches for ways of makingmore money in order to make still more money. One must always investto realize profits, gathering as much strength as possible in the faceof competing forces and unpredictable markets.

Given its expansionist nature, capitalism has little inclination tostay home. Almost 150 years ago, Marx and Engels described abourgeoisie that "chases over the whole surface of the globe. It mustnestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections

everywhere. . . . It creates a world after its own image." Theexpansionists destroy whole societies. Self-sufficient peoples areforcibly transformed into disfranchised wage workers. Indigenouscommunities and folk cultures are replaced by mass-market, mass-media,consumer societies. Cooperative lands are supplanted by agribusinessfactory farms, villages by desolate shanty towns, autonomous regionsby centralized autocracies.

Consider one of a thousand such instances. A few years ago the LosAngeles Times carried a special report on the rainforests of Borneo inthe South Pacific. By their own testimony, the people there livedcontented lives. They hunted, fished, and raised food in their jungleorchards and groves. But their entire way of life was ruthlessly wipedout by a few giant companies that destroyed the rainforest in order toharvest the hardwood for quick profits. Their lands were turned intoecological disaster areas and they themselves were transformed intodisfranchised shantytown dwellers, forced to work for subsistencewages—when fortunate enough to find employment.

North American and European corporations have acquired control of morethan three-fourths of the known mineral resources of Asia, Africa, andLatin America. But the pursuit of natural resources is not the onlyreason for capitalist overseas expansion. There is the additional needto cut production costs and maximize profits by investing in countrieswith cheaper labor markets. U.S. corporate foreign investment grew 84percent from 1985 to 1990, the most dramatic increase being in cheap-labor countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Spain, and Singapore.

Because of low wages, low taxes, nonexistent work benefits, weak laborunions, and nonexistent occupational and environmental protections,U.S. corporate profit rates in the Third World are 50 percent greaterthan in developed countries. Citibank, one of the largest U.S. firms,earns about 75 percent of its profits from overseas operations. Whileprofit margins at home sometimes have had a sluggish growth, earningsabroad have continued to rise dramatically, fostering the development

of what has become known as the multinational or transnationalcorporation. Today some four hundred transnational companies controlabout 80 percent of the capital assets of the global free market andare extending their grasp into the ex-communist countries of EasternEurope.

Transnationals have developed a global production line. General Motorshas factories that produce cars, trucks and a wide range of autocomponents in Canada, Brazil, Venezuela, Spain, Belgium, Yugoslavia,Nigeria, Singapore, Philippines, South Africa, South Korea and a dozenother countries. Such "multiple sourcing" enables GM to ride out strikes in one countryby stepping up production in another, playing workers of various nations against each other inorder to discourage wage and benefit demands and undermine labor union strategies.

Not Necessary, Just Compelling

Some writers question whether imperialism is a necessary condition forcapitalism, pointing out that most Western capital is invested inWestern nations, not in the Third World. If corporations lost alltheir Third World investments, they argue, many of them could stillsurvive on their European and North American markets. In response, oneshould note that capitalism might be able to survive withoutimperialism—but it shows no inclination to do so. It manifests nodesire to discard its enormously profitable Third World enterprises.Imperialism may not be a necessary condition for investor survival butit seems to be an inherent tendency and a natural outgrowth ofadvanced capitalism. Imperial relations may not be the only way topursue profits, but they are the most lucrative way.

Whether imperialism is necessary for capitalism is really not thequestion. Many things that are not absolutely necessary are stillhighly desirable, therefore strongly preferred and vigorously pursued.Overseas investors find the Third World's cheap labor, vital naturalresources, and various other highly profitable conditions to becompellingly attractive. Superprofits may not be necessary for

capitalism's survival but survival is not all that capitalists areinterested in. Superprofits are strongly preferred to more modestearnings. That there may be no necessity between capitalism andimperialism does not mean there is no compelling linkage.

The same is true of other social dynamics. For instance, wealth doesnot necessarily have to lead to luxurious living. A higher portion ofan owning class's riches could be used for investment rather personalconsumption. The very wealthy could survive on more modest sums butthat is not how most of them prefer to live. Throughout history,wealthy classes generally have shown a preference for getting the bestof everything. After all, the whole purpose of getting rich off otherpeople's labor is to live well, avoiding all forms of thankless toiland drudgery, enjoying superior opportunities for lavish life-styles,medical care, education, travel, recreation, security, leisure, andopportunities for power and prestige. While none of these things arereally "necessary," they are fervently clung to by those who possessthem—as witnessed by the violent measures endorsed by advantagedclasses whenever they feel the threat of an equalizing or levelingdemocratic force.

Myths of Underdevelopment

The impoverished lands of Asia, Africa, and Latin America are known tous as the "Third World," to distinguish them from the "First World" ofindustrialized Europe and North America and the now largely defunct"Second World" of communist states. Third World poverty, called"underdevelopment," is treated by most Western observers as anoriginal historic condition. We are asked to believe that it alwaysexisted, that poor countries are poor because their lands have alwaysbeen infertile or their people unproductive.

In fact, the lands of Asia, Africa, and Latin America have longproduced great treasures of foods, minerals and other naturalresources. That is why the Europeans went through all the trouble to

steal and plunder them. One does not go to poor places for self-enrichment. The Third World is rich. Only its people are poor—and itis because of the pillage they have endured.

The process of expropriating the natural resources of the Third Worldbegan centuries ago and continues to this day. First, the colonizersextracted gold, silver, furs, silks, and spices, then flax, hemp,timber, molasses, sugar, rum, rubber, tobacco, calico, cocoa, coffee,cotton, copper, coal, palm oil, tin, iron, ivory, ebony, and later on,oil, zinc, manganese, mercury, platinum, cobalt, bauxite, aluminum,and uranium. Not to be overlooked is that most hellish of allexpropriations: the abduction of millions of human beings into slavelabor.

Through the centuries of colonization, many self-serving imperialisttheories have been spun. I was taught in school that people intropical lands are slothful and do not work as hard as we denizens ofthe temperate zone. In fact, the inhabitants of warm climates haveperformed remarkably productive feats, building magnificentcivilizations well before Europe emerged from the Dark Ages. And todaythey often work long, hard hours for meager sums. Yet the earlystereotype of the "lazy native" is still with us. In every capitalistsociety, the poor—both domestic and overseas—regularly are blamed fortheir own condition.

We hear that Third World peoples are culturally retarded in theirattitudes, customs, and technical abilities. It is a convenient notionembraced by those who want to depict Western investments as a rescueoperation designed to help backward peoples help themselves. This mythof "cultural backwardness" goes back to ancient times, when conquerorsused it to justify enslaving indigenous peoples. It was used byEuropean colonizers over the last five centuries for the same purpose.

What cultural supremacy could by claimed by the Europeans of yore?From the fifteenth to nineteenth centuries Europe was "ahead" in a

variety of things, such as the number of hangings, murders, and otherviolent crimes; instances of venereal disease, smallpox, typhoid,tuberculosis, plagues, and other bodily afflictions; social inequalityand poverty (both urban and rural); mistreatment of women andchildren; and frequency of famines, slavery, prostitution, piracy,religious massacres, and inquisitional torture. Those who claim theWest has been the most advanced civilization should keep such"achievements" in mind.

More seriously, we might note that Europe enjoyed a telling advantagein navigation and armaments. Muskets and cannon, Gatling guns andgunboats, and today missiles, helicopter gunships, and fighter bombershave been the deciding factors when West meets East and North meetsSouth. Superior firepower, not superior culture, has brought theEuropeans and Euro-North Americans to positions of supremacy thattoday are still maintained by force, though not by force alone.

It was said that colonized peoples were biologically backward and lessevolved than their colonizers. Their "savagery" and "lower" level ofcultural evolution were emblematic of their inferior geneticevolution. But were they culturally inferior? In many parts of what isnow considered the Third World, people developed impressive skills inarchitecture, horticulture, crafts, hunting, fishing, midwifery,medicine, and other such things. Their social customs were often farmore gracious and humane and less autocratic and repressive thananything found in Europe at that time. Of course we must notromanticize these indigenous societies, some of which had a number ofcruel and unusual practices of their own. But generally, their peoplesenjoyed healthier, happier lives, with more leisure time, than didmost of Europe's inhabitants.

Other theories enjoy wide currency. We hear that Third World povertyis due to overpopulation, too many people having too many children tofeed. Actually, over the last several centuries, many Third Worldlands have been less densely populated than certain parts of Europe.

India has fewer people per acre—but more poverty—than Holland, Wales,England, Japan, Italy, and a few other industrial countries.Furthermore, it is the industrialized nations of the First World, notthe poor ones of the Third, that devour some 80 percent of the world'sresources and pose the greatest threat to the planet's ecology.

This is not to deny that overpopulation is a real problem for theplanet's ecosphere. Limiting population growth in all nations wouldhelp the global environment but it would not solve the problems of thepoor—because overpopulation in itself is not the cause of poverty butone of its effects. The poor tend to have large families becausechildren are a source of family labor and income and a support duringold age.

Frances Moore Lappe and Rachel Schurman found that of seventy ThirdWorld countries, there were six—China, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Chile,Burma, and Cuba—and the state of Kerala in India that had managed tolower their birth rates by one third. They enjoyed neither dramaticindustrial expansion nor high per capita incomes nor extensive familyplanning programs. The factors they had in common were publiceducation and health care, a reduction of economic inequality,improvements in women's rights, food subsidies, and in some cases landreform. In other words, fertility rates were lowered not by capitalistinvestments and economic growth as such but by socio-economicbetterment, even of a modest scale, accompanied by the emergence ofwomen's rights.

Artificially Converted to Poverty

What is called "underdevelopment" is a set of social relations thathas been forcefully imposed on countries. With the advent of theWestern colonizers, the peoples of the Third World were actually setback in their development sometimes for centuries. British imperialismin India provides an instructive example. In 1810, India was exportingmore textiles to England than England was exporting to India. By 1830,

the trade flow was reversed. The British had put up prohibitive tariffbarriers to shut out Indian finished goods and were dumping theircommodities in India, a practice backed by British gunboats andmilitary force. Within a matter of years, the great textile centers ofDacca and Madras were turned into ghost towns. The Indians were sentback to the land to raise the cotton used in British textilefactories. In effect, India was reduced to being a cow milked byBritish financiers.

By 1850, India's debt had grown to 53 million pounds. From 1850 to1900, its per capita income dropped by almost two-thirds. The value ofthe raw materials and commodities the Indians were obliged to send toBritain during most of the nineteenth century amounted yearly to morethan the total income of the sixty million Indian agricultural andindustrial workers. The massive poverty we associate with India wasnot that country's original historical condition. British imperialismdid two things: first, it ended India's development, then it forciblyunderdeveloped that country.

Similar bleeding processes occurred throughout the Third World. Theenormous wealth extracted should remind us that there originally werefew really poor nations. Countries like Brazil, Indonesia, Chile,Bolivia, Zaire, Mexico, Malaysia, and the Philippines were andsometimes still are rich in resources. Some lands have been sothoroughly plundered as to be desolate in all respects. However, mostof the Third World is not "underdeveloped" but overexploited. Westerncolonization and investments have created a lower rather than a higherliving standard.

Referring to what the English colonizers did to the Irish, FrederickEngels wrote in 1856: "How often have the Irish started out to achievesomething, and every time they have been crushed politically andindustrially. By consistent oppression they have been artificiallyconverted into an utterly impoverished nation." So with most of theThird World. The Mayan Indians in Guatemala had a more nutritious and

varied diet and better conditions of health in the early 16th centurybefore the Europeans arrived than they have today. They had morecraftspeople, architects, artisans, and horticulturists than today.What is called underdevelopment is not an original historicalcondition but a product of imperialism's superexploitation.Underdevelopment is itself a development.

Imperialism has created what I have termed "maldevelopment": modernoffice buildings and luxury hotels in the capital city instead ofhousing for the poor, cosmetic surgery clinics for the affluentinstead of hospitals for workers, cash export crops for agribusinessinstead of food for local markets, highways that go from the mines andlatifundios to the refineries and ports instead of roads in the backcountry for those who might hope to see a doctor or a teacher.

Wealth is transferred from Third World peoples to the economic elitesof Europe and North America (and more recently Japan) by directplunder, by the expropriation of natural resources, the imposition ofruinous taxes and land rents, the payment of poverty wages, and theforced importation of finished goods at highly inflated prices. Thecolonized country is denied the freedom of trade and the opportunityto develop its own natural resources, markets, and industrialcapacity. Self-sustenance and self-employment gives way to wage labor.From 1970 to 1980, the number of wage workers in the Third World grewfrom 72 million to 120 million, and the rate is accelerating.

Hundreds of millions of Third World peoples now live in destitution inremote villages and congested urban slums, suffering hunger, disease,and illiteracy, often because the land they once tilled is nowcontrolled by agribusiness firms who use it for mining or forcommercial export crops such as coffee, sugar, and beef, instead ofgrowing beans, rice, and corn for home consumption. A study of twentyof the poorest countries, compiled from official statistics, foundthat the number of people living in what is called "absolute poverty"or rockbottom destitution, the poorest of the poor, is rising 70,000 a

day and should reach 1.5 billion by the year 2000 (San FranciscoExaminer, June 8, 1994).

Imperialism forces millions of children around the world to livenightmarish lives, their mental and physical health severely damagedby endless exploitation. A documentary film on the Discovery Channel(April 24, 1994) reported that in countries like Russia, Thailand, andthe Philippines, large numbers of minors are sold into prostitution tohelp their desperate families survive. In countries like Mexico,India, Colombia, and Egypt, children are dragooned into health-shattering, dawn-to-dusk labor on farms and in factories and mines forpennies an hour, with no opportunity for play, schooling, or medicalcare.

In India, 55 million children are pressed into the work force. Tens ofthousands labor in glass factories in temperatures as high as 100degrees. In one plant, four-year-olds toil from 5 o'clock in themorning until the dead of night, inhaling fumes and contractingemphysema, tuberculosis, and other respiratory diseases. In thePhilippines and Malaysia corporations have lobbied to drop agerestrictions for labor recruitment. The pursuit of profit becomes apursuit of evil.

Development Theory

When we say a country is "underdeveloped," we are implying that it isbackward and retarded in some way, that its people have shown littlecapacity to achieve and evolve. The negative connotations of"underdeveloped" has caused the United Nations, the Wall StreetJournal, and parties of various political persuasion to refer to ThirdWorld countries as "developing" nations, a term somewhat lessinsulting than "underdeveloped" but equally misleading. I prefer touse "Third World" because "developing" seems to be just a euphemisticway of saying "underdeveloped but belatedly starting to do somethingabout it." It still implies that poverty was an original historic

condition and not something imposed by the imperialists. It alsofalsely suggests that these countries are developing when actuallytheir economic conditions are usually worsening.

The dominant theory of the last half century, enunciated repeatedly bywriters like Barbara Ward and W. W. Rostow and afforded wide currencyin the United States and other parts of the Western world, maintainsthat it is up to the rich nations of the North to help uplift the"backward" nations of the South, bringing them technology and teachingthem proper work habits. This is an updated version of "the Whiteman's burden," a favorite imperialist fantasy.

According to the development scenario, with the introduction ofWestern investments, the backward economic sectors of the poor nationswill release their workers, who then will find more productiveemployment in the modern sector at higher wages. As capitalaccumulates, business will reinvest its profits, thus creating stillmore products, jobs, buying power, and markets. Eventually a moreprosperous economy evolves.

This "development theory" or "modernization theory," as it issometimes called, bears little relation to reality. What has emergedin the Third World is an intensely exploitive form of dependentcapitalism. Economic conditions have worsened drastically with thegrowth of transnational corporate investment. The problem is not poorlands or unproductive populations but foreign exploitation and classinequality. Investors go into a country not to uplift it but to enrichthemselves.

People in these countries do not need to be taught how to farm. Theyneed the land and the implements to farm. They do not need to betaught how to fish. They need the boats and the nets and access toshore frontage, bays, and oceans. They need industrial plants to ceasedumping toxic effusions into the waters. They do not need to beconvinced that they should use hygienic standards. They do not need aPeace Corps Volunteer to tell them to boil their water, especially

when they cannot afford fuel or have no access to firewood. They needthe conditions that will allow them to have clean drinking water andclean clothes and homes. They do not need advice about balanced dietsfrom North Americans. They usually know what foods best serve theirnutritional requirements. They need to be given back their land andlabor so that they might work for themselves and grow food for theirown consumption.

The legacy of imperial domination is not only misery and strife, butan economic structure dominated by a network of internationalcorporations which themselves are beholden to parent companies basedin North America, Europe and Japan. If there is any harmonization orintegration, it occurs among the global investor classes, not amongthe indigenous economies of these countries. Third World economiesremain fragmented and unintegrated both between each other and withinthemselves, both in the flow of capital and goods and in technologyand organization. In sum, what we have is a world economy that haslittle to do with the economic needs of the world's people.

Neoimperialism: Skimming the Cream

Sometimes imperial domination is explained as arising from an innatedesire for domination and expansion, a "territorial imperative." Infact, territorial imperialism is no longer the prevailing mode.Compared to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when theEuropean powers carved up the world among themselves, today there isalmost no colonial dominion left. Colonel Blimp is dead and buried,replaced by men in business suits. Rather than being directlycolonized by the imperial power, the weaker countries have beengranted the trappings of sovereignty—while Western finance capitalretains control of the lion's share of their profitable resources.This relationship has gone under various names: "informal empire,""colonialism without colonies," "neocolonialism," and"neoimperialism."

U.S. political and business leaders were among the earliestpractitioners of this new kind of empire, most notably in Cuba at thebeginning of the twentieth century. Having forcibly wrested the islandfrom Spain in the war of 1898, they eventually gave Cuba its formalindependence. The Cubans now had their own government, constitution,flag, currency, and security force. But major foreign policy decisionsremained in U.S. hands as did the island's wealth, including itssugar, tobacco, and tourist industries, and major imports and exports.

Historically U.S. capitalist interests have been less interested inacquiring more colonies than in acquiring more wealth, preferring tomake off with the treasure of other nations without bothering to ownand administer the nations themselves. Under neoimperialism, the flagstays home, while the dollar goes everywhere—frequently assisted bythe sword.

After World War II, European powers like Britain and France adopted astrategy of neoimperialism. Left financially depleted by years ofwarfare, and facing intensified popular resistance from within theThird World itself, they reluctantly decided that indirect economichegemony was less costly and politically more expedient than outrightcolonial rule. They discovered that the removal of a conspicuouslyintrusive colonial rule made it more difficult for nationalistelements within the previously colonized countries to mobilize anti-imperialist sentiments.

Though the newly established government might be far from completelyindependent, it usually enjoyed more legitimacy in the eyes of itspopulace than a colonial administration controlled by the imperialpower. Furthermore, under neoimperialism the native government takesup the costs of administering the country while the imperialistinterests are free to concentrate on accumulating capital—which is allthey really want to do.

After years of colonialism, the Third World country finds it extremely

difficult to extricate itself from the unequal relationship with itsformer colonizer and impossible to depart from the global capitalistsphere. Those countries that try to make a break are subjected topunishing economic and military treatment by one or another majorpower, nowadays usually the United States.

The leaders of the new nations may voice revolutionary slogans, yetthey find themselves locked into the global capitalist orbit,cooperating perforce with the First World nations for investment,trade, and aid. So we witnessed the curious phenomenon of leaders ofnewly independent Third World nations denouncing imperialism as thesource of their countries' ills, while dissidents in these countriesdenounced these same leaders as collaborators of imperialism.

In many instances a comprador class emerged or was installed as afirst condition for independence. A comprador class is one thatcooperates in turning its own country into a client state for foreigninterests. A client state is one that is open to investments on termsthat are decidedly favorable to the foreign investors. In a clientstate, corporate investors enjoy direct subsidies and land grants,access to raw materials and cheap labor, light or nonexistent taxes,few effective labor unions, no minimum wage or child labor oroccupational safety laws, and no consumer or environmental protectionsto speak of. The protective laws that do exist go largely unenforced.

In all, the Third World is something of a capitalist paradise,offering life as it was in Europe and the United States during thenineteenth century, with a rate of profit vastly higher than whatmight be earned today in a country with strong economic regulations.The comprador class is well recompensed for its cooperation. Itsleaders enjoy opportunities to line their pockets with the foreign aidsent by the U.S. government. Stability is assured with theestablishment of security forces, armed and trained by the UnitedStates in the latest technologies of terror and repression. Still,neo-imperialism carries risks. The achievement of de jure independence

eventually fosters expectations of de facto independence. The forms ofself rule incite a desire for the fruits of self rule. Sometimes anational leader emerges who is a patriot and reformer rather than acomprador collaborator. Therefore, the changeover from colonialism toneocolonialism is not without risks for the imperialists andrepresents a net gain for popular forces in the world.

Artificially Converted to Poverty

What is called "underdevelopment" is a set of socialrelations that has been forcefully imposed on countries.With the advent of the Western colonizers, the peoples ofthe Third World were actually set back in theirdevelopment sometimes for centuries. British imperialismin India provides an instructive example. In 1810, Indiawas exporting more textiles to England than England wasexporting to India. By 1830, the trade flow was reversed.The British had put up prohibitive tariff barriers toshut out Indian finished goods and were dumping theircommodities in India, a practice backed by Britishgunboats and military force. Within a matter of years,the great textile centers of Dacca and Madras were turnedinto ghost towns. The Indians were sent back to the landto raise the cotton used in British textile factories. Ineffect, India was reduced to being a cow milked byBritish financiers.

By 1850, India's debt had grown to 53 million pounds.From 1850 to 1900, its per capita income dropped byalmost two-thirds. The value of the raw materials andcommodities the Indians were obliged to send to Britainduring most of the nineteenth century amounted yearly tomore than the total income of the sixty million Indian

agricultural and industrial workers. The massive povertywe associate with India was not that country's originalhistorical condition. British imperialism did two things:first, it ended India's development, then it forciblyunderdeveloped that country.

Similar bleeding processes occurred throughout the ThirdWorld. The enormous wealth extracted should remind usthat there originally were few really poor nations.Countries like Brazil, Indonesia, Chile, Bolivia, Zaire,Mexico, Malaysia, and the Philippines were and sometimesstill are rich in resources. Some lands have been sothoroughly plundered as to be desolate in all respects.However, most of the Third World is not "underdeveloped"but overexploited. Western colonization and investmentshave created a lower rather than a higher livingstandard.

Imperialism has created what I have termed"maldevelopment": modern office buildings and luxuryhotels in the capital city instead of housing for thepoor, cosmetic surgery clinics for the affluent insteadof hospitals for workers, cash export crops foragribusiness instead of food for local markets, highwaysthat go from the mines and latifundios to the refineriesand ports instead of roads in the back country for thosewho might hope to see a doctor or a teacher.

Wealth is transferred from Third World peoples to theeconomic elites of Europe and North America (and morerecently Japan) by direct plunder, by the expropriationof natural resources, the imposition of ruinous taxes and

land rents, the payment of poverty wages, and the forcedimportation of finished goods at highly inflated prices.The colonized country is denied the freedom of trade andthe opportunity to develop its own natural resources,markets, and industrial capacity. Self-sustenance andself-employment gives way to wage labor. From 1970 to1980, the number of wage workers in the Third World grewfrom 72 million to 120 million, and the rate isaccelerating.

Hundreds of millions of Third World peoples now live indestitution in remote villages and congested urban slums,suffering hunger, disease, and illiteracy, often becausethe land they once tilled is now controlled byagribusiness firms who use it for mining or forcommercial export crops such as coffee, sugar, and beef,instead of growing beans, rice, and corn for homeconsumption. A study of twenty of the poorest countries,compiled from official statistics, found that the numberof people living in what is called "absolute poverty" orrockbottom destitution, the poorest of the poor, isrising 70,000 a day and should reach 1.5 billion by theyear 2000 (San Francisco Examiner, June 8, 1994).

Imperialism forces millions of children around the worldto live nightmarish lives, their mental and physicalhealth severely damaged by endless exploitation. Adocumentary film on the Discovery Channel (April 24,1994) reported that in countries like Russia, Thailand,and the Philippines, large numbers of minors are soldinto prostitution to help their desperate familiessurvive. In countries like Mexico, India, Colombia, andEgypt, children are dragooned into health-shattering,dawn-to-dusk labor on farms and in factories and mines

for pennies an hour, with no opportunity for play,schooling, or medical care.

In India, 55 million children are pressed into the work force. Tens of thousands labor in glass factories in temperatures as high as 100 degrees. In one plant, four-year-olds toil from 5 o'clock in the morning until the dead of night, inhaling fumes and contracting emphysema, tuberculosis, and other respiratory diseases. In the Philippines and Malaysia corporations have lobbied to drop age restrictions for labor recruitment. The pursuit of profit becomes a pursuit of evil

The legacy of imperial domination is not only misery andstrife, but an economic structure dominated by a networkof international corporations which themselves arebeholden to parent companies based in North America,Europe and Japan. If there is any harmonization orintegration, it occurs among the global investor classes,not among the indigenous economies of these countries.Third World economies remain fragmented and unintegratedboth between each other and within themselves, both inthe flow of capital and goods and in technology andorganization. In sum, what we have is a world economythat has little to do with the economic needs of theworld's people.

Neoimperialism: Skimming the Cream

Sometimes imperial domination is explained as arisingfrom an innate desire for domination and expansion, a"territorial imperative." In fact, territorialimperialism is no longer the prevailing mode. Compared tothe nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when the

European powers carved up the world among themselves,today there is almost no colonial dominion left. ColonelBlimp is dead and buried, replaced by men in businesssuits. Rather than being directly colonized by theimperial power, the weaker countries have been grantedthe trappings of sovereignty—while Western financecapital retains control of the lion's share of theirprofitable resources. This relationship has gone undervarious names: "informal empire," "colonialism withoutcolonies," "neocolonialism," and "neoimperialism."

U.S. political and business leaders were among theearliest practitioners of this new kind of empire, mostnotably in Cuba at the beginning of the twentiethcentury. Having forcibly wrested the island from Spain inthe war of 1898, they eventually gave Cuba its formalindependence. The Cubans now had their own government,constitution, flag, currency, and security force. Butmajor foreign policy decisions remained in U.S. hands asdid the island's wealth, including its sugar, tobacco,and tourist industries, and major imports and exports.

Historically U.S. capitalist interests have been lessinterested in acquiring more colonies than in acquiringmore wealth, preferring to make off with the treasure ofother nations without bothering to own and administer thenations themselves. Under neoimperialism, the flag stayshome, while the dollar goes everywhere—frequentlyassisted by the sword.

After World War II, European powers like Britain andFrance adopted a strategy of neoimperialism. Leftfinancially depleted by years of warfare, and facingintensified popular resistance from within the ThirdWorld itself, they reluctantly decided that indirect

economic hegemony was less costly and politically moreexpedient than outright colonial rule. They discoveredthat the removal of a conspicuously intrusive colonialrule made it more difficult for nationalist elementswithin the previously colonized countries to mobilizeanti-imperialist sentiments.

Though the newly established government might be far fromcompletely independent, it usually enjoyed morelegitimacy in the eyes of its populace than a colonialadministration controlled by the imperial power.Furthermore, under neoimperialism the native governmenttakes up the costs of administering the country while theimperialist interests are free to concentrate onaccumulating capital—which is all they really want to do.

After years of colonialism, the Third World country findsit extremely difficult to extricate itself from theunequal relationship with its former colonizer andimpossible to depart from the global capitalist sphere.Those countries that try to make a break are subjected topunishing economic and military treatment by one oranother major power, nowadays usually the United States.

The leaders of the new nations may voice revolutionaryslogans, yet they find themselves locked into the globalcapitalist orbit, cooperating perforce with the FirstWorld nations for investment, trade, and aid. So wewitnessed the curious phenomenon of leaders of newlyindependent Third World nations denouncing imperialism asthe source of their countries' ills, while dissidents inthese countries denounced these same leaders ascollaborators of imperialism.

In many instances a comprador class emerged or wasinstalled as a first condition for independence. A

comprador class is one that cooperates in turning its owncountry into a client state for foreign interests. Aclient state is one that is open to investments on termsthat are decidedly favorable to the foreign investors. Ina client state, corporate investors enjoy directsubsidies and land grants, access to raw materials andcheap labor, light or nonexistent taxes, few effectivelabor unions, no minimum wage or child labor oroccupational safety laws, and no consumer orenvironmental protections to speak of. The protectivelaws that do exist go largely unenforced.

In all, the Third World is something of a capitalist paradise, offering life as it was in Europe and the United States during the nineteenth century, with a rate of profit vastly higher than what might be earned today in a country with strong economic regulations. The comprador class is well recompensed for its cooperation. Its leaders enjoy opportunities to line their pockets with the foreign aid sent by the U.S. government. Stability is assured with the establishment of security forces, armed and trained by the United States in the latest technologies of terror and repression. Still, neo-imperialism carries risks. The achievement of de jure independence eventually fosters expectations of de facto independence. The forms of self rule incite a desire for the fruits of self rule. Sometimes a national leader emerges who is a patriot and reformer rather than a comprador collaborator. Therefore, the changeover from colonialism to neocolonialism is not without risks for the imperialists and represents a net gain for popular forces in the world.