Editing Imperialism (section)

==Theories of imperialism==
{{Main|Theories of imperialism}}
Anglophone academic studies often base their theories regarding imperialism on the British experience of Empire. The term ''imperialism'' was originally introduced into English in its present sense in the late 1870s by opponents of the allegedly aggressive and ostentatious imperial policies of British Prime Minister [[Benjamin Disraeli]]. Supporters of "imperialism" such as [[Joseph Chamberlain]] quickly appropriated the concept. For some, imperialism designated a policy of idealism and philanthropy; others alleged that it was characterized by political self-interest, and a growing number associated it with capitalist greed.

Historians and political theorists have long debated the correlation between capitalism, class, and imperialism. Much of the debate was pioneered by such theorists as [[J. A. Hobson|John A. Hobson]] (1858–1940), [[Joseph Schumpeter]] (1883–1950), [[Thorstein Veblen]] (1857–1929), and [[Norman Angell]] (1872–1967). While these non-Marxist writers were at their most prolific before World War I, they remained active in the [[Interwar period|interwar years]]. Their combined work informed the study of imperialism and its impact on Europe, as well as contributing to reflections on the rise of the military-political complex in the United States from the 1950s. 

In ''[[Imperialism (Hobson book)|Imperialism: A Study]]'' (1902), Hobson developed a highly influential interpretation of imperialism that expanded on his belief that free-enterprise capitalism had a harmful effect on the majority of the population. In ''Imperialism'' he argued that the financing of overseas empires drained money that was needed at home. It was invested abroad because lower wages paid to workers overseas made for higher profits and higher rates of return, compared to domestic wages. So, although domestic wages remained higher, they did not grow nearly as fast as they might otherwise have. Exporting capital, he concluded, put a lid on the growth of domestic wages and the domestic standard of living. Hobson theorized that domestic social reforms could cure the international disease of imperialism by removing its economic foundation, while state intervention through taxation could boost broader consumption, create wealth, and encourage a peaceful, tolerant, multipolar world order.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Cain |first=P. J. |year=2007 |title=Capitalism, Aristocracy and Empire: Some 'Classical' Theories of Imperialism Revisited |journal=The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History |volume=35 |pages=25–47 |doi=10.1080/03086530601143388 |s2cid=159660602}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Peatling |first=G. K. |year=2004 |title=Globalism, Hegemonism and British Power: J. A. Hobson and Alfred Zimmern Reconsidered |journal=History |volume=89 |issue=295 |pages=381–398 |doi=10.1111/j.1468-229X.2004.00305.x}}</ref> 

By the 1970s, historians such as [[David Fieldhouse|David K. Fieldhouse]]<ref name="Fieldhouse1961">{{Cite journal |last=Fieldhouse |first=D. K. |year=1961 |title='Imperialism': An Historiographical Revision |journal=The Economic History Review |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=187–209 |doi=10.1111/j.1468-0289.1961.tb00045.x |jstor=2593218}}</ref> and Oron Hale could argue that "the Hobsonian foundation has been almost completely demolished."<ref name="Hale"/>{{Rp|5–6}} It was not businessmen and bankers but politicians who went with the stream of the masses. The modern imperialism was primarily a political product caused by the national mass hysteria rather than by the much-abused capitalists.<ref>[[Wolfgang Mommsen| Mommsen, Wolfgang]] (1982). ''Theories of Imperialism'', (tr. Falla, P. S. Chicago: University of Chicago Press), p 72, https://archive.org/details/theoriesofimperi0000momm/page/72/mode/2up?view=theater</ref> The British experience failed to support it. Similarly, American Historian [[David Landes]] claims that businessmen were less enthusiastic about colonialism than statesmen and adventurers.<ref>[[Wolfgang Mommsen| Mommsen, Wolfgang]] (1982). ''Theories of Imperialism'', (tr. Falla, P. S. Chicago: University of Chicago Press), p 79, https://archive.org/details/theoriesofimperi0000momm/page/78/mode/2up?view=theater</ref>

However, European Marxists picked up Hobson's ideas wholeheartedly and made it into their own theory of imperialism, most notably in [[Vladimir Lenin]]'s ''[[Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism]]'' (1916). Lenin portrayed [[Theory of Imperialism|imperialism as the closure of the world market and the end of capitalist free-competition]] that arose from the need for capitalist economies to constantly expand investment, material resources and manpower in such a way that necessitated colonial expansion. Later Marxist theoreticians echo this conception of imperialism as a structural feature of capitalism, which explained the World War as the battle between imperialists for control of external markets. Lenin's treatise became a standard textbook that flourished until the collapse of communism in 1989–91.<ref>Tony Brewer, ''Marxist theories of imperialism: a critical survey'' (2002)</ref>

[[File: Roubaud. Russian troops entering Tiflis in 1799.JPG|thumb|''Entrance of the Russian troops in Tiflis, 26 November 1799'', by [[Franz Roubaud]], 1886]]
[[File:CaptureOfLang-Son.jpg|thumb|The capture of [[Lạng Sơn]] during the [[French conquest of Vietnam]] in 1885]]
Some theoreticians on the non-Communist left have emphasized the structural or systemic character of "imperialism". Such writers have expanded the period associated with the term so that it now designates neither a policy, nor a short space of decades in the late 19th century, but a world system extending over a period of centuries, often going back to [[Colonization]] and, in some accounts, to the [[Crusades]]. As the application of the term has expanded, its meaning has shifted along five distinct but often parallel axes: the moral, the economic, the systemic, the cultural, and the temporal. Those changes reflect—among other shifts in sensibility—a growing unease, even great distaste, with the pervasiveness of such power, specifically, Western power.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Proudman |first=Mark F. |year=2008 |title=Words for Scholars: The Semantics of "Imperialism" |journal=Journal of the Historical Society |volume=8 |issue=3 |pages=395–433 |doi=10.1111/j.1540-5923.2008.00252.x}}</ref><ref name=Fieldhouse1961/>

[[Walter Rodney]], in his 1972 [[How Europe Underdeveloped Africa]], proposes the idea that imperialism is a phase of capitalism "in which Western European capitalist countries, the US, and Japan established political, economic, military and cultural hegemony over other parts of the world which were initially at a lower level and therefore could not resist domination."<ref name=":4"/> As a result, Imperialism "for many years embraced the whole world – one part being the exploiters and the other the exploited, one part being dominated and the other acting as overlords, one part making policy and the other being dependent."<ref name=":4">{{Cite book |last=Walter. |first=Rodney |title=How Europe underdeveloped Africa. |date=1972 |publisher=Howard University Press |isbn=978-0-9501546-4-0 |oclc=589558}}</ref>

Imperialism has also been identified in newer phenomena like [[space colonization#Colonialism|space development]] and its governing context.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Alan Marshall |date=February 1995 |title=Development and imperialism in space |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222641231 |journal=Space Policy |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=41–52 |bibcode=1995SpPol..11...41M |doi=10.1016/0265-9646(95)93233-B |access-date=2020-06-28}}</ref>