Reconsidering Theories of Imperialism

Abstract

A decade ago Eric Stokes argued persuasively that to test theories of economic by close historical study of colonial expansion in late nineteenth century was a fundamental mistake.1 Lenin's theory, in particular, explicitly excluded period before 1900. Along with fellow Marxists Nikolai Bukharin and Rudolf Hilferding, Lenin was concerned primarily to analyze economic forces that underlay Great Power rivalries and warfare in twentieth century. This account of Lenin's work has not been challenged; it evidently accords with plain meaning of Lenin's words. Stokes's meticulous rereading put a large dent if not a gaping hole in structure of what a generation of scholars and students has known as the problem. The essence of has been to test whether sweeping general theories of fit facts of colonial expansion, especially British expansion. In a number of competing students are led through a series of readings to conclusion that broad theories of economic do not fit facts. These books marshall compelling evidence to show, among other things, that surplus investment funds, industrial monopolies, and finance capitalists identified by economic theories as principal engineers of could not have produced colonial acquisitions attributed to them. Other, equally convincing evidence is then produced indicating superior merit of more modest theories which stress local factors such as rising colonial nationalisms, turbulent frontiers, or regional strategic interests. Alternatively, it is suggested that all theories of may be rejected in favor of a lengthy list of ''causes.'' If Stokes had demonstrated that none of famous theories of economic purported to explain nineteenth-century colonial expansion that all of them were directed instead at exposing process by which economic forces in twentieth century led to national antagonisms, protectionism, territorial aggrandizement, and war -the imperialism problem