Theories of Imperialism and Colonialism 31raw materials and agricultural commodities (tin, copper, zinc, cotton,
rubber, coffee, tea, sisal, jute). The classical theorists of imperialism recog-
nized to varying degrees the pernicious effects of colonialism on society,
but their writings also indicate that some regarded the opening up of ‘back-
ward’ countries as ultimately a progressive movement (Larrain, 1989,
pp. 70–2).
Once these economic relationships were in place, a third set of factors
came into play – the strategic or protective aspects of colonialism which
applied to areas of no immediate economic benefit but which were impor-
tant for protecting areas that were from rival colonial powers – areas such as
Aden, protecting the approaches to India, were consequently of vital strate-
gic significance. Colonies spawned other colonies, whose function was to
support the imperial system (Sweezy, 1942). This was important for those
who wanted to play down the economic impulse behind imperialism.
Robinson and Gallagher (1961), for example, argued that the partition of
Africa represented attempts to protect other acquisitions, such as Britain’s
need to guard its two routes to India. Such an explanation is partially accu-
rate but it cannot be extended so as to exclude the significance of ‘the great
tidal force of capitalism’ altogether (Kiernan, 1974, p. 76).
Critiques of economism
The more economistic theories of imperialism have been criticized on a
number of counts. First, Hobson’s and Lenin’s association of imperialism
with war has been countered by the argument that war has other causes than
competition between capitalist societies for colonies. The Austrian econo-
mist Joseph Schumpeter argued in Imperialism and Social Classesthat war
was an ‘objectless disposition on the part of a state to unlimited forcible
expansion’. Societies seek ‘expansion for the sake of expanding, war for the
sake of fighting, victory for the sake of winning, domination for the sake of
ruling’ (1951, pp. 5–6). Capitalism, according to Schumpeter, devotes its
competitive energies to purely economic activities. It also provides the
social context for opposition to war, arms expenditure, militarism and impe-
rialism; and support for peace, international arbitration and disarmament.
Although it may be true to say that imperialism cannot be blamed for war,
Schumpeter’s disassociation of war and capitalism is unconvincing.
Other historians of international relations and war deny that, with the pos-
sible exception of the Boer War, wars after 1870 were waged for imperialistic
motives. Imperialist rivalry was one of the causes of the First World War, but