DIVISION OF IMPERIALISM

2010

It is believed that the word “imperialism” is derived from “imperium” which is a Roman concept of “power and control” in brief. It became a widespread word starting in the late 19th century with European Monarchs and their colonial actions until their collapses at the end of the World War I. What defines a state as imperial is her ability and capability to dominate other territories and lands. The term is used not only for the colonial or territorial policies but also military and economic influence and not necessarily a legal one. In this paper, you will find two similar but also different explanations of imperialism by two prominent thinkers of early 19th century: J. A. Hobson and V. I. Lenin. It is usually said that Lenin was influenced by Hobson but the motives they underline for imperialism are significantly different.

In his article, “The Economic Taproot of Imperialism”, J. A. Hobson discusses the driving force of imperialism which is, in brief, the seek for new markets as a result of unequal distribution of wealth and underconsumption. To explain the link between capitalism and imperialism, he shows the historical process of United Kingdom and other colonialists in 19th century. Until 1870, UK had great impact over a large part of the world, which are generally the Commonwealth countries, and she found it unnecessary to be “more imperial” before the entrance of United States, Belgium and Germany to the competition of external trade. These three countries made economic relations even with Commonwealth countries and as a result of decreasing number of trade numbers, there appeared a need for new markets for UK.

But the question is why these economically (and also militarily) powerful nations needed to trade abroad and sell their goods to foreign people instead of the using them in the domestic market? The answer lies in the accumulation of wealth among a few people and poverty among the rest as a result of the fundamentals of capitalism. As the surplus value made bourgeoisie wealthier, the concept of underconsumption occurred due to the fact that goods were not as purchasable as before for the masses. He writes: “The power of production far outstripped the actual rate of consumption, and, contrary to the older economic theory, was unable to force a corresponding increase of consumption by lowering prices”. So the motivation to sell their goods abroad makes capitalist countries act imperially to further their cycle of production.

Comparatively low wages of workers, accumulation of surplus capital and underconsumption as a result seem to be reasons for imperial powers but was not there any options other than influencing other territories with diplomacy or annexation? According to Hobson, in the imperialist view, the necessity of capturing foreign markets is a fatal one as if they do not, some other will do to export its goods. “Imperialism is thus seen to be, not a choice, but a necessity” he claims. It is a very simple definition: If your domestic market is not wealthy enough to purchase your goods, you are obliged to sell them abroad by annexing territories that are undeveloped and in need of your goods.

V. I. Lenin, who is said to be influenced by Hobson, explains the motives of imperialism with moving finance capital to other countries that are not among the richest. According to him, imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism and world’s leading countries are dominating others with the help of trusts and loans. Thanks to the support of the governments, capitalists invest abroad to escape the declining rates of profit in national territories. To conceptualize his arguments, he divides the history of capitalism into two: First one is exporting goods which characterizes the old type of capitalism and the second one is exporting capital which signifies the modern capitalism or imperialism in other words.

He argues that the roots for the movement of finance capital lies in the monopolies of the capitalist system. Free competition is the first rule of capitalism where individuals can compete with one another. But the result of free competition is an environment that makes rich people richer and poor people poorer due to mostly the surplus value of workers. Therefore, according to Lenin, free competition transforms into a monopoly of few which are looking for new markets instead of a drained domestic market. But instead of direct military or political control to sell goods or to create new markets, Lenin claims that new capitalism brings the movement of finance capital. Thus one monopoly gives loans to a poor country and make it granted that loaned money will be used for railways, coaling stations etc to be constructed by the monopoly. Lenin underlines that this is imperialism, the last and highest stage of capitalism where banking system and industrial capital merge together for more and more domination.

Both thinkers argue that the accumulation of wealth and power is the reason for imperialism but they differ in the way it is done. Hobson claims that great powers dominate the others to export their goods in new and untouched markets. The motive of selling goods, which are not purchased due to the low level of wealth, shapes a suitable ground for imperialism. On the other hand, Lenin’s arguments on imperialism is based on the flow of the finance capital. According to him, when the monopolies cannot find any space to invest in domestic realm, they look for other territories to loan money in exchange for granting the money to be spent in their favor such as a construction work of a railway. In addition to Hobson’s colonial assumption, Lenin underlines that these monopolies of great powers compete and divide the world into territories in the sake of their own imperial aims. “Monopoly has grown out of colonial policy. To the numerous “old” motives of colonial policy, finance capital has added the struggle for the sources of raw materials, for the export of capital, for spheres of influence” he summarizes.

There are two critical points, one for each, that I can present. First one is for Hobson, who thinks that the growing surplus value and accumulation of wealth is the reason for colonial intentions. Unlike countries like United Kingdom, United States or Germany, countries that are not industrially developed such as Italy can also have colonial purposes. It is clear that Italy did not have the same amount of surplus value like US or UK had and still they did colonization with other motives. My second point will not be like a critic but more an observation of process which Lenin discussed. As Lenin explains the mentioned process is a race between monopolies to financially dominate poor countries but in the recent decades his ideas are replaced by the relation between developed and underdeveloped countries or core and periphery which is a argument that conflict between developed countries are disappearing.

To sum up, both Hobson and Lenin draw a conception of imperialism with similar bases but different tools. They both claim that accumulation of power and wealth is the base. However, Hobson insists that imperialism is the way for great powers to sell their products which are not purchased in national territories. On the other hand, Lenin also sees imperialism as the next chapter of capitalism but in a different perspective. According to him, imperialism comes into life with the flow of finance capital into other countries that are not in monopoly class. Lenin emphasizes that merge of banking and industrial sectors helps monopolistic powers to invest in places other than impoverished national ones.

REVIEW OF BENEDICT ANDERSON’S “UNDER THREE FLAGS”

2010

Introduction

Benedict Anderson’s “Under Three Flags” provides an extensive historical research on world politics in the aspects of anti-colonialism and international anarchism. Although there is a flag of Philippines’ on the cover page of the book and the content of it can be thought as it is about anti-colonialism in Philippines mainly, in my opinion it is clear that the writer’s intention is to show the links between several anti-colonist and patriotic leaders or thinkers from all around the world. Anderson’s choice of showing links between these people actually creates a complex perspective which sometimes makes reader impatient about the main theme for anarchism and anti-colonial arguments. But in my opinion, his main argument is not to give a lecture about the independence history of the Philippines but to show the complicated intercontinental networks that identify the age of early globalization (Anderson 2005, p. 233).

Throughout this paper, you will first find a brief summary of the mentioned book as it is predictably significant to understand the main points of the writer’s arguments after being aware of what is going on between the lines. After the summary I will set a critical discussion about the related intercontinental links between several important political thinkers from all around the globe and their simultaneous actions for revolution. “Under Three Flags” tells the story of complex intellectual interactions of young Filipinos with the European experimentalists of Paris, militant anarchists of Spain, France, Italy and the Americas, armed protestants of Cuba and anti-imperialist volunteers of China and Japan. Anderson presents a book to be carefully read as it gives reader a much broader and complex written history of the 19th century Philippines than a conventional historical knowledge of ours.

Summary of the Book and the Related Period

The visible theme of the “Under Three Flags” is the study of Filipino national hero Jose Rizal in the sense of his popular novel named “El Filibusterismo” and his international connections. More than that, there is a surrounding theme of linkages between Filipino, Cuban and European anarchists and anti-colonialists and the remarkable intertwining of art, literature and politics which I will be exploring in the upcoming paragraphs. But before that, it would be better to mention about the main Filipino characters in the book that are Jose Rizal, Isabelo de los Reyes and Mariano Ponce. Following, there will be a brief summary of Rizal’s life and his influence on the anti-colonial atmosphere of Philippines. Lastly in this section you can find a summary of the ongoing events through the chapters of the book.

Isabelo de los Reyes, lived between 1864 and 1938, a polemical journalist and pioneering folklorist of Filipino identity, shows a different character compared to Rizal with 27 children whereas Rizal had none. Of course the number of children one has does not show anything scientific, but the way he looks at life reflects his energetic and anarchist-inflected character where he shows a greater desire for action than Jose Rizal who displays a comparatively modest nature. Before going to Europe in 1897 and experiencing the chains and tortures in Montjuich prison in Barcelona due to his involvement in anti-colonial action against Spain, Reyes was an active journalist in his mainland and he was receiving letters, magazines and texts from European academics and folklorists where he was developing his nationalistic perception (Anderson 2005, p. 27). Another substantial points in his life are his foundation of “El Ilocano” in 1889, the first vernacular newspaper in Philippines and his broad researches on Philippines history and culture.

Mariano Ponce, lived between 1863 and 1918, is a coordinating organizer of the anti-colonial movement in Philippines. He was among the founders and contributors of La Solidaridad, an organization to advocate the Filipino cause in the Spain and a newspaper to influence the Filipinos at the same time. He was one of the prominent emissaries during and after the Philippines revolution (Anderson 2005, p. 207) as he was appointed as a diplomatic representative of the revolutionary government to Japan to earn their support. Ponce had a great calmness and modesty which are significant abilities to stand for his nation against other countries.

Jose Rizal, lived between 1861 and 1896, is one of the greatest novelists of the Philippines literature and also a central figure for the Filipino revolution of his country against the colonial power of Spain. In my opinion, his perception on the politics cannot be described fairly without giving credit to his two popular books, “Noli me Tangere” and “El Filibusterismo”. Still, before discussing his books, it is worth having a look at his life, particularly the time he lived in Europe.

European way of life and European novelists, thinkers and activists play a huge role in Rizal’s perspective. He left his country for Europe in 1882 and stayed in Spain, France, Germany, England and Belgium for nearly ten years. He made European friends among political thinkers and journalists and thus witnessed the emerging new ideas of the continent which led him to write his controversial novels to become a famous Filipino (Anderson 2005, p. 28). In his stay in Europe, there were three angles to influence his way of thinking which were firstly the political system of Europe dominated by German Chancellor Bismarck, secondly the ongoing assassinations and anarchism in the continent and thirdly the colonial power of the time, Spain. What is important here is the change of Rizal into a patriot, a “filibustero”, after reading Antonio de Morga and his historical research on Spain and its colonial past. Rizal’s second book, El filibusterismo, clearly shows the rise in his determination to help his country earn his independence (Anderson 2005, p. 96).

To start with, it should be remembered that Rizal’s two novels are both serious critiques of colonialism although there is a more than tiny difference between the two. While almost all events in “Noli me Tangere” occur within Philippines, “El filibusterismo” takes place in many countries like Cuba, Germany, Egypt, Russia, France, China and Japan. As Anderson describes the latter one as “probably the first incendiary anti-colonial novel written by a colonial subject outside Europe” (Anderson 2005, p. 6), he also adds that “if Noli me Tangere was targeted at multiple audiences in Europe and the Philippines, El filibusterismo was meant only for the latter” (Anderson 2005, p. 103). This coincides with the condition that Rizal was feeling more patriotic for Philippines while writing El filibusterismo due to his accumulated knowledge about anti-colonialism and nationalism in his long stay in Europe. Though, his grievance was not only for the colonist Spain but also for the corrupted clergy in his homeland.

Along with Reyes, Ponce and Rizal; Anderson touches many thinkers, activists, journalists in “Under Three Flags” and shows a good example of the early globalization effect of this particular time in the anti-colonization and anarchism aspects. After a brief prologue, the second chapter is mainly about a contrast of Isabelo Reyes to Jose Rizal and Rizal’s library which is to be traced for El filibusterismo. In the third chapter Anderson puts a framework of the spaces Rizal had been in Europe like the powerful Germany, the atmosphere of anarchism and the colonial Spain. He again shows evidences of influence like his collaboration with journalist Marcelo de Pilar and “La Solidaridad” that is highly effective in Rizal’s writings.

In the fourth chapter, Anderson takes readers to the last four years of Rizal in his homeland and his execution, which is basically after the publication of El filibusterismo in 1891. His transitions from Hong Kong to Borneo, from Manila to Dapitan, from Manila again to Barcelona and lastly to Manila where he is imprisoned and executed by the colonial Spanish officers which actually, as a whole, displays a depiction of struggle for the purpose of Filipino independence. One way or another Rizal served his country even after his death when his execution made a national martyr in Philippines which made it convenient for revolutionary movement to be broader and more effective (Anderson 2005, p. 164).

In the last chapter, main discussion is about several events sometime after Rizal’s death, such as the radicalization of Europe, assassination of Spanish Prime Minister Canovas and the end of colonial power of Spain, anti-colonial efforts in Philippines and rise of revolutionary ideas in Japan and China. Other than those, Anderson highlights particularly three people in this part which are firstly Mariano Ponce as he is the leading actor of revolutionary Filipinos in creating a network of public opinion internationally. Second one is Isabelo del Reyes whose prison experience and return back to Spain as a politician takes some part in the last chapter. The last one is Rizal's Japanese friend Suehiro Tettyo, who has a novel about Rizal's experiences.

Critical Discussion

The main argument of Benedict Anderson, in my opinion, is to show readers that ideas and events happening around the same time can have an impact on other people and countries due to the international travel and communication opportunities. Anderson himself accepts his work as a political astronomy where he describes it as “an attempt to map the gravitational force of anarchism between militant nationalisms on opposite sides of the planet.” (Anderson 2005, p. 2) While he is studying the second novel of Rizal, “El filibusterismo”, he expects the patience of the readers as understanding the infrastructure of the novel brings a complicated interconnection between Spain, France, Italy, Russia, the Caribbean, the United States and the Philippines (Anderson 2005, p. 56).

The complicated interconnection of different thinkers, journalists and activists from different nationalities around the world already makes a dazzling story. This brings us to accumulation and transition of anarchist and nationalistic approach between different colonized and oppressed countries which is the main subject for the book. But also there is a thing that I doubt about as if it is a coincidence of the universe or a result of the interconnections in the long period: “El filibusterismo was printed in 1891 in Ghent, only forty miles from Ostend where, in 1888, James Ensor had finished his anarchist-revolutionary painting ‘Christ’s Entry into Brussels’.” (Anderson 2005, p. 45) In a time when anarchism was getting popular newly, it may be both a nice coincidence and a solid proof for the transition of knowledge among people.

One way or another, new technologies such as the invention of the telegram, developing postal systems and railway networks made this “early globalization” possible. The simultaneous revolutionary actions in Philippines and Cuba proves this as Cuba, the last nationalist movement in the New World, and the Philippines, the first in Asia, had connections in individual level and to some extent had coordinated interactions and so they experienced the taste of independence in a very similar time (Anderson 2005, p. 2). They, the Filipinos, also found allies in European countries to exchange the ideas and gain public support. This, in some way, was a way to learn how to revolt and stand against colonial powers. What is not surprising is Rizal’s or Reyes’ choice of using a foreign language in their books or journals other than their native one to create a public opinion and recognition outside their country.

In “Under Three Flags”, it is not discussed in details very much but Anderson makes a comparison between Philippines’ national hero Jose Rizal and Cuba’s national hero Jose Marti. He states the comparison as “illuminating” (Anderson 2005, p. 131) and sets their similarities and differences in a couple of paragraphs. What is most visible is the common language they use, Spanish. Perhaps it is a success for Rizal to write in Spanish, not in his native language as he thus had the chance to create a common sphere for both countries that were colonized by Spain.

Actually, the final chapter of the book can be the most extensive among others in the aspect of showing intercontinental links before and after the uprisings. Anderson touches a lot of thinker, journalist or politician to emphasize the role of connections among individuals and its consequences. Fernando Tarrida, Georges Clemenceau, Louise Michel, Ramon Betances, Emile Zola, Michelle Angiolillo and Suehiro Tettyo are some of the names that are mentioned while highlighting presence of knowledge transition globally.

Conclusion

“Under Three Flags” can be seen as a research book about the independence history of 19th century Philippines or as a book of anarchism and its brief history in the aspect of Filipinos. These are not wrong assumptions but they are lacking in depth. Anderson gives readers a more than just the history of Philippines and their national heroes. Reading about the the national Filipino hero, Jose Rizal, is very exciting but it is not exciting because of the number of days he stayed in prison or his escape from one city to another. It is exciting because the writer shows the readers that Jose Rizal would not be “Jose Rizal” unless he lived in the challenging atmosphere of Europe in the right time and unless he met with right persons that made him think and write about the anti-colonial, anti-imperialist and nationalistic thoughts.

It is the power of intercontinental links between individuals of journalists, activists, thinkers, leaders etc. With the help of developing technologies of transportation and communication, many thinkers of that time experienced the early globalization of the world with the purpose of independence and anti-colonialism. In my opinion, the mentioned world of multiple and overlapping events and transitions creates a complex philosophy that makes it difficult for the reader to categorize the figures as a nationalist or a anarchist or a anti-colonist. What is important in this book is the impressing linkages and coincidences between thinkers from different parts of the world that help revolutionary movements come to life.

Bibliography

Anderson, Benedict. Under Three Flags: Anarchism and the Anti-Colonial Imagination. 2005. Pasig City: Anvil, 2006.