Chapter 18 Section 1 Imperialism and America Guided Reading Answers

March 05, 2022 Post a Comment

Larry Slawson received his Masters Degree at UNC Charlotte. He specializes in Russian and Ukrainian History.

Capitalism and the Global Expansion of Imperialism. — Commercialism and the Global Expansion of Imperialism.

Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, European and Western nations scrambled to the far corners of the globe in an effort to establish vast majestic networks through both the conquest and exploitation of indigenous populations. By 1914, virtually no country, continent, nor locality found itself unscathed from the imperial ambitions of the West.

What explains this dramatic expansion of imperialism and competition among the European powers? Did these ambitions effect from a political and nationalist want for glory and prestige? Or was the expansion of imperialism linked to more economical factors instead—in particular, a desire for wealth and greater trade? While answers to these questions may never be fully resolved past historians, this article seeks to address the potential economic elements that led to imperialism through a cantankerous-comparison of figures such equally Karl Marx, J.A. Hobson, and Vladimir Lenin.

Why did these individuals blame the growth of commercialism for the expansion of imperialism? More specifically, why did they feel as though imperialism was inextricably linked to the growth of capitalism during the nineteenth century? Finally, and maybe well-nigh importantly, how accept mod historians interpreted the connectedness between commercialism and imperialism during this flow of globe history?

Karl Marx

According to Karl Marx, the expansion of imperialism was directly linked to a growth in capitalism due to one fundamental reason: the fact that capitalism was a worldwide arrangement and unable to be constrained inside the boundaries of a single country or nation-state (Chandra, 39). This viewpoint of Marx is reiterated by historian Bipan Chandra who states: "past its very nature capitalism could not exist in only 1 country…it expanded to encompass the entire world, including the backward, noncapitalist countries…it was a world arrangement" (Chandra, 39). In accordance with this view, Marx argued that capitalism required an "international division of labour," in which the capitalists sought to convert "i part of the globe into a chiefly agricultural field of production, for supplying the other part which remains a chiefly industrial field" (Chandra, 43).

Thus, according to Marx, imperialism served equally a means to extract a big corporeality of "raw materials" and resources in a relatively cheap style—all at the expense (and exploitation) of the indigenous peoples of the globe that came into contact with the regal powers. Ironically, Marx viewed the expansion of capitalist societies into the earth every bit a necessary evil that would, ultimately, shift societies toward the path of communism. For Marx—who believed that society followed a series of progressing epochs—imperialism was but the side by side (and unavoidable) stride for capitalism's relentless expansion.

J.A. Hobson'south View

In 1902, J.A. Hobson—a social democrat—argued along similar lines of Marx by stating that the growth of imperialism was directly correlated with an expansion of capitalism also. Co-ordinate to Hobson, imperialism resulted from a backer want for additional (exterior) markets. As product capabilities in capitalist countries increased over fourth dimension (due to competition with the rapidly developing industries of Western nations), Hobson believed that overproduction eventually outgrew consumer needs on the home front.

Hobson argued that overproduction, in plow, leads to a system in which "more than goods can be produced than can be sold at a profit" (Hobson, 81). As a upshot, Hobson believed that the financiers of industry—concerned only with expanding their margin of profit—began to seek out foreign regions to invest their large savings that had been acquired through years of "surplus capital" (Hobson, 82). As he states, "Imperialism is the endeavour of the dandy controllers of industry to broaden the channel for the flow of their surplus wealth past seeking foreign markets and strange investments to take off the goods and capital they cannot sell or use at home" (Hobson, 85).

According to Hobson, an expanded market would afford financiers an opportunity to further expand production, while also lowering their costs; thus, allowing for an upsurge in profits since consumption would be expanded from populations in these overseas ventures (Hobson, 29). Moreover, by expanding into foreign regions protected past their governments (through regal colonization), industries would gain a competitive edge over rival European companies seeking to aggrandize their ain consumption rates (Hobson, 81).

Unlike Marx, however, Hobson viewed these imperial endeavors as both unnecessary and avoidable. Hobson viewed imperialism—particularly in U.k.—as a detriment to society as he felt that it led to a system in which governments were largely controlled past financiers and industrial giants. In pulling the strings of the regime in this manner, Hobson'south theory alludes to an inherent risk involved with imperialism; the risk of driving European powers into potential disharmonize (and war) over territorial claims and rights in the future.

Vladimir Lenin's Viewpoint

In a like manner to Hobson, Vladimir Lenin as well linked the desire for foreign markets and royal expansion to growth in capitalism every bit well. However, in contrast to Hobson, Lenin viewed the appearance of imperialism every bit "a special stage of capitalism"—an unavoidable transition that inevitably set the stage for global revolution (world wide web.marxists.org).

As capitalist corporations continued to abound over time, Lenin believed that banks, companies, and industries were quickly developing into monopolies involving "cartels, syndicates and trusts" that would expand and "manipulate thousands of millions" beyond the globe (www.marxists.org). According to Lenin, the growth of monopolies was, in effect, destroying backer "gratis competition…creating big-scale industry and forcing out pocket-size industry" (world wide web.marxists.org).

Modern Historiographical Interpretations by Leading Scholars

While information technology is clear that Marx, Hobson, and Lenin all understood imperialism to be a by-production of capitalism, historians remain divided over the effects that this intertwining of capitalism and imperialism had upon the world at big. This effect is particularly evident with the discussion of British rule in India from the eighteenth to the twentieth century, as scholars proceed to debate whether British rule should exist categorized as either a positive or negative period for Indian history.

For historians such as Morris D. Morris, British rule introduced both values and political social club to Republic of india and can be viewed as a positive step for Indian society. Every bit he states, the British ushered in an era of "stability, standardization, and efficiency…in administration" for the Indians (Morris, 611). Moreover, Morris believed that British dominion "probably stimulated economic activity in a style which had never been possible before" (Morris, 611). While Morris states that "the policies of the state [British Raj] were not sufficient to allow the development during the century of all the fundamental underpinnings of an industrial revolution," he argues that imperial conquest of India created a basis "for a renewed upwards surge after [Indian] Independence" (Morris, 616).

In comparison to this view, historian Bipan Chandra establish bully faults with Morris' line of reasoning. Through his analysis of Morris' estimation of British rule in Republic of india, Chandra rejects nearly all the positive assertions made by Morris and argues instead that "British rule was imperialistic" and that "its basic graphic symbol…was to subserve Indian interests to British interests" (Chandra, 69). Chandra argues that "rationalized revenue enhancement, the blueprint of commerce, law and order, and judicial system" implemented past the British all "led to an extremely regressive…agrestal construction" for India (Chandra, 47). Historian, Mike Davis' book, Tardily Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famines and the Making of the Third World offers a like interpretation of British imperialism through his discussion of famines that were amplified by improper British rule in Bharat. Davis points out that not only did the British use famine and drought as a means of gaining a stronger agree over the Indians (both economically and politically), just their supposed use of free-market place principles served only "as a mask for colonial genocide" in that millions of Indians perished from starvation and affliction from mismanagement under purple rule (Davis, 37).

Such exploitation was not limited to only the British, however. Davis points out that other empires used drought and dearth to expand their power and influence over indigenous peoples during this time as well. In a brief give-and-take of the Portuguese, Germans, and Americans, Davis argues that "global drought was the light-green light for an imperialist landrush" in which these empires would apply drought and disease to suppress largely powerless people into submission (Davis, 12-thirteen). Consequently, Davis views the millions of worldwide deaths inflicted past royal policies as "the verbal moral equivalent of bombs dropped from 18,000 feet" (Davis, 22).

Determination

In closing, the link between growth in capitalism and the expansion of imperialism remains a highly relevant issue for historians today. While it is truthful that political factors may have also played a role in the conclusion to colonize foreign lands, one cannot ignore the potential economic elements of imperialism also.

In the end, historians will likely never hold on the consequences and impact of imperialism on the world at large—particularly in regions such as Africa and India. Nevertheless, given the size and scope of imperialism across the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it is hard to view the policies of European expansion in a positive light when one considers the tremendous exploitation and death that followed in the wake of European conquest.

Works Cited

Manufactures:

Chandra, Bipan. "Karl Marx, His Theories of Asian Societies, and Colonial Rule," Review (Fernand Braudel Center), Vol. 5, No. ane (Summer, 1981): 31-47.

Chandra, Bipan. "Reinterpretation of Nineteenth-Century Economical History," Nationalism and Colonialism in British India. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan, 2010.

Davis, Mike. Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famines and the Making of the Tertiary World. London/New York: Verso, 2001.

Fieldhouse, D.Chiliad. "Imperialism: An Historiographical Revision," The Economical History Review, Vol. 14 No. 2 (1961): 187-209.

Hobson, J.A. Imperialism: A Study. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1965.

Lenin, V.I. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/.

Morris, Morris D. "Towards a Reinterpretation of Nineteenth-Century Indian Economic History," The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 23 No. 4 (December, 1963): 606-618.

Images/Photographs:

"Karl Marx." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed July 29, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Karl-Marx.

"Prof. Qualls' Class Blogs." Prof Qualls Class Blogs. Accessed July 29, 2017. http://blogs.dickinson.edu/quallsk/2016/02/28/a-critique-of-imperialism/.

"Vladimir Lenin." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed July 29, 2017. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vladimir-Lenin.

This content is accurate and true to the best of the writer'due south knowledge and is not meant to substitute for formal and individualized communication from a qualified professional.

Questions & Answers

Question: Was imperialism a effect of overproduction and underconsumption?

Answer: Equally the Industrial Revolution helped diverse industries to expand, information technology also allowed for an increased production of material goods. As more than and more materials entered the market, however, prices for these commodities began to fall likewise (due to overproduction); resulting in a shrinkage of profit margins, likewise as an overabundance of material goods, with a limited market place to sell them to. Imperialism allowed countries to expand their economies outwardly, every bit it opened up new markets to sell/trade these goods; particularly with the development of colonies.

Question: To what extent was imperialism in the late 19th Century motivated by economical aims?

Respond: Economical gains were certainly one of the chief motivators behind 19th Century imperialism. Vladimir Lenin would likely concur with this assertion equally well. As industrialization and the mass-production of goods increased throughout Europe, industries were forced to look elsewhere to sustain financial/economical growth for their expanding enterprises. Foreign lands offered countries the best means to expand their industrial output via merchandise and allowed for the development of foreign (cheap) labor.

Although many countries claimed that their majestic endeavors were noble in do (i.e. to civilize the then-called savages and barbarians of foreign lands), the contest to have the largest empire (in terms of land) was as well a major motivator for the European countries of this period.

adrianterer1990.blogspot.com

Source: https://owlcation.com/humanities/Capitalism-and-the-Expansion-of-Imperialism