6. Division of the World Among the Great Powers¶
Core Argument¶
The final partitioning of the globe is the defining feature of the period under review. The colonial policy of the capitalist powers had completed the seizure of unoccupied territories; from this point forward, only redivision was possible. The transition to monopoly capitalism and the dominance of finance capital is inextricably connected to an intensification of the struggle for colonies. Data from Morris reveals a tremendous boom in colonial conquests after the 1860s and 1870s, precisely when pre-monopoly capitalism reached its limit, while Hobson marks 1884-1900 as the epoch of intensified expansion. British bourgeois politicians, who had opposed colonial policy in the 1840-60 period, had by the end of the century shifted to openly advocating imperialism, as exemplified by Chamberlain and Rhodes. Rhodes argued that imperialism was a necessary safety valve to avoid civil war by providing markets and land for the surplus population. By 1914, the colonial possessions of the six biggest powers had increased by over fifty per cent since 1876.
The principal feature of the latest stage of capitalism is the domination of monopolist associations, which require colonies to guarantee control over sources of raw materials and to eliminate competition. Finance capital is interested in both discovered and potential sources of raw materials. The interests of exporting capital also drive colonial conquest, as monopoly methods are easier to employ in colonial markets. The politics and ideology of finance capital stimulate this striving for domination, with social causes such as class tensions also pushing for colonial expansion to avert domestic explosion.
The French historian Driault argued in 1900 that all free territory except China had already been occupied by European and North American powers, producing conflicts and shifts in spheres of influence that presaged more terrible upheavals. He insisted that nations which had not yet secured their share risked permanent exclusion from the tremendous exploitation of the globe that would define the twentieth century. This, he claimed, explained the fever of colonial expansion and imperialism afflicting Europe and America. Driault further observed that the relative strength of the empires founded in the nineteenth century was totally out of proportion to the European standing of the nations that founded them; the dominant powers within Europe were not equally preponderant globally. Since colonial might and control of unassessed wealth would react upon the relative strength of European powers, the colonial question—imperialism—had already modified Europe’s political conditions and would modify them more and more.