What_Can_You_Learn_from_This_Extract_About_the_Interpretation_Approaches_and_Methods_of_This_Historian_

Over time, the argument of the origins of imperialism will vary between historians. Here I will explain what this historian’s interpretation is and why other historians may not have the same view point. His interpretation from the information available strongly suggests that there is a strong economic importance in why imperialism occurred. At the early stage of capitalism, the market structure was free competition in which there were small firms with many buyers and sellers but overtime, we see the ‘latter being transformed into monopoly’ with fewer and fewer firms dominating the market. Industries start becoming more and more large scale and profits go into smaller and smaller hands. This meant that firms had to go overseas to seek cheaper raw materials, land or more markets in order to stay ahead in competition. This is also known as the ‘monopoly stage of capitalism’ because it is not until monopolists are formed that firms begin to go overseas. One of Lenin’s beliefs in the basic features of imperialism is ‘the formation of international monopolists…which share the world amongst itself.’ With such smaller people dominated the people, they will feel the need to exploit workers more in order to make more profit. His interpretation also seems to explain the reasons for WWI. Another feature of his interpretation of imperialism is ‘…division of the world among international trusts has begun.’ As monopolists seek investments abroad, so will other countries that are industrialising. They will start to compete for land, and tensions between countries will between to grow leading to the First World War. Therefore to sum up Lenin’s interpretation of imperialism, it is mainly due to the development of monopolies and the economic benefits to them capitalists. The growth of international monopolists will also lead to further world conflict. What needs to be considered is Lenin’s approach to history and the methods he uses to go about it the context in his writing it, as this is what fundamentally moulds his interpretation. Lenin was living in the time where firms were beginning to become larger and larger and the amount of firms reducing. As well as this he was living in the late 19th century which was when the ‘New Imperialism’ was really developing. As a result of Lenin living in this period, he was able to see the effects of monopoly for himself and how imperialism only seems to benefit the few capitalists investing abroad contributing to the development of his interpretation. Lenin has been an active Marxist Revolutionary since his early days. As a result of this, his approached to Empire was Lenin-Marxism which in Marxism developed into Lenin’s ideology. Lenin being a Marxist believed that ‘human social development was driven by changes in the way wealth was created and by the distribution of power and control over the means of production.’ In other words, it was believed that however dominated the land needed to produce which have the political power to change the society to benefit them which develops over time. In the capitalism stage, land was dominated by capitalists which overtime ‘played a decisive role in economic life.’ Lenin believed that imperialism was inevitable and was a stage in historical development. The continuation of workers being exploited by capitalist leads to an uprising against the bourgeois (their workers) leading to a socialist revolution, ending capitalism. As his approach was basing his argument on Marxist- Leninist ideology, it is not a surprise to see that his methods on carrying out his interpretation are searching for material of imperialism and apply his theories to it. A historian that Lenin was found of was John Hobson. Like Lenin, Hobson believed that economics was the basis on the expansion of the empire. Lenin and Hobson also agreed on the fact that territories were being fought over by capitalists for new investment. Lenin used Hobson’s theory and developed it to create his interpretation. Lenin was also keen on Hilferding’s interpretation of the development of perfect competition to a monopoly. It fitted very well with his Marxist view and was also contributed to the formation of his interpretation. When discussing, Lenin’s approaches and methods, it is clear that these two interlink to fundamentally mould his interpretation. His background shows that from early age, was involved in various organisations campaigning against autocratic Tsarist rule, therefore it was clear to see that historians such as Karl Marx will appeal to him. His developed Marxism believing that the capitalists and workers revolution can occur together. As a result of his beliefs, he took into account the level the world was in Marxism ideology. The context in which he was writing in shows the development of monopolies and the expansion of the empire. Lenin would have then used to Marxist theories to explain why monopolies were occurring and why they felt the need to expand overseas. Lenin believed that imperialism is a stage of economic development and using Marxism, he established that this was the ‘highest stage of capitalism’ which effectively helped him to construct of interpretation on the reasons for the empire. Historians such as Lenin produce interpretations to explain why they believe an event is happening, also expressing their motives for their interpretation. Lenin’s interpretation explained to him how imperialism leads to the end of capitalism and a socialist society. He has constructed his view of history to justify the reasons for his beliefs of Marxism. This is only one interpretation of imperialism and will differ between historians. It is impossible for interpretations to always agree with each other as their approached and methods that shape their interpretation will always be different. Some historians believe that the economic benefits were too small for it to be the driver of imperialism therefore another interpretation to consider was events that were the strategic elements due to what was happening in the periphery. Historians who believe in peripheral and strategic expansion will approach this by emphasising on the local people and how the Empire was in danger. Their methods will consist of analysing records that show Britain officials in the periphery and evidence that the Empire was in danger by western and local rivals. Their interpretation will clearly be that imperialism was affected by events in the periphery and the growth in western powers in the periphery. India at this point was the most important part of the empire and had to be protected so areas that had sea routes to India were imperialised as well as surrounding areas to ensure western rivals could not harm Britain’s trade with India. The most efficient sea route was in Egypt with the Suez Canal which leads to Britain expanding in the North of Africa. Russia had a growing interest in Russia due to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire which was where Egypt used to belong. As a result, other parts of North and East Africa had to imperialise to strengthen their areas around the Suez Canal. Sudan controlled the upper reaches of the River Nile and the lakes around Uganda and Kenya were the source of the Nile which also had to be controlled by Britain. The strategic thinking expanded to other parts of Africa such as the southern parts of the continent. South Africa had a sea route to India around the Cape of Good Hope and was the second most important route after the Suez Canal. Due to the events in North Africa, the sea route in South Africa had seemed even more important. South Africa was becoming more popular with other Western powers such as Germany. In 1885, German South West Africa was declared a protectorate. As well as this, the Boers wealth was beginning to grow and were purchasing and importing weapons from Germany and France. As a result of this concept, the Bechuanaland was annexed in 1885 to stop the Boers from expanding west and teaming up with the Germans. The evidence here clearly shows the significance on what was happening in the periphery to the expansion of the Empire. It is the selection of evidence used that would bring an historian to this conclusion. The selection of evidence is a key element to why historians disagree. Many historians feel that Lenin just focused on the economic development of the empire so it could fit in with his Marxist views and ignored the peripheral situation in Africa. Therefore evidence such as investments were stronger with countries that weren’t part of the empire would have been ignored by historians such as Lenin. To conclude, it is clear that Lenin felt that economic had a high importance to the expansion of the Empire. His Marxist approach influenced his decisions that Imperialism was the highest point of capitalism and would therefore analysis previous historians with similar views and applies his Marxist views to develop his interpretation. Lenin’s interpretation is just one of the many interpretations of history as all historians has a different purpose to their interpretations based on their approaches and methods.