New imperialism was a nationalistic, not an economic phenomena." Critically examine.

Economic Arguments for New Imperialism

The traditional Marxist perspective argues that New Imperialism was fundamentally driven by economic factors. The Industrial Revolution created a need for:

• Raw Materials: Industries required vast quantities of raw materials like rubber, cotton, and minerals, which colonies could provide cheaply. For example, the Belgian Congo was exploited for its rubber resources.
• New Markets: European economies faced overproduction and sought new markets for their manufactured goods. Colonies offered captive markets.
• Investment Opportunities: Surplus capital was invested in colonial infrastructure (railways, ports) and resource extraction, yielding high profits. British investments in India’s railway network exemplify this.
• Cheap Labour: Colonies provided a source of cheap labour for plantations and mines.

Lenin, in his “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism” (1917), argued that imperialism was a necessary outcome of monopolistic capitalism. However, solely attributing New Imperialism to economic factors overlooks the significant role of non-economic motivations.

Nationalistic Motivations: The Core Argument

The claim that New Imperialism was primarily nationalistic gains considerable weight when examining the socio-political context of the late 19th century:

• National Prestige & ‘Great Power’ Status: Possessing colonies became a symbol of national greatness and prestige. Germany, a newly unified nation, aggressively pursued colonies to assert its status as a ‘Great Power’ and rival Britain and France. France, seeking to restore its prestige after the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71), embarked on an ambitious colonial expansion in Africa and Indochina.
• Social Darwinism & Racial Superiority: The prevailing ideologies of Social Darwinism and racial superiority fueled the belief in the ‘white man’s burden’ – the supposed duty of European nations to civilize ‘inferior’ races. This provided a moral justification for colonial domination. Rudyard Kipling’s poem “The White Man’s Burden” (1899) encapsulates this sentiment.
• Strategic Competition: European powers engaged in intense strategic competition for control of key territories and trade routes. The ‘Scramble for Africa’ was largely driven by this competition, with nations vying to prevent rivals from gaining an advantage. The Berlin Conference (1884-85) attempted to regulate this competition, but ultimately intensified it.
• Domestic Political Concerns: Colonial expansion served as a distraction from domestic social and political problems. It provided an outlet for nationalist fervor and a sense of unity. In Britain, colonial adventures were often used to divert attention from issues like Irish Home Rule.
• Public Opinion & Jingoism: A rising tide of jingoism (extreme patriotism) and popular support for colonial expansion influenced government policy. The press played a significant role in promoting imperialist sentiment.

Comparing Economic and Nationalistic Drivers

While economic benefits were undoubtedly a factor, they often served to justify and facilitate nationalistic ambitions. The economic exploitation of colonies was frequently secondary to the desire for strategic control and national prestige.

Economic Drivers	Nationalistic Drivers
Demand for raw materials (e.g., rubber from Congo)	Assertion of national prestige (Germany’s colonial ambitions)
Need for new markets (British India)	Strategic competition (Scramble for Africa)
Investment opportunities (railways in India)	Domestic political distraction (British colonial policy & Irish Home Rule)
Cheap labour supply	Ideological justification (Social Darwinism & ‘White Man’s Burden’)

Nuances and Counterarguments

It’s crucial to acknowledge that economic and nationalistic motivations were often intertwined. For instance, the control of Egypt by Britain was driven by both strategic considerations (control of the Suez Canal) and economic interests (cotton production). Furthermore, the economic benefits derived from colonies often reinforced nationalistic sentiments, creating a self-perpetuating cycle. However, instances like the Belgian Congo, where economic exploitation was brutally prioritized over any pretense of ‘civilizing mission’, demonstrate the limitations of solely attributing imperialism to nationalism.