Introduction

Development, economic and social literature has been flooded by many arguments and
writings with regards to imperialism over the past six decades. Imperialism is noted and
argued to have been conceptually born in both academic and political debates in the late 19 th
century but has been practiced for many centuries now. Modern debates have however been
grouped into two major schools of thought which are the radical perspectives and the liberal
perspective/approaches. Both of these approaches try to explain the reasons for imperialism,
its drivers and purpose and end results for all parties involved. Koebner and Schmidt (2010)
reveal that imperialism was originally introduced into English language in its present sense in
the late 1870s because of the imperial policies of Disraeli in Britain when he served as
prime minister of Britain. Many scholars have thus aligned themselves within the various
schools of thought as they sort to discuss and apply this concept. This essay is therefore
aimed at comparing and contrasting the two schools of thought/approaches, radical approach
and liberal approach. This essay thus tries to see the similarities and differences in how they
approach and explain the concept of imperialism and special reference to Zambia will be
made, stating which of the two offers a plausible explanation to what is prevailing in Zambia
today.

Defining and conceptualising imperialism the liberal radical differences

The radical approach generally views the concept of imperialism In such phrases as the
highest stage of capitalism, parasitic or decaying capitalism moribund capitalism, or
capitalism in transition to socialism. All these terms spring from Lenins views and
thoughts on imperialism. Here, imperialism as the highest form of capitalism implies that it is
not to grow or evolve any further and like any other phase in historical materialism must
disintegrate into a different social formation powered by the class conflicts. As the highest
form of capitalism, it also means that the reign of the bourgeoisie was fast closing and the stir
of an anti-capitalist revolution was at hand as the oppressiveness, exploitation and
suppression of capitalism and capitalist has developed to its highest possible extent, the world
political economies.

Imperialism as parasitic or decaying capitalism implies that imperialism is a system of

exploitation that sees the capitalist system feeding on other economies to survive. It is argued
that the excess population and labour force needed a breath-out, the material resources
needed for industrial production needed external supplies, and products produced from the
capitalist system needed markets hence a parasitic dependence and dominance of other nation
through direct and indirect political, economic and social control. Imperialism is argued to be
decaying capitalism here because it has ran out of productive resources, has excess labour
population which it cant sustain from within, and markets for its products have been
saturated within their economies.

Imperialism as moribund capitalism means that capitalism is at its pick of growth and is
suffering from decay and entropy and is in transition to socialism, the pathway to the stateless
communism. Its denotes the widespread of capitalism to a global scale, the highest possible
scale to spark world-wide revolutions in large scale where the capitalists are to be overthrown
beginning with the capitalism super powers.

In a liberal perspective however, imperialism is seen as a result of many factors which can be
political, social, economic, ideological and religious. While the radical perspective only see
the economic factor at play in imperialism, the liberals looks at it from a broader perspective
hence there is no one single definition or view of imperialism as has been seen with the
radicals. Generally however, liberals can be grouped into two broad schools of thought which
are the liberal conservative view of imperialism as well as the liberal-radical view of
imperialism. In the conservative liberal view of imperialism, Ferraro (2011) Imperialism is
necessary to preserve the existing social order in the more developed countries. It is
necessary to secure trade, markets, to maintain employment and capital exports, and to
channel the energies and social conflicts of the metropolitan populations into foreign
countries. Here, imperialism is seen also in economic terms and justifies what lenin
condemned, exploitation by the metropolitan of the periphery. Imperialism is thus seen by
conservative liberals as means to a necessary evil and the argument is that the periphery has a
lot more to benefit from this exploitative relationship between the two some proponents of
this theory include Disraeli, Rhodes, Kipling all who were directly involved in imperialism
however many independent scholar shun this very narrow perception of imperialism and offer
other plausible reasons for imperialism.

Other liberal thinker such as David Ricardo and Adam Smith generally view imperialism as a
source of economic benefit through the concepts of international trade and comparative
advantage. The economic argument is that imperialism establishes economic markets;
transfers technologies facilitates fair trade through comparative advantage and enhances the
growth of wealth of nations. Ferado (2011) argues it this way, Imperialism is a policy
choice, not an inevitable consequence of capitalism. Increasing concentration of wealth
within the richer countries leads to underconsumption for the mass of people. Overseas
expansion is a way to reduce costs (and thereby increase or maintain profit levels) and to
secure new consumption. Overseas expansion is not inevitable, however. A state can solve the
problem of underconsumption by increasing the income levels of the majority of the
population either through legislation concerning wage levels (minimum wage laws,
legalization of unions, child labor laws) or through income transfers (unemployment
compensation, welfare).

Ferado (2011) further reveals that Imperialism can also be seen as a manifestation of the
balance of power and is the process by which nations try to achieve a favourable change in
the status quo. The purpose of imperialism is to decrease the strategic and political
vulnerability of a nation. It has also been an ideological too between capitalists and socialists.

The idea of spreading the word of God through imperialism has also predominated many
other scholars who inspired and sent over missionaries on the mission of saving and
converting the pagans, modernisation efforts, education and basically humanitarian ground.

The summary of the liberal definitions of imperialism therefore is Glory God and
Gold. From both perspectives however, one fact still remains clear that imperialism
involves the extension of power and into a foreign territory by a country politically,
economically socially or otherwise.

Theoretical comparisons and contrasts of imperialism-liberals vs radial perspectives

Generally, while the liberals have a broader range of definitions of the concepts, take a
broader view of factors related to it and offer more alternative solutions to the problems
brought about by imperialism the radicals have a united perception in defining the concept,
see imperialism only as an economic outgrowth of capitalism and also see communism
springing from a political revolution as the only and unavoidable end to capitalism.

Specifically however, liberals have many conflicting views of what imperialism is

encompasses. While some liberal scholars as noted above see it as an economic matter
involving social economic exploitation for the purpose of economic survival and expansion,
others see it as a nature process of grown which is not necessarily exploitative but of mutual
benefit since there is transfer in process of capital, technology, wealth, and establishes trade
based on comparative advantage. The argument while the imperialist nation needs more
market for its products(which the subject nation cannot produce hence wants) the subject
nation or the periphery also needs market for the role materials hence interdependent which
some neo-radicals have come to refer to and the dependency theory of underdevelopment
where though both benefit the other benefits less hence still calls its exploitation.

There is the social explanation of the concept however given through proponents of
globalisation theories as well as other scholars where imperialism results into social
integration of economic and social life is that knowledge, education and positive values and
cultural practices and the breakdown of barbaric customs, inhuman treatments such as
slavery. The social dimension of imperialism in the liberal sense argues that there has been
greater social mobility even in cultures where there has been rigid caste social structure. The
radicals however view imperialism as a disruption of the normal social life through
articulation of modes of production and creation of dual modes of production which results in
centre-peripheral relations between the agricultural and rural sector with the modern
industrial sector. Furthermore, a creation of an elite group in the colonised or neo-colonised
economy to aid in mineral extraction, governance and extensive resource exploitation who
act as middle men or agents and benefit from the system such that they cannot overthrow the
system themselves.

The liberal perspective argues that political reasons exist for imperialism such as expansion
of political power and influence, amassing of greater wealth to sustain a heavily patrimonial
governance system and basically need to emerge politically super powers, creation of war
bases for both protection and aggression and creation of military allies. Political ideological
issues are also forwarded as factors for imperialism since they are also efforts to expand
ideological influences such as the cold war era between the soviet union and the united states
of Americas imperialism influences in the north and south of Korea.

Imperialism, the Zambian case

In the case of Zambia imperialism can be traced back to pre-colonisation times in the
technical sense however we may have to also break boundary rules to establish that fact.
Imperialistic efforts therefore can be traced back to the entry of missionaries such as David
Livingstone in a quest to establish mission fields, stop slave trade, and provide humanitarian
assistance. The first goal therefore, for God and it is clear even with the recommendations
made by the missionaries and the missionary societies. This to some extent justifies the
liberal argument of imperialism for God and humanitarian purposes. However, in the radical
perspective as propounded by Marx, religion is an opium of the people that blind folds the
victims from seeing the exploitation around them. The radical perspective thus only see
religion as a means to an end, the end being the exploitation of mineral wealth and resources.

Though Zambia was first entered my missionaries and recommendations done to the British
government on its colonisation, the country was colonised by a south African based British
company, the British South African company under Cecil Rhodes hence the name Rhodesia
that it earlier acquired. The country was thus colonised on economic interest. This is not
disputed by even liberal thought as they see this as just one of the factors for imperialism but
the radical see this as the main factor of even all the previous efforts including the
establishment of mission fields, churches and schools.

Zambia as argued by Rodney in the book how Europe underdeveloped Africa was
incorporated into the world capitalist system as a mineral extraction colony. He argued that
there were three main areas of incorporation and these include: mineral extraction colonies,
labour reserve colonies and settler colonies. These all as argued by the radicals were meant to
resolve capitalisms mariband level growth. They argued that, religion, humanitarian
concerns, education and development are mere masks of the economic exploitations aimed at.

Even the post-colonial imperialism or neo-colonialism also called the economic imperialism
is much the same as the old only that it is more efficient as it relegated the administrative
costs of running the state to the elite who help the capitalist nations continue in their
exploitative conquests. Zambias economy is currently heavily dependent on the west and its
economic structures are such that the extracted mineral wealth benefit the country and its
citizens less than it does the foreign imperialists.

Conclusion

While imperialism can be seen from different angles and as caused by differtent factors from
different perspectives, it is impontant to realise that definition wise it is an extension of
political, social and economic power by one country onto another. Furthermore, the major
diference in the radical and liberal perspective is that of the purpose of the imperialism.
While the liberals argue a varied host of factors and either justify or condemn it the radicals
reject it as an economic end and exploitative process. Given the two perspectives therefore,
the radical perspective makes more sence in explaining Zambias current and pas experience
with imperialism.
Bibliography

Koebner R., and Schmidt H., (2010) Imperialism: The Story and Significance of a
Political Word, 1840-1960

Proudman M, F(2008) Words for Scholars: The Semantics of 'Imperialism. Journal

of the Historical Society, September 2008, Vol. 8 Issue 3, p395-433

Fieldhouse D. K.,(1992) Imperialism: An Historiographical Revision, South African

Journal Of Economic History, March 1992, Vol. 7 Issue 1, pp 45-72

Peatling G.K.,(2004) Globalism, Hegemonism and British Power: J. A. Hobson and

Alfred Zimmern Reconsidered, History, July 2004, Vol. 89 Issue 295, pp 381-398

Cain P. J.,(2007) "Capitalism, Aristocracy and Empire: Some 'Classical' Theories

of Imperialism Revisited", Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, March
2007, Vol. 35 Issue 1, pp 25-47

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/theories.html