home > Experience > The beginning of global strategies, the struggle for dividing the world. Chapter XVIII

The beginning of global strategies, the struggle for dividing the world. Chapter XVIII

The following brief summary of this development at the end of the 19th century:

“The characteristic feature of this period,” he concludes, “is, therefore, the division of Africa and Polynesia.” Since in Asia and America there is unoccupied land, i.e. not belonging to any state, no, then Supan’s conclusion has to be expanded and said that a characteristic feature of the period under consideration is the final division of the land, final not in the sense that it was not possible redistribution, - on the contrary, redistributions are possible and inevitable, - but in the sense that the colonial policy of capitalist countries finished seizure of unoccupied lands on our planet. For the first time, the world has already been divided, so what lies ahead only redistributions, i.e. transition from one “owner” to another, and not from ownerlessness to “owner”.

We are, therefore, experiencing a unique era of global colonial policy, which is closely connected with the “newest stage in the development of capitalism,” with finance capital. It is therefore necessary to dwell in more detail, first of all, on the actual data, in order to clarify as accurately as possible both the difference between this era and previous ones, and the state of affairs at the present time. First of all, two factual questions arise here: is there an intensification of colonial policy, an intensification of the struggle for colonies precisely in the era of financial capital, and how exactly the world is divided in this regard at the present time.

The American writer Morris, in his book on the history of colonization, makes an attempt to summarize data on the size of the colonial possessions of England, France and Germany for different periods of the 19th century. Here, in abbreviation, are the results he obtained:

For England, the period of enormous intensification of colonial conquests occurred in the years 1860-1880 and very significant in the last twenty years of the 19th century. For France and Germany - precisely for this twentieth anniversary. We saw above that the period of maximum development of pre-monopoly capitalism, capitalism with the predominance of free competition, occurred in the 1860s and 1870s. We see now that exactly after this period a huge “rise” of colonial conquests begins, and the struggle for the territorial division of the world intensifies to an extreme degree. There is no doubt, therefore, that the transition of capitalism to the stage of monopoly capitalism, to finance capital Connected with intensification of the struggle for the division of the world.

Hobson, in his essay on imperialism, singles out the era of 1884-1900 as an era of increased “expansion” (expansion of territory) of the main European states. According to his calculations, England acquired 3.7 million square meters during this time. miles with a population of 57 million; France – 3.6 million sq. miles with a population of 36 1/2 million; Germany - 1.0 million sq. miles from 14.7 million; Belgium - 900 thousand square meters miles from 30 million; Portugal - 800 thousand square meters miles from 9 million. The pursuit of colonies at the end of the 19th century, especially since 1880, on the part of all capitalist states is a well-known fact in the history of diplomacy and foreign policy.

In the era of greatest prosperity of free competition in England, in the years 1840-1860, its leading bourgeois politicians were against colonial policy, considered the liberation of the colonies and their complete separation from England an inevitable and useful matter. M. Behr points out in his article on “the newest English imperialism”, which appeared in 1898, how in 1852 such an English statesman inclined, generally speaking, to imperialism as Disraeli, said: “Colonies are millstones on our neck." And at the end of the 19th century, the heroes of the day in England were Cecil Rhodes and Joseph Chamberlain, who openly preached imperialism and applied imperialist policies with the greatest cynicism!

It is not without interest that the connection between the purely economic and socio-political roots of modern imperialism was already clear to these leading politicians of the English bourgeoisie. Chamberlain preached imperialism as a “true, wise and economical policy,” pointing especially to the competition that England now faces in the world market from Germany, America, and Belgium. Salvation lies in monopoly - said the capitalists, founding cartels, syndicates, trusts. Salvation lies in monopoly - echoed the political leaders of the bourgeoisie, rushing to seize the still undivided parts of the world. And Cecil Rhodes, as his intimate friend, the journalist Stead, told him about his imperialist ideas in 1895: “I was in the East End of London (working-class quarter) yesterday and attended a meeting of the unemployed. When I listened to the wild speeches there, which were a continuous cry: bread, bread! millions of inhabitants of the United Kingdom from the murderous civil war, we, colonial politicians, must take possession of new lands to house the surplus population, to acquire new areas for marketing the goods produced in factories and mines. Empire, I have always said this, there is a matter of the stomach. If you don't want civil war, you must become imperialists."

So said Cecil Rhodes in 1895, millionaire, financial king, main culprit of the Anglo-Boer War; but his defense of imperialism is only crude and cynical, and in essence does not differ from the “theory” of Messrs. Maslov, Südekum, Potresov, David, the founder of Russian Marxism, etc., etc. Cecil Rhodes was a slightly more honest social-chauvinist.

In order to give the most accurate picture of the territorial division of the world and changes in this regard over the past decades, we will use the summaries that Supan gives in the above-mentioned essay on the issue of the colonial possessions of all the powers of the world. Supan takes 1876 and 1900; we will take 1876 - a point chosen very well, because it was by this time that the development of Western European capitalism in its pre-monopoly stage can, in general, be considered complete - and 1914, replacing Supan’s figures with newer ones according to Hübner’s “Geographical-Statistical Tables”. Supan only takes colonies; We consider it useful - in order to present a complete picture of the division of the world - to add information, briefly, about non-colonial countries and semi-colonies, to which we include Persia, China and Turkey: the first of these countries has almost entirely become a colony, the second and the third become so.

We get the following results:

We see here clearly how the division of the world was “finished” at the border of the 19th and 20th centuries. Colonial possessions expanded after 1876 on a gigantic scale: more than one and a half times, from 40 to 65 million square meters. km from the six major powers; the increase is 25 million sq. m. km, one and a half times the area of metropolises (16 1/2 million). Three powers did not have any colonies in 1876, and the fourth, France, had almost none. By 1914, these four powers had acquired colonies covering an area of 14.1 million square meters. km, i.e. approximately one and a half times the area of Europe, with a population of almost 100 million. The unevenness in the expansion of colonial possessions is very great. If we compare, for example, France, Germany and Japan, which do not differ very much in area and population, it turns out that the first of these countries acquired almost three times as many colonies (by area) as the second and third combined. But in terms of financial capital, France at the beginning of the period under review was, perhaps, also several times richer than Germany and Japan taken together. The size of the colonial possessions, in addition to purely economic conditions, and based on them, is influenced by geographical conditions, etc. No matter how much the leveling of the world has progressed in recent decades, the equalization of economic and living conditions in different countries under the pressure of large-scale industry, exchange and financial capital, but still the difference remains considerable, and among the six countries named we see, on the one hand, young, unusually rapidly progressing capitalist countries (America, Germany, Japan); on the other, the countries of the old capitalist development, which have recently progressed much more slowly than the previous ones (France and England); on the third, the country that is the most economically backward (Russia), in which modern capitalist imperialism is entwined, so to speak, with a particularly dense network of pre-capitalist relations.

Next to the colonial possessions of the great powers, we placed small colonies of small states, which are, so to speak, the closest object of a possible and probable “redistribution” of the colonies. For the most part, these small states retain their colonies only due to the fact that between the large ones there are oppositions of interests, friction, etc., which interfere with an agreement on the division of spoils. As for the “semi-colonial” states, they provide an example of those transitional forms that are found in all areas of nature and society. Finance capital is such a large, one might say, decisive force in all economic and all international relations that it is capable of subjugating and in fact subjugating even states enjoying complete political independence; we will now see examples of this. But, of course, the greatest “convenience” and greatest benefits are given to financial capital such subordination, which is associated with the loss of political independence of the subject countries and peoples. Semi-colonial countries are typical of the “middle” in this regard. It is clear that the struggle over these semi-dependent countries should have especially intensified in the era of finance capital, when the rest of the world was already divided.

Colonial policies and imperialism existed before the newest stage of capitalism and even before capitalism. Rome, founded on slavery, pursued a colonial policy and implemented imperialism. But “general” discussions about imperialism, which forget or push into the background the fundamental differences in socio-economic formations, inevitably turn into empty platitudes or boasting, such as comparing “great Rome with great Britain.” Even capitalist colonial policies former stages of capitalism differs significantly from the colonial policies of finance capital.

The main feature of modern capitalism is the dominance of monopolistic unions of the largest entrepreneurs. Such monopolies are strongest when they are captured in one hand. All sources of raw materials, and we have seen with what zeal the international unions of capitalists direct their efforts to wrest from the enemy any possibility of competition, to buy up, for example, iron ore lands or oil sources, etc. Ownership of a colony alone provides a complete guarantee of the success of the monopoly against all contingencies of the struggle with an opponent - up to such an eventuality that the enemy would wish to protect himself by the law of state monopoly. The higher the development of capitalism, the stronger the shortage of raw materials, the more intense the competition and pursuit of sources of raw materials throughout the world, the more desperate the struggle to acquire colonies.

“One can make an assertion,” writes Schilder, “which will perhaps seem paradoxical to some, namely, that the growth of urban and industrial population in the more or less near future may be much more likely to be hindered by a lack of raw materials for industry than by a lack of food.” For example, there is a growing shortage of wood, which is becoming more and more expensive, - leather, - raw materials for the textile industry. “Unions of industrialists are trying to create a balance between agriculture and industry within the entire world economy; as an example, we can name the international union of unions that has existed since 1904 - paper spinning manufacturers in several important industrial states; then founded on the model of his in 1910, the Union of European Unions of Flax Spinners.

Of course, the bourgeois reformists, and among them especially the present-day Kautskyites, try to weaken the significance of such facts by pointing out that raw materials “could” be obtained on the free market without an “expensive and dangerous” colonial policy, that the supply of raw materials “could” be increased gigantically by “mere » improving agricultural conditions in general. But such indications turn into an apology for imperialism, into embellishing it, because they are based on forgetting the main feature of modern capitalism: monopolies. The free market is becoming more and more a thing of the past, the monopoly syndicates and trusts are curtailing it every day, and the "simple" improvement of agricultural conditions amounts to an improvement in the conditions of the masses, to higher wages and a decrease in profits. Where, except in the fantasy of sugary reformists, are there trusts capable of looking after the plight of the masses instead of conquering colonies?

Not only already discovered sources of raw materials are important for financial capital, but also possible sources, for technology is developing with incredible speed in our days, and lands that are unsuitable today can be made suitable tomorrow if new methods are found (and for this a large bank can equip a special expedition of engineers, agronomists, etc.) if large capital expenditures are made. The same applies to exploration of mineral wealth, to new methods of processing and utilization of certain raw materials, etc., etc. Hence the inevitable desire of financial capital to expand the economic territory and even the territory in general. Just as trusts capitalize their property at double or triple valuation, taking into account “possible” future (and not real) profits, taking into account the further results of the monopoly, so financial capital in general strives to seize as much land as possible of any kind, anywhere it was, be that as it may, taking into account possible sources of raw materials, fearing to fall behind in the frantic struggle for the last pieces of the undivided world or for the redistribution of pieces that had already been divided.

English capitalists are trying in every possible way to develop cotton production in his colony, Egypt - in 1904, out of 2.3 million hectares of cultivated land in Egypt, 0.6 million were already under cotton, i.e. over a quarter are Russians his colonies, Turkestan, because in this way they can more easily beat their foreign competitors, they can more easily come to monopolize sources of raw materials, to create a more economical and profitable textile trust with “combined” production, with concentration everyone stages of cotton production and processing in one hand.

The interests of exporting capital also push towards the conquest of colonies, because in the colonial market it is easier (and sometimes the only thing possible) to eliminate a competitor through monopolistic means, secure supplies for oneself, consolidate the corresponding “connections”, etc.

The non-economic superstructure growing on the basis of financial capital, its policies, its ideology intensify the desire for colonial conquest. “Finance capital does not want freedom, but domination,” Hilferding rightly says. And one bourgeois French writer, as if developing and complementing the above thoughts of Cecil Rhodes, writes that social reasons should be added to the economic reasons of modern colonial policy: “due to the growing complexity of life and the difficulties pressing not only on the working masses, but also on the middle classes , in all countries of the old civilization “impatience, irritation, hatred are accumulating, threatening public peace; The energy that is knocked out of a certain class rut must be used, given something to do outside the country, so that there is no explosion inside.”

Since we are talking about the colonial policy of the era of capitalist imperialism, it should be noted that finance capital and the corresponding international policy, which boils down to the struggle of the great powers for the economic and political division of the world, create a whole series transitional forms of state dependence. Typical of this era are not only two main groups of countries: those owning colonies and colonies, but also various forms of dependent countries, politically, formally independent, but in fact entangled in networks of financial and diplomatic dependence. We have already indicated one of the forms - semi-colonies - earlier. Another example is, for example, Argentina.

“South America, and especially Argentina,” writes Schulze-Gevernitz in his essay on British imperialism, “is so financially dependent on London that it should almost be called an English trading colony.” Schilder estimated the capital invested by England in Argentina, according to reports from the Austro-Hungarian consul in Buenos Aires in 1909, at 8 3/4 billion francs. It is not difficult to imagine what strong connections financial capital – and its faithful “friend,” diplomacy – receives as a result of this from England with the bourgeoisie of Argentina, with the leading circles of its entire economic and political life.

The example of Portugal shows us a slightly different form of financial and diplomatic dependence, with political independence. Portugal is an independent, sovereign state, but in fact for more than 200 years, since the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714), it has been under the protectorate of England. England defended it and its colonial possessions in order to strengthen its position in the fight against its opponents, Spain and France. England received in exchange trade benefits, better conditions for the export of goods and especially for the export of capital to Portugal and its colonies, the opportunity to use the harbors and islands of Portugal, its cables, etc., etc. Relations of this kind between individual large and small states have always existed, but in the era of capitalist imperialism they become a general system, enter as part of the sum of relations of the “division of the world”, and turn into links in the operations of global finance capital.

To put an end to the question of the division of the world, we must also note the following. Not only American literature after the Spanish-American and English literature after the Boer Wars raised this question quite openly and definitely at the very end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, not only German literature, which most “jealously” followed “British imperialism”, systematically assessed this fact. And in French bourgeois literature the question is posed quite definitely and broadly, since it is conceivable from a bourgeois point of view. Let us refer to the historian Drio, who in his book: “Political and social problems at the end of the 19th century” in the chapter on “great powers and the division of the world” wrote the following:

“In recent years, all free places on earth, with the exception of China, have been occupied by the powers of Europe and North America. On this basis, several conflicts and shifts of influence have already occurred, which are harbingers of more terrible explosions in the near future. For we have to hurry: nations that have not provided for themselves risk never getting their share and not taking part in that gigantic exploitation of the earth, which will be one of the most significant facts of the next (i.e. 20th) century. That is why all of Europe and America have recently been gripped by the fever of colonial expansion, of “imperialism,” which is the most remarkable characteristic of the end of the 19th century.” And the author added: “In this division of the world, in this mad pursuit of treasures and large markets for land, the comparative strength of the empires founded in this nineteenth century is in complete disparity with the place occupied in Europe by the nations that founded them. The predominant powers in Europe, the arbiters of its destinies, are not equally predominant throughout the world.And since colonial power, the hope of possessing wealth not yet accounted for, will obviously have a reflected effect on the comparative strength of the European powers, therefore the colonial question “Imperialism,” if you like, having already changed the political conditions of Europe itself, will change them more and more.”

SECTION V HISTORY OF THE XX - EARLY XXI centuries.

TOPIC 14 The world in 1900-1914.

The world at the beginning of the twentieth century.

Countries of the world by the beginning of the twentieth century. differed not only in their position as metropolises and colonies. The gap between the leading powers and the rest of the world was determined primarily by the level of economic development. In most countries of Western Europe, North America and Japan, an industrial society has developed. These countries have gone through the industrial revolution. New technology was not only widely used in industry, but also found increasing use in agriculture, which subsequently led to fundamental changes in this ancient sphere of human activity. In Africa and much of Asia, industrialization has not yet begun.

Political development at the beginning of the twentieth century.

According to the form of government at the beginning of the twentieth century. Monarchies prevailed. All American states were republics, but in Europe only France and Switzerland were republics. However, in most states the power of the monarch was limited by popular representatives (Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Japan, etc.). In some countries, the monarch continued to play a significant role in governance. Elections were nowhere universal (for example, women were deprived of voting rights). Even in many republics there were despotic regimes.

The struggle for the redivision of the world.

As a result of the improvement of transport, it has become much easier to transport raw materials and finished products over long distances. This is what pushed the developed countries to new colonial conquests. As a result, a struggle for the redivision of the world unfolded. States that were late to the division of colonies, but then turned into powerful industrial powers, took this course especially persistently.

In 1898, the United States attacked Spain under the slogan of the liberation of its colonies. As a result, Cuba gained formal independence and became de facto a possession of the United States. Without special formalities, they arrived with the islands of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. The United States also ceded the Hawaiian Islands and the Panama Canal zone.

Germany in the 19th century captured South-West and South-East Africa (Cameroon, Togo), bought the Caroline and Mariana Islands in the Pacific Ocean from Spain. Japan took possession of Taiwan and sought to establish itself in Korea. But both Germany and Japan considered themselves deprived of colonies.

In addition to the Spanish-American War of 1898, the first wars for the redistribution of the world are considered to be the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902) and the Russian-Japanese War (1904-1905). During the Boer War, the two Boer republics in South Africa (Transvaal and Orange) ceded to England. As a result of the victory over Russia in the Russo-Japanese War, Japan established itself in Korea and strengthened its position in China.

Problems of modernization.

Many countries were faced with the problem of modernization - economic, social, political and cultural transformations aimed at creating a society that met the requirements of the era. The states of Western Europe served as a model. However, in the 19th century. The only fairly successful experience of modernization took place in Japan after the Meiji reforms. These reforms opened the way for rapid industrial development, the spread of civil liberties, and education. At the same time, the Japanese did not abandon their traditions or destroy their usual way of life.

clause 1 questions and tasks to paragraph paragraph p. 185

Question 1. According to the text of the paragraph, make a diagram "Population of the world at the beginning of the 20th century."

Question 2. What did the completion of the division of the world into colonies and spheres of influence mean?

What new stage in this regard could, in your opinion, begin in European and world politics?

A relative political balance was established on the European continent - not a single power had a military, political or economic advantage that would allow it to establish its hegemony; for a long time Europe got rid of military conflicts. I believe that the political energy of European states should be directed beyond the continent; their efforts should concentrate on dividing up the undivided territories.

item 2 questions and tasks to paragraph paragraph p. 188

Question 1. What role did the British company S.D. play in the British colonization of Africa? Rhodes?

The advantages of creating companies for the metropolises were that they could carry out the predatory exploitation of occupied lands without regard to public opinion. S. Rhodes's main idea was to create a continuous strip of British possessions connected by a railway network. This promised new markets and promised big profits.

Question 2. What were the causes and results of the Anglo-Boer War?

Cause of the Anglo-Boer War: Rhodes organized an attempted armed coup in the Boer states in 1895, hoping to annex them to his possessions.

Results: the Anglo-Boer War ended with the annexation of the Boer republics to the British Empire.

paragraph 3 questions and tasks to paragraph paragraph page 190

Question. What were the results of French colonial policy at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries?

The results of France's colonial policy: it gained a foothold in Central Vietnam, expanded its possessions throughout Indochina, its power was recognized by the Sahara, the peoples of Western and Equatorial Africa, Madagascar and Morocco.

paragraph 4 questions and tasks to paragraph paragraph page 191

Question. What regions were in Germany's sphere of interest at the end of the 19th century?

Germany's sphere of interests included: East and South-West Africa, Togo, Cameroon and part of the island of New Guinea.

paragraph 5 questions and tasks to paragraph paragraph page 192

Question. What were the features of US colonial policy?

Features of US colonial policy: the creation of strongholds and bases in strategically important areas (for example, in 1898, the Hawaiian Islands were annexed, which became the main base of the navy).

Questions and assignments for paragraph page 192

Question 1. Based on the textbook and additional sources of information, prepare a report about one of the colonial empires according to a rough plan:

1) Brief description of the socio-economic and political situation of the metropolis at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries.

2) The main directions of colonial expansion in the 19th - early 20th centuries. and ways to implement it.

3) Territories, due to the possession of which the interests of the metropolis collided with other colonial powers.

4) The role of the state in the completion by the beginning of the 20th century. dividing the world into colonies and spheres of influence.

In the last decades of the 19th century. England is gradually losing its position as the first industrial country in the world. Since the 70s of the last century, its industry began to lag behind the industry of younger capitalist countries - Germany and the USA. One of the main reasons for the relatively slow development of English industry was its technical backwardness. In England, where capitalist production arose much earlier than in other countries, there were many plants and factories with outdated equipment.

English capitalists invested most of their funds in banking. It also hindered the development of English industry. But none of the capitalist countries had banks at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. such large funds as in England.

Agriculture occupied an insignificant place in the economy of England. England imported most of its food and raw materials from other countries, including from its huge colonies.

The political system of England was basically formed back in the 17th-18th centuries. and in the first half of the 19th century. At the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. it did not undergo fundamental changes: the parliamentary monarchy continued to exist in England.

British imperialism was predominantly colonial in character. For several centuries (starting from the 16th century), England captured them in its colonies. In this way the huge British colonial empire was created.

Question 2: Why do you think international treaties did not prevent the strongest powers from competing for colonies and spheres of influence throughout the modern era? What did the end of the struggle for the territorial division of the world mean for humanity in the 20th century?

The end of the struggle for the territorial division of the world marked the onset of a new era - wars between colonial powers for the redivision of the world they had already divided.

Question 1. What important event happened in Turkey two years before this letter?

In 1909, an attempt was made to restore the absolute monarchy by the Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid II in Turkey.

Question 2. Why did German politicians and industrialists at the beginning of the 20th century. Türkiye was presented as “the richest field of activity”? What types of economic expansion did Germany plan to implement in this country?

Turkey was presented as “the richest field of activity” since Germany had intentions to gradually achieve political and economic dominance over the entire Sultan’s empire as a whole.

Question 3. What was the reason for Germany’s interest in a “strong and independent Turkey”?

Germany's interest in Turkey was connected with finding a new market for the products of the magically developing German metallurgical industry and at the same time chaining the Ottoman Empire with a steel chain to Germany.

Question 4. How did German politicians strengthen their positions in Constantinople?

Strengthening the Turkish fleet, improving the Turkish army.

Along with the economic division of the world between capitalist unions and in connection with it, there is a territorial division of the world between bourgeois states, a struggle for colonies, a struggle for the seizure of foreign lands.

Colonies are countries that are deprived of state independence and are part of the possession of the imperialist metropolitan states. In the era of imperialism, there are also various types of dependent countries - semi-colonies. Semi-colonies are countries that are formally independent, but in reality are politically and economically dependent on imperialist states.

Defenders of the bourgeoisie portray imperialist domination over the colonies as a “civilizing mission” supposedly aimed at leading backward peoples onto the path of progress and independent development. In fact, imperialism condemns colonial and dependent countries to economic backwardness, and hundreds of millions of the population of these countries to unprecedented oppression and bondage, lawlessness and poverty, hunger and ignorance. The seizure of colonies by imperialist powers leads to an unprecedented increase in national oppression and racial discrimination. According to Lenin, capitalism, from the liberator of nations, as it was during the period of the struggle against feudalism, at the stage of imperialism turned into a monstrous oppressor of nations.

Imperialism is a worldwide system of financial enslavement and colonial oppression by a handful of capitalistically developed countries of the gigantic majority of the world's population.

Back in the middle of the 18th century, England enslaved India, a country with rich natural resources and a population that was many times larger than the population of the metropolis. In the mid-19th century, the United States of America captured vast territories from neighboring Mexico, and in the following decades established its dominance over a number of Latin American countries.

In the 60-70s of the last century, the colonial possessions of European countries still occupied a relatively small part of the overseas lands. In 1876, only one tenth of the territory of Africa was occupied by the colonies of European countries. About half of the Asian continent and the Pacific Islands (Polynesia) have not yet been captured by capitalist states.

In the last quarter of the 19th century, the world map underwent fundamental changes. Following the oldest colonial power - England - all developed capitalist countries embarked on the path of territorial conquest. France by the end of the 19th century had become a major colonial power with possessions of 3.7 million square miles. Germany captured a million square miles of territory with 14.7 million population, Belgium -900 thousand square miles with 30 million population, the USA captured the most important stronghold in the Pacific Ocean - the Philippine Islands, as well as Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, Hawaii, the island Samoa established its de facto dominance over a number of countries in Central and South America.

From 1876 to 1914, the so-called “great powers” captured about 25 million square kilometers of territory, which is one and a half times the area of the metropolises. A number of countries were placed in conditions of semi-colonial dependence on imperialist states: China, with a population constituting almost one-fourth of all humanity, as well as Turkey and Persia (Iran). By the beginning of the First World War, more than half of humanity was under the rule of colonial powers.

The imperialists establish and maintain their power over the colonies through methods of deception and violence, using the superiority of their military technology. The history of colonial policy represents a continuous chain of wars of conquest and punitive expeditions against enslaved peoples, as well as bloody conflicts between the countries that owned colonies. Lenin called the war of the United States against Spain in 1898 the first war of the imperialist type, marking the beginning of the era of imperialist wars. The uprising of the Filipino people against the invaders was brutally suppressed by American troops.

England, which created the largest colonial empire, waged continuous wars of extermination against the population of the occupied countries of Asia and Africa for more than two centuries. The history of colonial conquests by Germany, France, Japan, Italy and other countries is full of cruelty.

By the beginning of the 20th century, the division of the world was completed. The colonial policy of capitalist countries led to the seizure of all lands not occupied by the imperialists. There are no more “free” lands left; a situation has been created in which each new seizure involves the taking of territory from its owner. The completion of the division of the world put the struggle for its redivision on the line. The struggle for the redivision of an already divided world is one of the main distinguishing features of monopoly capitalism. This struggle ultimately results in a struggle for world domination and inevitably leads to imperialist wars on a global scale.

Imperialist wars and the arms race bring enormous hardships to the people of all capitalist countries and cost millions of human lives. At the same time, wars and the militarization of the economy are a profitable source for monopolies, giving them especially high profits.

The beginning of global strategies, the struggle for dividing the world. Chapter XVIII

More on the topic Completion of the territorial division of the world between the great powers and the struggle for its redistribution:

Events

Participants