(Charles K. Hobson: ibid.; p. 223).

The export of capital from Britain continued to grow in the 20th century, as is shown by the following official figures

However, by this time so much British capital had been invested abroad, that the income from these investments exceeded the amount of new capital being exported:

('United Kingdom Balance of Payments: 1993'; London; 1993; p. 42;

'United Kingdom Balance of Payments: 1997'; London; 1997; p. 43).

In other words, the export of capital had given way to the import of capital;

Just as capitalists try to form combines within a country to limit competition and so increase their profits, so, where appropriate, they try for the same reasons to form international combines.

Thus, there ensues an

economically.

International cartels

and they have continued to be formed in the second half of the 20th century. For example, the International Tin Council was established

Such international cartels divide the world economically on the basis of the economic strength of those taking part in them:

But such economic divisions of the world can only be temporary, because there is, under capitalism,

and this disparity is increased under monopoly capitalism:

This disparity in the rates of development continues to the present day, as is demonstrated by the following figures showing the change in industrial production for various countries in the period 1980 to 1994:

(United Nations: 'Statistical Year Book: 1994': New York; 1996; p. 204-41).

Because of the uneven development of capitalist economies, international cartel agreements can only be temporary. After a time, such an agreement becomes unacceptable to certain of its parties and these organise for its replacement by a new agreement which will more accurately reflect the changed economic position. Often such a changed agreement can only be obtained by war. There is, in other words, a

" . . . transition from peaceful division to violent division. . . . When the relation of forces is changed, how else under capitalism, can the solution for contradictions be found, except by resorting to violence?"

(Vladimir I. Lenin: op. cit.; p. 88, 89).

Lenin concluded from his analysis of imperialism that under it wars for the redivision of the world were inevitable:

"We ask, is there under capitalism, any means of remedying the disparity between the development of productive forces and the accumulation of capital on the one side, and the division of . . . 'spheres of influence' by finance capital on the other side -- other than by resorting to war?"

Lenin's view that war was inevitable under imperialism was accepted in November 1939 by the General Secretary of the Communist International, Georgi Dimitrov:

By April 1948, however, Dimitrov was asserting that, as a result of 'new international conditions'

" . . . a new world war today is neither inevitable nor imminent (Georgi Dimitrov: 'A New World War today is neither Inevitable nor Imminent', in: 'Selected Works', Volume 3; Sofia; 1972: p. 227).

In February 1952, Stalin refuted Dimitrov's revisionist view on war under imperialism in his classic 'Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR':

"Some comrades hold that, owing to the development of new international conditions since the Second World War, wars between capitalist countries have ceased to be inevitable. . . .

These comrades are mistaken. . . .

To eliminate the inevitability of war it is necessary to abolish imperialism."

Josef V. Stalin: 'Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR', in: 'Works', Volume 16; London; 1986; p. 326, 332).

After Stalin's death, however, Dimitrov's revisionist thesis that war was no longer inevitable under imperialism was revived by Nikita Khrushchev in his report to the 20th Congress of the CPSU in February 1956:

"At the present time, . . . the situation has radically changed. War is not fatalistically inevitable".

(Nikita Khrushchev: Report of Central Committee to 20th Congress of CPSU, in: 'Keesing's Contemporary Archives', Volume 10; p. 14,746).

The term 'semi-colony' not appear in the 20-volume 'Oxford English Dictionary' , but the prefix 'semi-' is defined as

leading to the view that a semi-colony is a country which is partially a colony. However, Lenin defines 'semi-colonies' more precisely as countries

Lenin was insistent that semi-colonial status was less advantageous to dominating power than full colonial status:

"Naturally, finance capital . . . is able to extract the greatest profit from a subordination which involves the loss of political independence of the subjected countries. . . .

Colonial possession alone gives complete guarantee of success to the monopolies against all the risks of the struggle with competitors, including the risk that the latter will defend themselves by means of a law establishing a state monopoly".

(Vladimir I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 75, 74).

Writing in the second decade of the 20th century, therefore, Lenin saw semi-colonial status as a transitional stage on the route to full colonial status:

"The semi-colonial states provide an example of the transitional forms which are to be found. . . . Semi-colonial countries provide a typical example of the 'middle stage'''.

(Vladimir I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 74).

An empire is

" . . . an aggregate of subject territories ruled over by a sovereign state".

('Oxford English Dictionary', Volume 5; Oxford; 1987; p. 187).

As the first capitalist country to become industrialised, Britain went through a process of unprecedented imperial expansion during the 19th century:

"For Great Britain, the period of the enormous expansion of colonial conquests is that between 1860 and 1880, and it was also very considerable in the last twenty years of the 19th century (Vladimir I. Lenin: op. cit.; p. 70).

and Lenin gives figures for the expansion of the British Empire during the 19th century:

(Vladimir I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 70).

Later, other capitalist countries became industrialised and proceeded to follow a similar course of imperial expansion:

Thus, by 1916, when Lenin wrote his 'Imperialism', virtually the whole world was occupied by one empire or another.

"For the first time the world is completely shared out, so that in the future only re-division is possible; territories can only pass from one 'owner' to another.

Imperialism is capitalism in that stage of development . . . in which the partition of all the territories of the globe among the great capitalist powers has been completed".

(Vladimir I. Lenin: ibid.; p. 69, 81).

The victory of the American War of Independence in the late 18th century was followed in 1839 by

" . . . rebellions among both French and English colonists. . Both risings were soon crushed, but they caused much alarm to the British Government, which feared Canada was about to go the same way as the United States. The result was . . . a report which advised the granting of Dominion Home Rule to Canada".

(Andrew L. Norton: 'A People's History of England'; London; 1979; p.

Dominion Home Rule was granted to Canada in July 1867. The term ~ derived from the Latin meaning under rule', was

('The Statesman's Year Book: 1997-98'; London; 1997; p. 30).

The British colonies which became Dominions were in fact promoted to the position of junior partners in British imperialism,.

At an Imperial Conference in 1926, the Dominions were distinguished from the rest of the British Empire as forming the British Commonwealth, defined as

" . . . autonomous communities within the British Empire . . . united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations."

(Edmund J. Osmanczyk: op. cit.; p. 180).

By 1931, the term 'Empire' had become 'politically incorrect even in British imperialist circles, and the term 'British Commonwealth' was enlarged to include those countries remaining British colonies, so that the term 'British Commonwealth' replaced the term

(Edmund J. Osmanczyk: ibid.; p. 180).

In April 1949,

" . . . the qualifying adjective 'British' was omitted for the first time in the Declaration of London . . . which was issued by a meeting of the British Commonwealth Prime Ministers".

Neo-colonialism is the

After the Second World War, the rise of liberation movements throughout the world made a continuation of the old colonialism in the long run impracticable.

But in a colonial-type country, we find certain social classes the continuation of whose social position as exploiters is dependent upon the dominating foreign imperialists, namely the comprador bourgeoisie and landlord classes:

"Where the ruling imperialism is in need of a social support in the colonies, it first allies itself with the ruling strata of the previous social structure, the feudal lords and the trading and money-lending bourgeoisie, against the majority of the people".

(Theses on the Revolutionary Movement in Colonial and Semi-Colonial Countries, 6th Congress of Comintern, in: Jane Degras (Ed.): op. cit., Volume 2; London; 1971; p. 533).

Accordingly, colonial powers adopted the strategy of warding off genuine liberation movements by:

-- landlords and comprador capitalists -- to transform the colonies into neo-colonies, which are nominally independent but in reality dependent.

This strategy can be observed clearly, for example, in the negotiated 'independence' of India.

In his book 'India Today', published in 1940, Rajani Palme Dutt describes India as

" . . . the pivot of modern imperialism. . . .

The 370 millions of India constitute . . . nearly nine-tenths of the subject colonial population of the British Empire".

(Rajani Palme Dutt: 'India Today'; London; 1940; p. 17, 19).

On the principle of 'Divide and Rule', the British imperialists

" . . . divided India into unequal segments -- British India and the so-called 'Indian States' . . .

There are 563 States with a total area of 712,000 square miles and a population of 81 million (in the 1931 census) or nearly one-quarter (24%) of the Indian population".

(Rajani Palme Dutt: ibid.; p. 391).

As Marx wrote in July 1853,

"The leading princes are the most servile tools of English despotism. . . . The native princes are the stronghold of the present abominable English system".

(Karl Marx: 'The East Indian Question?, in: Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: 'Collected Works', Volume 12; London; 1979; p. 198).

As the Indian liberation movement grew in strength,

" . . . so imperialism has increasingly thrown the weight of its policy on the alliance with the Princes, and sought to make the Princes its counter-force"

(Rajani Palme Dutt: ibid.; p. 400).

" . . . no trace of the type of Hindu-Muslim conflicts associated with British rule".

(Rajani Palme Dutt: ibid.; p. 405).

But, as the British civil servant Sir John Strachey wrote in 1888,

" . . . the truth plainly is that the existence side by side of these hostile creeds is one of the strong points in our political position in India. The better classes of Mohammedans are already a source to us of strength and not of weakness. . . . They constitute a small but energetic minority of the population, whose political interests are identical with ours".

(John Strachey: 'India'; London', 1888; p. 225).

In furtherance of this policy of 'Divide and Rule', in December 1906 the All-India Muslim League was formed as a counter to the Indian National Congress. The British social-democratic politician Ramsay Macdonald reveals that in this step

" . . . the Mohammedan leaders were inspired by certain Anglo-Indian officials, and that these officials pulled wires at Simla and in London and of malice aforethought sowed discord between the Hindu and the Mohammedan communities".

(James Ramsay MacDonald: 'The Awakening of India'; London; 1910; p. 284).

" . . . provided Congress with an overwhelming victory. . . . The Muslim League did, in comparison, very badly, winning a comparatively small proportion of the Muslim vote".

(Denis Judd: 'Jawaharlal Nehru'; Cardiff; 1993; p. 27).

In the light of these results, the leader of the Muslim League, Mohammed Ah Jinnah decided that

" . . . the League should strengthen its attraction to Muslim voters by an appeal to Islamic anxieties".

(Denis Judd: ibid.; p. 27).

In March 1942, as the Japanese imperialist armies approached the borders of India, the British government despatched Sir Stafford Cripps on a mission

" . . . to attempt to achieve a reconciliation between the Raj and its Indian opponents".

(Denis Judd: ibid.; p. 35).

Cripps proposed that

" . . . after the war, a constituent assembly, elected in a system of proportional representation by new provincial assemblies, would determine the constitution . . ."

(Denis Judd: ibid.; p. 36).

of a Dominion of India.

The scheme contained

" . . . an important concession to Muslim separatism in the proposal that any province would have the right to remain outside of the new Dominion"

(Denis Judd: ibid.; p. 36).

In August 1942, 'Quit India'

" . . . became the official policy of Congress", (Denis Judd: ibid.; p. 38).

The British government struck back, and

(Denis Judd: ibid.; p. 38).

Congress

(Denis Judd: ibid.; p. 38).

The Viceroy, Viscount Wavell, gave

and

(Denis Judd: ibid.; p. 39).

and Jinnah could claim that

In February 1947, the new Labour Prime Minister, Clement Attlee,

(Denis Judd: ibid.; p. 49).

and in March 1947 Lord Mountbatten was sworn in as the last Viceroy of India, charged with bringing about

('New Encyclopaedia Britannica', Volume 21; p. 109).

In May 1947 Mountbatten showed Nehru a 'secret' British plan, called significantly 'Plan Balkan', which

and the British authorities were pleased to amend their proposals to allow for

although this would be a partitioned state, in which the predominantly Muslim areas would be permitted to secede and form the new Dominion of Pakistan.

In August 1947,

and power was nominally transferred to rival Dominions headed by Nehru and Jinnah. Nehru came from a family of Anglicised Indians. His father, Motilal Nehru, was

and Nehru himself was educated at Harrow and Cambridge. In short,

('Europa World Year Book: 1997', Volume 1; London; 1997; p. 1,591).

all served to limit the independence of both India and Pakistan.

('Statesman's Year Book: 1997-98'; op. cit. p. 30).

('Statesman's Year-Book': 1997-98); London; 1997; p. 1,355; 1,368-78).

The following countries which were formerly British colonies have remained nominally independent and have not joined the Commonwealth

('Statesman's Year Book: 1997-98'; London. 1997; p. 261, 274, 451, 722, 743, 775, 1,154, 1,195, 1,603).

The Republic of Ireland

and Fiji' S membership of the Commonwealth

" . . . lapsed . . . in 1987".

('Statesman's Year Book: 1997-98); London; 1997; p. 29).

(Edmund J, Osmanczyk: op. cit.; p. 217).

(Edmund J, Osmanezyk: ibid.; p. 217).

Firstly, we must say that the idea that 'aid' goes to the world's poor is very largely a myth:

"The overwhelming majority of British aid failed to reach the poor".

(Independent Group on British Aid: 'Aid is not enough: Britain's Policies to the World's Poor'; London; 1984; p. 47).

In fact, as 'aid' to under-developed countries has grown,

" . . . poverty in the Third World continues to get worse. There are now something like a billion people in different parts of the Third World who are living in 'absolute poverty', that is, without adequate food, adequate water, adequate clothing, adequate shelter or adequate sanitation. . . .

and, indeed, the overall effect of 'aid' has been that

('Guardian', 11 May 1998; p. 6).

where a trillion is a million millions.

('Oxford English Dictionary'. Volume 18 Oxford; 1987; p. 532).

('Guardian', 11 May 1998; p. 6).

Despite this,

of the aid-giving Powers, and its purpose is

and by US President Richard Nixon in 1968:

Aid' is

This analysis is borne out by studies of 'aid' to individual countries. For example, R. Andrew Nickson, in his book on British 'aid' to Nepal, concludes that

and that this was because

Indeed, most 'aid' is tied to conditions designed to benefit the capitalists of the donor countries:

These considerations apply not only to governments, but to imperialist international financial organisations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the policies of which form

'Aid' must, therefore, be seen as a means of replacing the shackles of the old colonialism with new chains of debt. As the Russian economist Mailakovlevich Volkov expresses it:

that it

that is, it came into being as colonialism gave way to neo-colonialism, providing a mechanism to maintain in the new world situation the dominance of the imperialist powers over colonial-type countries.

the top ten recipients of British bilateral 'aid' in 1988-89 being:

Of course, 'aid' programmes were not confined to Western imperialist countries. After the death of Stalin and the restoration of an essentially capitalist economic system in the Soviet Union, that country embarked on a rival 'aid' programme to that of the USA. Soviet 'aid'

and in the period 1955-65

" . . . Britain stood, in contrast with Western Europe and the Eastern States of the American Union, fully a generation ahead in industrial development".

(Charles K. Hobson: op. cit.; p. 96).

For example, according to the 1907 Census of Production, the largest of Britain's staple industries --

" . . . coal, iron and steel, . . textiles and shipbuilding -- alone made up roughly 50% of the total net domestic industrial production and 70% of British exports".

(Bernard Elbaum & William Lazonick (Eds.): 'An Institutional Perspective on British Decline', in: op. cit.; p. 9).

However, since the 1880s other later developing capitalist countries had become industrialised. And in the USA, Germany and Japan, this industrialisation

" . . . was based on mass production methods and corporate forms of managerial co-ordination".

(Bernard Elbaum & William Lazonick: ibid.; p. 2).

Britain was held back

" . . . from adopting these modern technological and organisational innovations by the institutional legacy associated with atomistic 19th century economic organisation".

(Bernard Elbaum & William lazonick: ibid.; p. 2).

For example,

(Bernard Elbaum & William Lazonick: ibid.; p. 5).

Unwilling to spend large sums of money on technological modernisation, and so

Thus, for example, in the United States textile industry

Similarly,

(William tazonick: ibid.; p. 19).

and even in 1955

(William Lazonick: ibid.; p. 20).

Similarly, Britain's share of world steel production fell from 7.2% in 1960 to 2.2% in 1981.

(Heidrun Abromeit: 'British Steel:. An Industry between the State and the Private Sector'; Leamington Spa; 1986; p. 314).

(Edward Terenz & Frank Wilkinson: 'The Shipbuilding Industry: 1880-1965' in: Bernard Elbaum & William Lazonick (Eds.): op. cit.; p. 18).; p.116)

By 1961-65, however, only 4.5% of tonnage launched was British, compared with 38.8% Japanese.

(Edward Lorenz & Frank Wilkinson: ibid.; p. 116).

and

as a result of the unequal development of capitalism, from about 1880 the British economy underwent a decline.

('Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1994'; London; 1994; p. 240)

('Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1998'; London; 1998; p. 283).

(David Edgerton: 'Science, Technology and the British Industrial 'Decline': 1870-1970'; Cambridge; 1990; p. 4).

Its consequence It

In other words, the British economy has

He quotes with approval the prophetic characterisation of the future 'European Community' made in 1902 by the British economist John Hobson:

Lenin cites figures showing that in Britain

This process has continued. The employed labour force in Britain changed between 1979 and 1986 as follows:

The interests of the financial/services sectors of British capital, but not those of the manufacturing sectors, were reflected in the policies of the Conservative government in Britain in 1979-87:

"The Thatcher government's comparative unconcern with technical change and its impact on economic performance, are important themes. Britain's innovative performance continued to decline relative to its major competitors. One is struck by the Thatcher government's economic daring, or foolhardiness, depending on how one sees it. Here was a medium-sized industrial nation liberalising its markets from a position of industrial weakness, and during a technological revolution in which it played only a minor part. The mid-l9th century policies of laissez-faire and free trade were fine when Britain was the undisputed industrial leader. To apply them in the 1980s was decidedly risky".

To sum up,

and, further, imperialism is

(Vladimir I. Lenin: ibid.; p~ 117).

('Oxford English Dictionary , Volume 9; Oxford; 1987; p. 1,082).

The metropolitan powers

and imperialist policy in general was to

However, since the 1960s in particular,

has emerged.

Companies which operate in more than one country are often called multinational companies. However, this term

(Richard J. Barnet & Ronald F. Muller: op. cit.; p. 17).

For example,

(Richard J. Barnet & Ronald F. Muller: ibid.; p. 17).

A more correct term is, therefore, transnational companies. the term 'trans-' being a prefix

('Oxford English Dictionary', Volume 18; Oxford; 1989; p. 385).

In recent years, trans-national companies

Thus, for example,

(Teresa Hayter (1982): ibid.; p. 98).

There are additional advantages for these trans-national companies in this process, which is known as establishing

these advantages including

(Teresa Hayter (1982): op. cit.; p. 99).

In other words, imperialist countries have increasingly opted

(Teresa Hayter (1982): ibid.; p. 98).

(Mack Casson: op. cit.; p. 104).

This process is known as

('Oxford English Dictionary', Volume 9; Oxford; 1987; p. 758).

Emigration is outward migration, that is,

and immigration is inward migration, that is.

Lenin states that

(Vladimir I. Lenin: op. cit.; p. 97).

('Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1952'; London; 1952; p. 36;

'Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1980'; tendon; 1980; p. 26)

'Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1998'; London; 1998; p. 17)

An important factor in this change has been assisted emigration schemes from Britain to certain Commonwealth countries, such as Australia and New Zealand.

A " . . . million or more British migrants . . . accepted Australia's offer to migrate for only £10 over thirty years or so."

(Norman Hoffman: Introduction to: Betka Zamoyska: The Ten Pound Fare:

Experiences of British People who emigrated to Australia in the 1950s'; London; 1988; p. xxi).

"The Assisted Passage Scheme . . . provided passages for British migrants until the early 1970s".

(Betka Zamoyska: ibid.; p. 15).

two immigration schemes -- the 'Assisted Passage Scheme' and the 'Subsidy

Scheme'".

('Prospects in New Zealand: Information for Intending Migrants;'; London; 1974; p.9).

('Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1952'; London; 1952; p. 36;

Prior to the Second World War, immigration into Britain had been relatively free. Up to this time,

But, particularly since the Second World War, Britain has seen the enactment of increasingly strict visa requirements and immigration controls. There has been

And the purpose of the 1968 Commonwealth Immigration Act

while the British Nationality Act of 1981

The true situation is clearly reflected in the giant increase in applications for asylum, despite the fact that under British law refugees have been

Applications for asylum in Britain have increased as follows:

('Annual Abstract of Statistics: 1998'; London; 1998; p. 21).

Author: W.B. Bland
The Marxist-Leninist Research Bureau
NCMLU

BIBLIOGRAPHY