Jump to content

Semi-colony

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Marxist theory, a semi-colony is a country which is officially recognized as a politically independent state and as a sovereign nation, but which is in reality dependent and/or dominated by an imperialist country (or, in some cases, several imperialist countries).[1]

This domination could take different forms:

  • economic - the supply of capital, technology and/or essential imported goods; and foreign control over strategic assets, industrial sectors and/or foreign trade.
  • political - direct intervention by the imperialist country in the political affairs of the semi-colony to secure client-regimes.
  • military - the presence or control exercised by foreign troops, or foreign surveillance.
  • cultural/ideological - the imposition of a foreign culture or foreign religion on the local population through the media, education and foreign consumer products.
  • technological - the dependence on foreign technology, or the technological domination by a foreign country.
  • demographic - the immigration into the semi-colony of large numbers of settlers from imperialist nations (or from other continents), which dominate the indigenous population of the semi-colony, and the imposition of controls over inward and outward migration.

The term "semi-colony" is often used interchangeably with "neo-colony". The term "neo-colony" usually refers to a country which originally was a colony but later became a formally sovereign country, although de facto it remained dominated by another country. In this case, there exists a "new" type of (informal) colonialism replacing the old colonialism, despite formal independence.[2] A colony in this sense could have "semi-colonial" status after it formerly obtained sovereign political independence while it remained in many important respects dependent on other countries. Many semi-colonies in Africa, Asia and Latin America are, according to some analysts, still dominated by the imperialist countries which once colonised them, or by other imperialist powers.[3]

The term "semi-colony" is also used for countries which, although they officially never became full-scale colonies or were not colonized on a very large scale, were nevertheless dominated by and/or dependent on other (imperialist) countries.[4] In this case, there can exist national characteristics analogous to colonial dependence and domination alongside a prior tradition of national sovereignty or political independence.[5] Countries without colonial past could nevertheless be dominated by a superpower such as the United States, or were dominated by the Soviet Union (see American imperialism, Soviet empire and Russian imperialism). A semi-colonial status is sometimes ascribed to a country, simply because it lacked much capitalist industrial development in its economy, which made the country dependent on other (industrialized) countries for importing modern technology, modern consumer goods and knowledge.

Some semi-colonies were originally "settler colonies" attracting large numbers of foreign immigrants,[6] while in other semi-colonies, the indigenous population always remained the vast majority of the population (see also dominant minority).[7]

There have been many different types, histories and gradations of colonization, and consequently also many different types, histories and gradations of decolonization.[8] Colonization and decolonization processes in different places usually had both some common characteristics and some unique characteristics. Some analysts suggest that the general colonization and decolonization process can be periodized as a sequence of common "phases" or "stages". Others argue that there is not really any substantive evidence for a universal sequence of events.[9]

In many cases, there is no consensus or broad agreement among historians and social scientists about how exactly the terms "colony", "neo-colony" or "semi-colony" should be applied to a given country.[10] To some extent, the descriptions can remain controversial or contested.[11]

Client relationship

[edit]

The relationship between the semi-colony and the country (or countries) dominating it is said to benefit:

  • the position of semi-colonial elite or ruling class (which serves both its own interest and the interests of foreign investors and creditors).
  • the imperialist country or its multinational corporations, which obtain profits and cheap resources from their investments in the semi-colony.
  • employees in the "advanced" foreign-owned industrial sectors within the semi-colony, which offer better wages and conditions to skilled workers, as compared to labourers and farmers working on the land.

The semi-colonial situation however disadvantages the working majority of the population, insofar as balanced economic development is impossible - only those industries are developed which benefit foreign investors or which benefit the export trade (usually extractive and foodstuff industries).[12]

The class structure of a "typical" semi-colony features a large mass of peasants and unemployed, a relatively small urban working class and middle class, a class of landowners, and an urban comprador bourgeoisie. However, a variety of class structures and complex political trajectories are possible. For example, for a century New Zealand was a British settler colony which simultanenously engaged in imperialist interventions and annexations in the Pacific.[13] In what is now Israel, a new colonial settler state arose out of a Zionist rebellion against the British Mandate in Palestine in 1948 as well as a war against the indigenous Palestinian and Arab inhabitants; the state of Israel depends heavily on military, economic and political support from the federal government of the United States.[14]

Origins of the term

[edit]

In his pamphlet on imperialism (1917), V.I. Lenin wrote:

"As to the “semicolonial” states, they provide an example of the transitional forms which are to be found in all spheres of nature and society. Finance capital is such a great, such a decisive, you might say, force in all economic and in all international relations, that it is capable of subjecting, and actually does subject, to itself even states enjoying the fullest political independence; we shall shortly see examples of this. Of course, finance capital finds most “convenient”, and derives the greatest profit from, a form of subjection which involves the loss of the political independence of the subjected countries and peoples. In this respect, the semi-colonial countries provide a typical example of the “middle stage”. It is natural that the struggle for these semidependent countries should have become particularly bitter in the epoch of finance capital, when the rest of the world has already been divided up."[15]

The concept of a "semi-colony" was popularized in the earlier years of the Communist International,[16] which classified the countries of the world as being either imperialist countries, semi-colonies, and colonies.[17] From that definition followed a political strategy for the labour movement in each type of country (for example as regards nationalisation of industry, workers' rights, democratisation, the ownership of land).[18] The general perspective of the Communist International was that it was impossible for semi-colonial countries to achieve substantive industrialisation, agrarian reform and the transformation of property relations without a socialist and democratic revolution. In other words, the power of semi-colonial elite had to be overthrown by the workers and peasants, to liberate the country from its client-relationship with foreign powers, and make comprehensive local economic development possible.[19]

The category of "intermediate countries" was officially introduced in the later 1920s. Thus, for example, at the 15th Congress of the CPSU in 1927, Stalin stated: “Judge for yourselves. Of the 1,905 million inhabitants of the entire globe, 1,134 million live in the colonies and dependent countries, 143,000,000 live in the U.S.S.R., 264,000,000 live in the intermediate countries, and only 363,000,000 live in the big imperialist countries, which oppress the colonies and dependent countries.” [20]

Subsequently the theoretical discussion about the concept of a semi-colony was influenced by historical studies about semi-colonialism in pre-revolutionary China.[21] The concept of "semi-colony" has continued to be used in the Maoist movement, including the Shining Path in Peru, the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and the Communist Party of the Philippines which regard their respective countries as "semi-colonies".

Some Trotskyist groups, such as the League for a Fifth International interpret Lenin's analysis of imperialism in a way which defines the vast majority of states in the world as semi-colonies, including all of Eastern Europe.[22]

Controversy

[edit]

With the expansion of the world market and globalisation especially from the 1970s onwards, the "semi-colonial" status of particular countries became more ambiguous because a number of them (such as the Four Asian Tigers, and the BRICS countries) were able to industrialize to a significant extent within the capitalist world market and without overthrowing the capitalist state, becoming at least "semi-industrialized" or even fully industrialized countries (see also newly industrialized country).[23] They gained more financial, political and cultural autonomy, they abandoned the old colonial culture, and the local elite became a major foreign investor in its own right. They were no longer clearly under the control of another foreign country, although to a large extent still dominated by several wealthier countries and international financial institutions.

This raised the question of whether the concept of a "semi-colony" is still relevant, or whether it has become an archaic concept that cannot accurately describe current realities in world society anymore.[24] For example, Australia has been described as a "client state".[25] Whatever the case, the definition of a country as a "semi-colony" refers to a specific analysis of its place in the world economy, world trade and the world political order, as well as to its local political/economic culture and social structure.

See also

[edit]
[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Ronaldo Munck, "Dependency and imperialism in Latin America: new horizons", in: Ronald H. Chilcote (ed.), The Political Economy of Imperialism. London: Bloomsbury, 2000.
  2. ^ Jack Woddis, An introduction to neo-colonialism. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1967.
  3. ^ For example, Ronaldo Munck, "Dependency and imperialism in Latin America: new horizons", in: Ronald H. Chilcote (ed.), The Political Economy of Imperialism. London: Bloomsbury, 2000; Bruce Berman, Control & Crisis in Colonial Kenya: The Dialectic of Domination. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1990.
  4. ^ Taoyu Yang, "Redefining Semi-Colonialism: A Historiographical Essay on British Colonial Presence in China". Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History, volume 20, issue 3, 2019; Bruce Berman, Control & Crisis in Colonial Kenya: The Dialectic of Domination. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1990.
  5. ^ Michael Pröbsting, Greece: A Modern Semi-Colony. The Contradictory Development of Greek Capitalism and Its Failed Attempts to Become a Minor Imperialist Power. Vienna: Revolutionary Communist International Tendency, 2015.
  6. ^ David Bedggood, "New Zealand's Semi-Colonial Development: A Marxist View". Journal of Sociology, volume 14, issue 3, 1978.
  7. ^ Donald Denoon, Settler Capitalism: The Dynamics of Dependent Development in the Southern Hemisphere. Oxford University Press, 1983; Sai Englert, Settler Colonialism: An Introduction. London: Pluto, 2022.
  8. ^ *Stanley L. Engerman & Kenneth L. Sokoloff, Colonialism, inequality, and long-run paths of development. Cambridge, MA : National Bureau of Economic Research, 2005.
  9. ^ Michael Löwy, The politics of uneven and combined development. London: Verso, 1987.
  10. ^ For example, Prabhakar Singh, "Of International Law, Semi-colonial Thailand, and Imperial Ghosts". Asian Journal of International Law, Vol.9, No. 1, 2018, pp. 1-29.
  11. ^ Ronald H. Chilcote, Imperialism: Theoretical Directions. Humanities Press, 2000; Ronald H. Chilcote (ed.), The Political Economy of Imperialism. London: Bloomsbury, 2000.
  12. ^ *Ronald H. Chilcote, Dependency and Marxism: Toward a Resolution of the Debate.
  13. ^ Nicholas Hoare, New Zealand’s ‘Critics of Empire’: Domestic Opposition to New Zealand’s Pacific Empire, 1883-1948. Masters Thesis, Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand), 2014.[1]
  14. ^ Maxime Rodinson, Israel: a colonial-settler state?. New York: Monad Press, 1973.
  15. ^ V.I. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism: A Popular Outline (1917), towards the end of chapter VI. ("Division of the World Among the Great Powers").[2]
  16. ^ Communist International, The revolutionary movement in the colonies: theses on the revolutionary movement in the colonies and semi-colonies. New York: Workers Library, 1929; Oleksa Drachewych, "Settler Colonialism and the Communist International", in: Immanuel Ness & Zak Cope (eds.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of imperialism and anti-imperialism, 2nd edition. Cham: Springer Nature, 2021, pp. 2417-2423.
  17. ^ The Communist International, 1919-1943; documents, selected and edited by Jane Degras. Oxford University Press, 1956-65.
  18. ^ William Henry Tobin, The communist theory of revolution in colonial and semi-colonial countries; its origin and early execution in the Chinese Revolution, 1920-1927. Phd dissertation, Harvard University, 1968.
  19. ^ “The Dynamics of World Revolution Today”, resolution adopted at the 1963 Reunification Congress of the Fourth International.
  20. ^ J. V. Stalin, “Political Report of the Central Committee,” Speech delivered at the Fifteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.), J.V. Stalin Works, Vol. 10.
  21. ^ Jürgen Osterhammel, "Semi-Colonialism and Informal Empire in Twentieth-Century China: Towards a Framework of Analysis". In: Wolfgang J, Mommsen, Imperialism and after: continuities and discontinuities. London: Allen & Unwin, 1986, pp. 290-314; Nicholas Zeller, "Semi-colonialism in China". in: Immanuel Ness & Zak Cope (eds.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of imperialism and anti-imperialism, 2nd edition. Cham: Springer Nature, 2021. pp. 2383-2396.
  22. ^ SWP and imperialism Archived 2007-06-27 at the Wayback Machine
  23. ^ Ernest Mandel, "Semicolonial Countries and Semi-Industrialized Dependent Countries", New International (New York), No.5, 1985, pp. 149–175); Nigel Harris, The end of the third world: newly industrializing countries and the decline of an ideology. London: Penguin Books, 1990.
  24. ^ John Bellamy Foster, "The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left". Monthly Review (New York), Vol.76, No. 6, November 2024.[3]
  25. ^ Greg Crough and Ted Wheelwright, Australia: A Client State. Ringwood, Victoria: Penguin Books, 1982.