In recent decades, bourgeois historiography, seeking to refute Lenin's theory of imperialism, has paid much attention to the colonial expansion of the late nineteenth century. A particularly large number of publications of documents, articles, and monographs are devoted to British colonialism, the reasons for the intensification of the race for colonies, the nature of expansion, and its driving forces. All this literature fits into modern neo-colonialist historiography, which seeks to "forget" the true history of colonialism, to present the countries of the West as "disinterested" friends of the peoples of Asia and Africa.

The liquidation of colonial empires meant not only the collapse of traditional concepts of the "civilizing mission", but also testified to the unfitness of the methodological tools of bourgeois historiography, which is forced to rebuild, abandon some outdated and compromised concepts, and search for a new methodology. The growth of the authority of Marxist-Leninist historiography, as well as the emergence of national historiography in the countries of Asia and Africa, acting from anti-imperialist positions, had a certain impact in this regard. However, while constructing neo-colonialist concepts, bourgeois historians have not been able to overcome the fundamental flaws of their methodology, which makes it difficult not only to objectively assess the reality of today's world, but also to correctly interpret the history of expansion. The revision of the previous concepts turned out to be superficial, and on some points bourgeois historians even took a step back from the previous approach.

Soviet historians have already done considerable work in criticizing the latest bourgeois historiography of colonialism .1 The purpose of this review is to analyze and criticize the methodological foundations of modern trends in the study of the history of colonial expansion in the last third of the XIX century in English and American bourgeois historiography of the 70s - early 80s.

In the 1960s, the main tendency of bourgeois historiography was to try to deny the existence of any incentives for expansion that were organically inherent in the development of the capitalist powers themselves, in particular England .Colonial expansion was portrayed as a series of random, isolated events that were not related to the socio-economic development of the mother country. 2 It has often been suggested that attention should be focused on the pre-colonial period of the history of the peoples of Asia and Africa, and that the "short-term" period of colonialism should not be studied at all and, in any case, should not be focused on it.

1 Chernyak E. B. Lawyers of Colonialism, Moscow, 1964; Vinogradov K. B. Essays on English historiography of the new and modern times, L. 1975; Erofeev N. A. English colonialism in the middle of the XIX century, Moscow, 1977; Parfenov I. D. England and the division of the world in the last third of the XIX century. Problems of historiography. Saratov. 1978; Patrushev A. I. Inconsistency of the concept of imperialism in the bourgeois historiography of the Federal Republic of Germany. - New and recent History, 1978, N 5; and others.

2 Parfenov I. D. New trends in modern English historiography of the colonial expansion of the XIX century. - Voprosy istorii, 1978, N 3.

page 158

However, the peoples of Asia and Africa cannot forget the times of colonial rule. Criticism of imperialist policies, especially in the United States and Great Britain, is growing. Under these conditions, bourgeois historians are trying to revive (albeit in a modified form) the thesis of the "civilizing" mission of the colonialists. Even timid criticism of colonial policy began to disappear from the literature on this topic.

In the early 70s, the international scientific Center for the Study of European Expansion was established in Leiden (Holland), which brought together all the well-known experts on "imperial problems", who noted with some concern that the current interpretation of the expansion of European colonialists as unplanned and uncontrolled clearly detracts from the historical role of Europe, which supposedly developed together with the Soviet Union. colonies in the direction of a certain "global civilization" 3 . Another publication published by this center4 spoke of the need to strengthen criticism of Lenin's theory of imperialism and the corresponding methodological rearmament of historians. The task was to expand the scope of research, study the economic, social and cultural history of colonial peoples, move from an" event-based "history to a "structural" one, from studying individual themes, sides and periods to creating a "synthetic" picture. Special hopes were pinned on the application of the comparative historical method5 . These calls have not yet been implemented, which is confirmed, in particular, by the example of The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, published in England since 1971. Some of the articles published in this publication contain valuable factual material obtained as a result of applying new research methods. However, the advertised "new" approach has largely turned out to be traditional.

In the 60s and 70s, many works were published on various theories of imperialism. Their aim was to challenge and refute Lenin's theory of imperialism, which, as some serious Western researchers also admit ,has stood the test of time and the practice of revolutionary struggle. 6 Ideologists of the British bourgeoisie use for this purpose the works of their West German colleagues, in particular W. Baumgart and W. Mommsen, who are characterized by a pluralistic approach with an emphasis on political and psychological interpretations of imperialism. 7 Bourgeois authors try to revive the old lie that Lenin's theory of imperialism was borrowed from the English economist D. Hobson, and portray it as a purely economic doctrine that treats only the export of capital. There are still works that deny the role of big capital and financiers in the colonial expansion and exploitation of the conquered territories, in particular in the outbreak of the Anglo-Boer War .8 A book on foreign capital in Latin America has been written in the same vein. The authors of this collective work claim that British firms were "absolutely disinterested", did not interfere in the internal affairs of states and did not demand special benefits from local authorities .9 With an outspoken apology for multinational corporations (TNCs), shamelessly robbing many

3 Expansion and Reaction. Leiden. 1974, p. 10.

4 Reappraisals in Oversea History. Leiden. 1979.

5 Ibid., p. 15.

6 Koebner R., Schmidt H. Imperialism. Cambridge. 1964; Kemp T. The Theories of Imperialism. Lnd. 1967; Fieldhouse D. The Theory of Capitalist Imperialism. N. Y. 1967; Studies in the Theory of Imperialism. Lnd. 1972; Brown M. Economics of Imperialism. Lnd. 1974; European Imperialism and Partition of Africa. Lnd. 1975. См. специальный номер "Journal of Economic History", March, 1982. For a critique of these concepts, see: Chernyak E. B. Leninist Theory of Imperialism and the latest Bourgeois Historiography. In: Critique of Modern Bourgeois and Reformist Historiography, Moscow, 1974; Parfenov I. D. Uk. soch.

7 Baumgarf W. Imperialism. Oxford. 1982; Mo mm sen W. Theories of Imperialism. Lnd. 1981. For a critique of these concepts, see: Patrushev A. I. Uk. soch., pp. 50-59.

8 См., напр., Kubicek R. Economic Imperialism in the Theory and Practice. The Case of South Africa. Gold Mining Finance. 1886 - 1914. Durham. 1979, pp. 203, 204.

9 Business Imperialism. Lnd. 1977.

page 159

developing countries, spoke Oxford historian D. Fieldhouse, who portrays the English company Unilever as a "useful" and "good citizen" of those countries where its branches operate. The book, which is a typical example of the historian's groveling before big business, does not mention a single word about the predatory policies of monopolies that exploit underdeveloped countries .10 In his new book, D. Fieldhouse develops the thesis that colonialism was a "lesser evil" compared to the" anarchy " that supposedly prevailed in the countries of Asia and Africa on the eve of their conquest. 11
In a special article, M. Stenson summed up the results of bourgeois historians ' criticism of Lenin's theory of imperialism. He was forced to admit that they had failed to shake this theory, to prevent its further growth of influence, especially in developing countries. The author pointed out the overexposure allowed by bourgeois authors who reproach V. I. Lenin for underestimating the political factors of expansion. He criticized the New Left and other radical historians for their eclecticism on the subject. However, M. Stenson himself adheres to the" psychological " interpretation of imperialism given by J. Schumpeter .12
Attempts to belittle the significance of the work of the English economist D. Hobson "Imperialism", published as early as 1902, are very characteristic. As is well known, Lenin, who rejected the author's reformist concept, used in his book Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism the factual material and individual conclusions of this work, which contained, in his words, "a very good and detailed description of the main economic and political features of imperialism."13 Attacks on Hobson aim to refute his thesis on the importance of capital exports and the role of financiers in colonial expansion .14
Many bourgeois historians try to counter the materialist, Marxist-Leninist interpretation of the problems of imperialist expansion with a pluralist approach, referring to the fact that such a complex phenomenon as colonial expansion cannot be explained by "one" theory at all .15 An extreme expression of such a multi-factor approach can be considered the work of the English historian K. A. Kropotkin. Eldridge, who cites more than 20 factors that, in his opinion, determined the expansion of the British Empire 16 . This, of course, does not solve the problems in any way, since it remains unclear which of them were the main ones. In practice, however, bourgeois scientists, adherents of multi-factorism, still distinguish one or another of them as decisive: most often-political, psychological, in rare cases, economic (understood very simplistically, in a vulgar-materialistic spirit). In accordance with this, it is possible to distinguish "political", "psychological" and "economic" trends in the modern bourgeois historiography of colonial expansion.

The "political" direction is very influential in English historiography. Its representatives are characterized by claims that England acquired colonies allegedly only for reasons of prestige, trying to maintain its position as a great power in the fight against competitors; the colonies were used as a bargaining chip in the diplomatic game and did not play any significant role in the economy of England.

The most influential concept in the 1960s was that of Cambridge historians R. Robinson and D. Gallagher, formulated in their controversial book Africa and the Victorians .17 The essence of this, as it was called, "peripheral" theo-

10 Fieldhouse D. Unilever Oversea. The Anatomy of Multinational 1895 - 1965 Stanford. 1978, p. 579.

11 Fieldhouse D. Colonialism. 1870 - 1945. Lnd. 1981, p. 48.

12 Stenson M. The Economic Interpretation of Imperialism. - New Zealand Journal of History, 1976, N 2.

13 Lenin V. I. PSS. T. 27, p. 309.

14 See, for example, Cain P. The Hobson, Cobdenism and the Radical Theory of Economic Imperialism. 1898 - 1914. - The Economic History Review, 1978, N 4; и др.

15 Marshall P. European Imperialism in the 19th Century. - History Today, vol. 32, May 1982, pp. 49 - 51.

16 Eldridge C. C. Victorian Imperialism. Lnd. 1978, pp. 144 - 145.

17 Robinson R., Gallacher D. Africa and Victorians. Lnd. 1961.

page 160

The theory was based on the assertion that the reasons for the colonial seizures were not at all in the interest of England or the British capitalists in acquiring new territories, but in the difficult political situation prevailing in Africa itself. The Arabi Pasha revolt in Egypt and the Boer "mutiny "in South Africa forced the British Government to take"retaliatory measures." According to the authors of this concept, at the end of the XIX century there were no new moments in the policy of colonial expansion. The latter was characterized by "continuity" throughout the XIX century.

Some historians have fully embraced this concept, calling it a " revolution in historiography." In 1976, a book by R. Louis 18 was published, which contained some materials in support of the main components of the concept of R. Robinson and D. Gallagher. At the same time, a number of historians, noting the unoriginality of their concept, which is one of the varieties of political interpretation of expansion, did not agree with the belittling of the role of economic motives (G. Shepperson, A. Newbery, A. Hopkins, G. Wehler, etc.). They did not accept the thesis that the division of Africa was caused by purely strategic considerations. Characteristically, Robinson and Gallagher never responded to their critics on the merits .19
Another attempt at a purely political explanation of the division of Africa was an article by the famous English historian G. Sanderson 20 . The author criticized the concept of pluralists and offered his own somewhat unexpected approach. In his opinion, it is impractical to look for new factors of colonial expansion, but it is necessary to try to determine which of the previous factors stopped working and when. Until the early 1970s, he argues, there was a British naval dominance at sea, other powers were hesitant to challenge England, and there was a balance of power in Africa between France and England. In 1875-1885, these factors ceased to work and the division of the continent began. Sanderson thus reduces the whole matter to a change in the balance of power of the capitalist Powers. Its concept is a variant of the version about the supposedly "defensive" nature of British expansion.

Cambridge published a book by T. Smith, who gave a geopolitical explanation of the expansion. He admits that until the 70s of the 19th century there was an "economic" factor, but in the last third of the 19th century, according to him, "preventive expansion" developed, which was guided by the political calculations of statesmen who allegedly sought to prevent the growth of anarchy in the countries of Asia and Africa .21
In the literature of the 60s and 70s, it became fashionable to assign responsibility for colonial seizures to "people on the ground": "proconsuls", missionaries, etc. Thus, B. Ratcliffe calls for abandoning the "monocausal" explanation of expansion and the search for "macropolitical" solutions in the "structural" economic changes in the mother country and suggests that the study of the problem should be considered. the mechanism of" cooperation "between the mother country and the colonies on the ground, a study of "micropolitical" decisions made on the" periphery " of the empire 22 . In his opinion, British expansion in West Africa was caused by political instability in this region and fear of expansion from France. P. Mailam developed this approach in relation to the history of Bechuanaland .23 The author assumes that it was "people on the ground" who drove British expansion. The policy of England, he believes, was determined by strategic considerations (providing bases on the way to India), the desire to prevent other powers from entering this area, limit the claims of the Boers, avoid increasing public spending, and protect the interests of the local population and white colonists-

18 Louis R. Imperialism. Robinson - Gallacher Controversy. N. Y. 1976.

19 See Gallacher J. The Decline, Revival and Fall of the British Empire. Cambridge. 1982.

20 Sanderson G. H. European Partition: Coincidence or Conjecture. In: European Imperialism and Partition of Africa. Lnd. 1975.

21 Smith T. The Pattern of Imperialism. Cambridge; 1981, p. 49.

22 Ratcliffe B. Commerce and Empire. Manchester Merchant and West Africa. 1873 - 1895. - Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, May 1979, p. 312.

23 Maylam P. Rhodes, the Tswana and the British Colonialism. Collaboration and Conflict in the Bechuanaland Protectorate. 1885 - 1899. Westpoirt. 1980.

page 161

stov. This author does not mention the relations of S. Rhodes with major English financiers at all.

In some cases, researchers who adhere to the "local" approach report interesting facts about the role of individuals and groups of "pressure". Thus, in his article on "missionary imperialism" as a product of "practical experience", A. Desh showed that missionaries were not limited to religious sermons, but participated in the preparation of annexations .24
The development of the" psychological " direction is primarily connected with attempts to apply to the analysis of the English expansion the well-known theory of the Austrian economist J. R. R. Tolkien. Schumpeter's theory that the policy of colonial conquest is a psychological "throwback" left over from the feudal era. This approach allowed, for example, the aforementioned R. Robinson and D. Gallagher to blame the British aristocracy for the colonial seizures and whitewash large-scale capital .25 In recent years, neo-Freudian psychoanalysis has become widespread in English historiography. A vivid example of this is the generalizing work of the Cambridge historian R. Haham "The Imperial Century of Britain". The author considers the true driving forces of imperialist expansion to be "the excess of emotional and sexual energy of the British." According to him, the empire was a convenient place for "broken hearts, misogynists, and female lovers."26 Khaem insists that the colonialists did not want to create an empire. The main culprits of colonial seizures, he declares the British "proconsuls".

The "psychological" interpretation of expansion has become widespread. Almost all recent works on the history of expansion interpret it in this spirit: the erosion of confidence in the future of England at the end of the nineteenth century gave rise to a psychological need for aggressive imperialism among the British. In the book "False Dawn" by the American researcher R. Betts, it is argued that the expansion was caused by a sense of anxiety, that there were more emotions in imperialism than analytical reasoning. It was an "imperialism of concern" and fear. The created empire disappointed all 27 . However, who exactly was gripped by a sense of anxiety, who specifically was disappointed - Betts does not give an answer to this. Cambridge historian B. Porter suggests that the expansion was the result of a loss of "confidence", an increase in pessimism in the country. The colonial seizures, he argues,were random in nature and were a reaction to specific situations; they were justified later. The influence of business and imperialist ideology on colonial conquest is generally denied .28 Proponents of the" psychological " direction do not want to see the emergence of new incentives for colonial expansion in the last third of the XIX century, the desire of the "great" powers to divide and redistribute the world. It denies the existence of any organized movement in favor of colonial seizures, and most importantly, the conscious desire of big business and statesmen for colonial seizures.

Related to this trend is another, which was to portray the imperialists of the late nineteenth century as people who were deluded, who were at the mercy of illusions and myths, who supposedly associated illusory hopes with the empire, who did not represent all the difficulties associated with the development of colonies, and who overestimated the natural resources of the latter. It turns out that the statesmen also did not know what they were doing: they had no plans to expand the empire and did not want to acquire new colonies. The latter thesis is especially discussed in works on the history of the empire. Porter, for example, believes that the anti-imperialists took imperialism too seriously (D. Hobson, according to him, created the myth of imperialism)29 . All this is nothing more than an apology for colonial expansion, covered with a psychological fog.

24 См. Dachs A. Missionary Imperialism. The Case of Sechuanaland. - Journal of Africa History, 1972, N 4.

25 See Robinson R., Gallacher D. Op. cit.

26 Hyam R. Britain's Imperial Century. 1815 - 1914. Lnd. 1976, p. 135.

27 Betts R. The False Down. Minneapolis. 1975, pp. 171, 147.

28 See Porter B. Lion's Share. A Short History of British Imperialism. Lnd. 1975.

29 See Porter B. The Critics of Empire. Lnd. 1968.

page 162

One of the major modern bourgeois specialists in the history of empire, D. Galbraith, published two works in which he painted portraits of two figures of "privileged" companies-the Social Workers. Rhodes and W. McKinnon. Speaking about the reasons for expansion, this author puts in the first place "illusions" about the wealth of Africa. S. Rhodes, he writes, was not interested in money, because he was already rich, the main incentive for him was "self-assertion" 30 . Galbraith also attributes McKinnon's interest in Africa to a desire for "self-affirmation" and"recognition." 31
One example of the futility of "psychologizing history" is the work of the American historian D. Field, who based his approach on the theory of the German-American psychologist and sociologist E. Fromm (according to her, the link between the psyche of an individual and society is the "social character", the type of which directs the individual's activity in the "right" direction). Field seeks to prove that the dominant elite in England set the" man in the street "a" program of imperial life", linked the concept of "healthy social character" to empire, and thereby strengthened the stability of British society .32 At the same time, the empire itself is considered in isolation from the real historical reality, outside the class context. The book completely lacks a description of the role of the empire and imperial politics in the economy, social life and politics of England. Although political and psychological interpretations are the most common and can be considered "official" to some extent, the "economic" direction, which was initiated by D. Hobson, continues to exist, although it is on the defensive. There is a significant group of historians who study the role of trade and capital exports in the development of colonial expansion. They provide valuable work on particular specific issues. However, all of them reject Lenin's theory of imperialism and do not see behind the particulars the laws of the new epoch as a whole, which does not allow them to ultimately explain particular problems. As a result, there are clearly elements of a vulgar - economic approach, underestimation of political and ideological factors. The American researcher G. Wilson accuses his colleagues of underestimating the "economic factor" 33 . He explicitly says that the government sought to create a suitable climate for English entrepreneurship. At the same time, he develops the thesis that England is loyal to the policy of "free trade" and its "disinclination" to annexations.

A significant group of historians reduces the colonial expansion solely to the desire of England to satisfy its need for markets for goods. The Oxford historian D. Platt, for example, devoted an article and then a book to proving that in the 80s of the XIX century. Britain was concerned solely with protecting its trade and the principle of "free trade" from protectionist policies and competition from other Powers .34 A book on the division of Africa published by the University of Michigan (USA) claims that the main reason was the need for markets in England, and the main driving force behind the expansion is called the "middle class"35 . The role of the financial oligarchy and other factions of the ruling class is hushed up, but the personal role of Salisbury in the division of Africa is exaggerated. Such a personification of the historical process is quite in the spirit of bourgeois historiography.

The Canadian historian W. Hines 36 sees the main reason for the expansionism of the mid-nineteenth century in the needs arising from the economic development of Great Britain.-

30 Galbraith J. W. Corona and Charter. Lnd. 1974, p. 21.

31 Galbraith J. W. Mackinon and East Africa. Cambridge. 1972, pp. 32, 238.

32 Field J. H. Toward a Programme of Imperial Life. British Empire at the Turn Century. Westport. 1982, p. 239.

33 Wilson H. The Imperial Experience in Sub-Saharian Africa since 1870. Minneapolis. 1977, pp. 51, 63. ?

34 Platt D. Economic Factors in British Policy during the New Imperialism. - Past and Present, April 1968; ejusd. Finance, Trade and Politic in British Foreign Policy. 1815 - 1914; Oxford. 1968.

35 Usoigue G. Britain and the Conquest of Africa. Univ. of Michigan. 1974.

36 Hynes W. G. The Economics of Empire. Britain Africa and the New Imperialism, 1870 - 1985. Lnd. 1980.

page 163

this "workshop of the world", which imported raw materials and exported finished industrial products. Two issues particularly concerned entrepreneurs - the level of profit and the pace of expansion of sales markets. Since, he writes, in the last third of the nineteenth century, the British economy was experiencing crisis recessions, and exports were declining, the anxiety of businessmen grew, which pushed them on the path of expansion. According to Hines, the economic crises affected wholesale trade to a greater extent. For this reason, he focuses on the pressure exerted on the government by the Chambers of commerce that existed in all the major cities of England and the empire. Hines used the archives of the Chambers of Commerce and their correspondence with the Colonial and Foreign Ministries as his main sources. However, colonial expansion is seen by Hines only as a means of preserving the" free trade "policy.

Proponents of this point of view ignore the fact that England during these years was fighting for the preservation and expansion of its monopoly in industry and trade, and not for "free trade". Karl Marx also wrote: "Whenever we look closely at the nature of British free trade, we see monopoly at the heart of its 'freedom' almost everywhere. " 37 Hines wrongly narrows the concept of "driving forces of expansion", calling the main and only force of its commercial circles associated with wholesale trade. It does not take into account the financial oligarchy, does not want to take into account the new forms and methods of expansion associated with the transition to imperialism. For example, he says that he is not interested in South Africa, because there was "local" expansionism, to which the chambers of commerce had nothing to do, 38 and he simply does not mention the well-known connections of S. Rhodes with English financiers.

Since the mid-60s, the English historian A. Hopkins 39 began to develop the concept of "commercial imperialism", according to which the division of Africa was caused by the crisis of trade, which developed in the conditions of economic depression. Like Hines, he exaggerates the role of chambers of commerce in imperial politics. The author mentions the role of monopolies in the colonies, outlines the main stages in the evolution of forms of exploitation of colonial peoples, raises many other problems, such as the relationship between government and business, the unity of the bourgeois class, etc., but does not solve them. The general thrust of his work is clear : the author opposes the excessive apology of business, but also does not agree with the radical criticism of imperialism by Marxism.

To. Riley 40 admits that the interests of business and government were closely intertwined in the colonial policy, the government pursued, in his words, a policy of neo-mercantilism, the essence of which was not so much to support foreign trade and search for markets, but to develop the resources of Africa: opening access to mineral wealth and valuable agricultural land, for which, in fact,, and required state assistance 41 . From the point of view of another historian, D. Hendrik, the main reason for colonialism was the technical superiority of Europeans: the presence of steamboats, firearms, developed communications (telegraph cables, railways) made it possible to exercise effective control over colonial resources. But the author is actually talking about the conditions that contributed to the implementation of imperialist expansion, and not about its incentives and driving forces .42
The role of British foreign investment in the expansion is still being discussed. Despite many years of attempts to "debunk" D. Hobson, he still has followers. The American economist M. Edelyntein pointed,

37 K. Marx and F. Engels Soch. Vol. 12, p. 571.

38 Hynes W. Op. cit., p. 105.

39 Hopkins A. Economic History of West Africa. Lnd. 1973; ejusd. Imperial Business in Africa. - Journal of African History, 1976, N 1 - 2.

40 Wrigley S. С New-Mercantile Policies and the New Imperialism. In: Imperial Impact: Studies in the Economic History of Africa and India. Lnd. 1978.

41 Ibid., p. 28.

42 Hendrick D. The Tools of Empire. Technology and European Imperialism in Nineteenth Century. N. Y. 1981.

page 164

that the level of profitability of overseas investments was higher than at home, and this, as he notes, "disarmed" opponents of expansion .43 The depression encouraged the export of capital. The author defends the thesis about the connection of "overseas" investments with imperial policy. A recently published article by J. I. Davis and E. Hattenbeck [44] shows the special profitability of imperial investments (absence of competitors, tax exemption). The "cost" of the conquest itself, the" pacification " of the conquered peoples, was transferred to the British taxpayers, i.e., the working people of England. One of the highest levels of military spending (in terms of per capita) in 1850-1914 was in England (1.32 pounds). The authors conclude that the imperial policy was beneficial to financiers, large banks, and gentry, but they clearly underestimate the role of industrial capital in colonial expansion.

A notable phenomenon in historiography was the article published in 1975 by A. Atmor and S. Marx, who opposed the underestimation of the role of the economic factor in the South African expansion of England. They claim that the Boer War was fought in the interests of gold mine owners associated with English financiers. 45 Radical historiography should include the work of journalist G. Lanning on the history of the diamond monopoly "De Beers", forms and methods of exploitation of the local population .46 Interesting is the work of R. Wolf, which for the first time in English historiography shows the role of "new" colonies in the trade of England and the export of capital .47
Thus, there is a variety of interpretations, concepts, and approaches to the problem. However, despite some progress in the study of individual issues and aspects of colonial expansion, bourgeois historiography still leaves unanswered the question of the motives and incentives driving the expansion. Bourgeois researchers ignore the organic connection between colonial expansion and the process of capitalist production. The problems of expansion are not considered in organic connection with the economic and political processes, the class struggle that took place in the mother country.

Another essential defect is the unwillingness to take into account the general laws of development of the world capitalist economy, the struggle for the division and division of the world. Bourgeois historians explain the colonial expansion of France by the desire to raise its prestige after the defeat in the war with Germany, Germany - by the internal political calculations of the "iron" chancellor, England - by the presence of the "idea of empire". Bourgeois researchers understand imperialism itself as a policy of colonial conquest, ignoring the profound changes in the world economy and the development of capitalism that has entered the stage of imperialism. Lenin wrote: "The productive forces of society and the size of capital have outgrown the narrow limits of individual national states. Hence the desire of the great Powers to enslave foreign nations, to seize colonies as sources of raw materials and places of export of capital. The whole world merges into one economic organism, the whole world is divided among a handful of great powers. " 48 The separation of economics from politics and even their juxtaposition do not allow bourgeois researchers to give a correct assessment of the positions of political parties and individual statesmen.

Bourgeois historians distort and vulgarize the Marxist approach to the history of colonial expansion. In fact, Marxist historians look at the history of colonial expansion in all its complexity and complexity, in all its complexity and complexity.-

43 Edelstein M. Oversea Investment in the Age of High Imperialism. The United Kingdom. 1850 - 1914. Methuen. 1982, p. 159.

44 Davis J. E., Huttenback K. The Political Economy of British Imperialism. - Journal of Economic History, vol. XLII, N 1, March 1982.

45 Atmore A., Marks S. The Imperial Factor in South Africa in the Nineteenth Century: Towards a Re-Assesment. In: European Imperialism and the Partition of Africa, p. 126.

46 Lanning G. Africa Undermined. Mining Companies and the Underdevelopment of Africa. Penguin Book. 1979.

47 Wolf R. D. The Economics of Colonialism. Britain and Kenya. 1870 - 1930. New Haven. 1974, Ch. 1.

48 Lenin V. I. PSS. Vol. 26, p. 282.

page 165

first, as a product of the capitalist mode of production, capitalist relations of production, showing the active role of the bourgeois superstructure in the implementation of expansion, the importance and place of colonies in the economy and politics of the leading capitalist powers; secondly, exploring the specific causes, terms, forms and methods of seizing a particular territory, which were determined by the situation in a given country, in particular the position of other capitalist powers, taking into account the political and strategic considerations that influenced the capture of a particular colony.

It is obvious that the main thesis of English bourgeois historiography about the supposedly defensive nature of the actions of the British government is untenable. The British Empire, relying on its industrial and military power, pursued a well-thought-out and purposeful policy of colonial expansion, as a result of which it captured more colonies than any other capitalist country. The tendency to present colonial seizures as the work of "people on the ground" - representatives of privileged companies, colonial officials, and the military-who allegedly exceeded their authority and confronted "innocent" statesmen in London with a fait accompli is also untenable. In fact, all responsible steps were sanctioned by London. This is as indisputable a historical fact as the interest of private capital, monopolists, and the largest financial magnates in expanding the empire. The state, which expressed the interests of big capital, financiers, paved the way for monopolies, expanding the borders of the empire.

By the early twentieth century, the British economy was based on the financial exploitation of the entire world and a vast colonial empire. Moreover, the financial empire was wider than the visible-colonial-empire. However, the most reliable and guaranteed markets, sources of raw materials, and areas of capital application were located within the borders of the colonial empire, because only this form of domination gave a complete monopoly, allowed effective exploitation of new territories, and protected other capitalist powers from competition.

page 166

Permanent link to this publication: