Theories of

European
Imperialism in By
the Eighteenth Johnson Sesan Michael
and Nineteenth www.smbafrica.org
smbafrica@gmail.com
Centuries

Abstract:
Imperialism as a phenomenon had received and is still receiving wide
currency. Arguably, imperialism is highly linked to both capitalism, and
colonialism, however, imperialism had been in existence long before
capitalism and colonialism. One thing that is evident is that imperialism
contributed to the emergence of both capitalism and colonialism.

The immense multiplicity of elucidations on imperialism has become an

eclectic and cacophonous blend of academic supposition, ideological
positions, and rhetorical expositions as the basic questions that
characterize the mainstream or canonical views of imperialism, like
what it is, what constitutes it, what are (or were) its causes and effects,
and is it still existing, have become subject to a wider range of
reconstruction, contestation and reinterpretation.

Significantly, this work is set to scrutinize some of the theories of

imperialism vis-à-vis the foundation upon which European imperialism
was established in the 17th and 18th-century. In doing this, attempt shall
be made to consider the works of people such as John. A. Hobson,
(Imperialism: A Study, 1902); Vladimir Illyich Lenin (1870-1924),
(Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism, 1916); Adams Smith, (An
Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776); Karl
Marx; etc.
Theories of European Imperialism in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries by Sesan Michael Johnson, BA
History & Int l Relations, OAU, Ife, Nigeria

INTRODUCTION

Imperialism as a phenomenon had received and is still receiving wide currency.

Arguably, imperialism is highly linked to both capitalism, and colonialism, however,
imperialism had been in existence long before capitalism and colonialism. One thing
that is evident is that imperialism contributed to the emergence of both capitalism and
colonialism.

The immense multiplicity of elucidations on imperialism has become an eclectic

and cacophonous blend of academic supposition, ideological positions, and rhetorical
expositions as the basic questions that characterize the mainstream or canonical views
of imperialism, like what it is, what constitutes it, what are (or were) its causes and
effects, and is it still existing, have become subject to a wider range of reconstruction,
contestation and reinterpretation.

Significantly, this work is set to scrutinize some of the theories of imperialism

vis-à-vis the foundation upon which European imperialism was established in the 17 th
and 18th-century. In doing this, attempt shall be made to consider the works of people
such as John. A. Hobson, (Imperialism: A Study, 1902); Vladimir Illyich Lenin (1870-
1924), (Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism, 1916); Adams Smith, (An Inquiry
into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776); Karl Marx; etc.

Imperialism: Concept and Definitions

To Marxists, imperialism is not simply the trend towards expansion or the

conquest of foreign lands, as it is defined by most political scientists and sociologists.
The word is used in a much more precise sense to describe the general changes which
occurred in the political, economic and social activity of the big bourgeoisie of the
advanced capitalist countries, beginning in the last quarter of the 19th century. These
changes were closely related to alterations in the basic structure of this bourgeoisie.

Lenin defines imperialism as a specific historical stage of capitalism. He further

describes imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism . According Lenin imperialism
specific character is threefold: (a) imperialism is monopoly capitalism; (b) parasitic or
decaying capitalism; (c) moribund capitalism.
Theories of European Imperialism in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries by Sesan Michael Johnson, BA
History & Int l Relations, OAU, Ife, Nigeria

Lenin remarked that If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition
of imperialism he would have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of
capitalism. However, Lenin went well beyond this fundamental proposition, and he
hypothesized that modern imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism . He gave a
more elaborate 5-point definition of capitalist imperialism as follows:

And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all
definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a
phenomenon in its complete development, we must give a definition of
imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features: (1) the
concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage
that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;(
2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on
the basis of this finance capital, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of
capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires
exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist
capitalist combines which share the world among themselves, and (5) the
territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers
is completed. Imperialism is capitalism in that stage of development in
which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital has established
itself; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance;
in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun;
in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest
capitalist powers has been completed.

John A. Hobson in his book titled Imperialism: A Study elucidated out that
imperialism was as a result of explosion or surplus in Europe that is needed in Africa,
however, not for the benefits of Africa but the benefits of Europe. Hobson identified
contemporary European imperialism as a historically unprecedented thing.

For Hobson imperialism represents a more or less conscious and organized

effort of a nation to expand its old political boundaries and take in by annexation other
outside countries where its citizens have acquired strong industrial interests.

Imperialism can be said to be a stage in development that redefines human

status with two competing groups of dominance and subservient. Imperialism is empire
building. The empires of Europe, including those of the UK, France, the Netherlands,
Germany, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, and Russia, reached their greatest extent in the 19 th
century. Although partly a continuation of the expansionist policy of previous centuries,
Theories of European Imperialism in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries by Sesan Michael Johnson, BA
History & Int l Relations, OAU, Ife, Nigeria

these nations increased their efforts to extend their powers and influence across the
globe. At various times during the 19th century, Europeans held control over the
continents of South America, Africa, Asia, and Australasia.

Paradoxically, the earliest victims of Western European imperialism were other

Europeans. Some 800 years ago, Ireland became the first colony of what later became
known as the British Empire. Other early Caucasian victims included the Eastern
Europeans. The people Charlemagne worked to death in his mines in the early part of
the ninth century were Slavs. European global imperialism had actually begun in the
fifteenth century, but the process greatly accelerated in the nineteenth century.

Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, were undoubtedly characterized by series

of wars and expeditions, the creation or the expansion of colonial empires: the French
expeditions to Tonkin (now Vietnam), Tunisia and Morocco; the conquest of the Congo
by Leopold II; the British expansion to the boundaries of India, Egypt and the Sudan,
East and South Africa; the German and Italian expansions in Africa, etc.

The term imperialism poses certain problems, since the term has been used
almost exclusively by Communists since the 1940's to describe the current behavior of
Western powers. This is quite odd, since there is a deep split among bourgeois
ideologues about whether or not imperialism is a necessary part of capitalism.
Imperialism is obviously an unambiguous historical phase in the history of Europe, the
USA, and Japan, and there are ample grounds for saying the USSR too engaged in
imperialism.

Foundations and Theories of Eighteenth & Nineteenth Centuries European

Imperialism

We shall consider different theories that have been put forward to explain the
foundation of European imperialism. We shall consider Political Theory, Economic
Theory, Cultural Theory, among others.

Political Theory

According to political theorists like Morgenthau, and Cohen imperialism is simply

a manifestation of the balance of power and it is the process by which nations try to
Theories of European Imperialism in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries by Sesan Michael Johnson, BA
History & Int l Relations, OAU, Ife, Nigeria

achieve a favorable change in the status quo. The purpose of imperialism is to decrease
the strategic and political vulnerability of a nation. No doubt political consideration
played a major part in motivating European imperialism in the 18 th and 19th centuries.
British politicians such as Benjamin Disraeli and the Marquees of Salisbury promoted
the glory of an empire on which the Sun never sets . In Germany, the Kaiser and his
government demanded that Germany be given equal status with France and the UK,
which included colonial possessions. This thus accentuated political rivalries between
and amongst European nations. The UK and France, both leading imperial powers, had
fought over control of India, and North America. The UK had also come into conflict with
Spain over trading rights in South America.

Particularly in Western Europe the pride of having a great empire was also a key
factor influencing European imperialism in the 18th and 19th centuries. Pride in empire
had already proved important in France and the UK, the two most powerful empire-
builders, and its importance was demonstrated by the new states of Italy and Germany,
who were quick to establish their own empires in the second half of the 19th century.

While writing about Britain s imperialism J.S. Mill's third defense of imperialism
was that it increased England's political power and eminence. Conventionally, Britain
protected her areas of influence because, they might well be taken over by, and add to
the power of rival nations. Indeed, this was typical of all European powers of the 18th
and 19th centuries. Generally speaking, almost all the European powers joined in the
race towards imperialism.

According to John A. Hobson in a Contemporary Review article of 1903, while

using political theory to explain imperialism he took the arguments about protection
much further than was the case in his book Imperialism: A Study, and he tried to show
how intimately linked were protection and imperialism.

Therefore, imperialism represents a more or less conscious and organized effort

of a nation to expand its old political boundaries and take in by annexation other
outside countries where its citizens have acquired strong industrial interests. Protection
represents the converse tendency, an effort to prevent industrial interests from
wandering outside the political limits of the nation, to keep capital and labor employed
within the political area.
Theories of European Imperialism in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries by Sesan Michael Johnson, BA
History & Int l Relations, OAU, Ife, Nigeria

Economic Orthodoxy

Writers like John A. Hobson and Angell pointed out that imperialism is a policy
choice, and not an inevitable consequence of capitalism. Increasing concentration of
wealth within the richer countries leads to under-consumption for the mass of people.
Overseas expansion is a way to reduce costs and to secure new consumption. Overseas
expansion is not inevitable, however. A state can solve the problem of under-
consumption by increasing the income levels of the majority of the population either
through legislation concerning wage levels (minimum wage laws, legalization of unions,
child labor laws) or through income transfers (unemployment compensation, welfare).

Looking back the Industrial Revolution that swept across Europe in the 18 th and
19th centuries was a major factor in the acceleration of European imperialism.
Industries in European metropolis were in dire need of raw materials such as cotton,
silk, palm oil, etc. These raw materials were readily available in Africa and other parts of
the globe; hence, this propelled the European powers to accelerate European
imperialism.

Thus, the investors or the industrial barons greatly influenced the European
government in pursuing imperialism. Colonies acquired through imperialism are
foreign markets for the products of the industries of the metropolis. Coupled with this,
is the fact that raw materials were gotten from them at a very low rates.

Hobson in his argument considers the role of finance capital as 'governor' of the
engine of imperialism, he made many accurate observations heretofore ignored:
imperialism's primary beneficiary and primary instigator was a congeries of financial
and industrial interests, divorced from those of the rest of the nation, and intent on
terminating the competitive conditions that a free market economy is said to promote.
The object of imperialism was to ensure that today's market winners would be
tomorrow's winners, and their winnings would be bigger.

So we find Hobson writing, in language reminiscent of J. S. Mill, that:

when the safest, most fundamental and upon the whole, most profitable
employments for capital at home have been already amply furnished by our saving
and investing classes, it is natural, desirable, and even necessary, that large
quantities of the fresh capital should be placed further afield
Theories of European Imperialism in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries by Sesan Michael Johnson, BA
History & Int l Relations, OAU, Ife, Nigeria

Hobson did not altogether forget his old position that foreign investment was a source of
imperialist exploitation, he pointed out that:

as foreign trade and foreign investment advance it becomes a more

important and more useful function of every government to try to secure for
its citizens new markets for their goods and for their capital, and to employ
public diplomacy and force to improve the markets already got and the
capital already invested.

Hobson had no doubt that the prime cause of imperialism was "the pressure of
the investing class for larger and safer areas of profitable investment", pressure which
often led to wars which were beneficial to certain interests within -each nation, as in the
case of the South African war. While each government tried to keep exclusive control of
particular areas for investment, Hobson admitted that conflict was inevitable.

Lenin developed his theory of imperialism amid an intensification of European

engagement with the periphery. This intensification had begun during the second half of
the 19th century. Domestically, capital was concentrating into large monopolistic
corporations integrated with and led by a few large financial oligarchies.

Lenin theorized that these two developments were intrinsically linked. The
concentration of capital created inequality. Inequality in the core constrained aggregate
demand levels. The general population could not absorb the mass of commodities
achieved by higher levels of productive capacity. Insufficient demand created continual
realization crises. The price of raw materials threatened profits further. The falling rate
of profit required economic expansion to open up new regions for investment, sources
of raw materials, and new consumer markets.

From the premise that the capitalist class controls the state politically, Lenin
theorized that finance-capital, the dominant form of capital, used the state machinery to
colonize the periphery. In the periphery, capitalists would (1) use oppressed peripheral
labor to produce primary commodities and raw materials cheaply; (2) create an affluent
stratum (peripheral elite) to consume expensive commodities imported from the core;
Theories of European Imperialism in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries by Sesan Michael Johnson, BA
History & Int l Relations, OAU, Ife, Nigeria

and (3) undermine indigenous industry, making the colonies dependent on core
investment.

The overall effect was that the core pumped wealth out of the periphery. The
wealth flowing into the domestic economies of the core stifled the fall in the rate of
profit. Lenin called this set of circumstances "imperialism."

Several specific consequences followed; two are notable. One, surpluses

permitted the development of a "labor aristocracy," a stratum of well-paid workers
loyal to the capitalist class. Two, nation-state rivalry in the imperial system intensified
nationalist sentiments among the working class and this deflected class struggle. Both of
these effects functioned to strengthen the bourgeoisie over against the proletariat.

Although this strategy would work in the short-term, Lenin argued, in the longer
term it would undermine first imperialism and then capitalism in the core. Nation-state
rivalry would lead to inter-imperial wars. The costs (financial drain) and devastation
(destruction of productive capacity) of these wars would weaken core nation-states, not
only because the losers would find themselves in an unfavorable position and with a
diminished capacity to exploit the periphery, but because nationalist movements in the
periphery and anti-colonial wars would undermine the capacity of even victorious core
nations to exploit the periphery. Once the core lost control over its colonies the imperial
would stagnate domestically. Domestic economic stagnation would raise the level of
antagonisms between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat leading to a social revolution
in the core.

Another compelling argument on European imperialism in the 18 th and 19th

centuries that tended to undermine the integrity of the united European metropolis was
of course conquest for the purpose of securing markets. This was actually a motive
noticed by Adam Smith, who disparaged the great folly of allowing capitalists to capture
the state so they could use "buy customers": To found a great empire for the sole
purpose of raising up a people of customers may at first sight appear a project fit only
for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of
shopkeepers; but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by
shopkeepers. Such statesmen are capable of fancying that they will find some advantage
Theories of European Imperialism in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries by Sesan Michael Johnson, BA
History & Int l Relations, OAU, Ife, Nigeria

in employing the blood and treasure of their fellow-citizens to found and maintain such
an empire.

Bentham while writing on European imperialism in our period of study also

argued, like Adams Smith, that England had no problem with excess capital. There were
ample investment opportunities at home, especially in agriculture, for all of the capital
accumulated. England was not dependent on foreign trade and would not benefit from
any exportation of capital to found and maintain colonies.

This colonial expansion inspired the first efforts by Marxists to interpret the
development of this period of capitalism. Karl Kautsky emphasized the commercial
reasons for imperialist expansion. According to him, industrial capital cannot sell the
whole of its production within an industrialized country. In order to realize surplus
value, it must provide itself with markets made up of non-industrialized countries,
essentially agricultural countries. This was the purpose of the colonial wars of
expansion and the reason for the creation of colonial empires.

It was Rosa Luxemburg who drew together in a complete theory all these
concepts of an imperialism expanding to compensate for inadequate markets for the
products of the biggest capitalist industries. Her theory is mainly one of crises, or to
express it more correctly, a theory of the conditions of realization surplus value and of
accumulation of capital. It is consistent with the theories of under-consumption worked
out over the course of a century by numerous opponents of the capitalist system to
show the inevitability of economic crises.

According to Rosa Luxemburg, the continual expansion of the capitalist mode of

production is impossible within the bounds of a purely capitalist society. The expansion
of the production of the means of production within capitalist society is only possible if
it goes hand in hand with the expansion of the demand for consumer goods. Without
this expansion of the latter demand, the capitalists will not buy any new machines, etc.
It is not the expansion of the purchasing power of the working class which allows an
adequate expansion of the demand for consumer goods. On the contrary, the more the
capitalist system progresses, the more does the purchasing power of the workers
represent a relatively smaller proportion of the National Income.
Theories of European Imperialism in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries by Sesan Michael Johnson, BA
History & Int l Relations, OAU, Ife, Nigeria

In order for capitalist expansion to continue it is necessary to have non-capitalist

classes which, with an income obtained outside the capitalist system, would be
endowed with the additional purchasing power to buy industrial consumer goods.
These non-capitalist classes originally are the landowners and farmers. In the countries
where the industrial revolution first occurred, the capitalist mode of production
developed and triumphed in a non-capitalist milieu, conquering the market which
consisted above all of the mass of peasants.

Rosa Luxemburg concluded that after the conquest of the national non-capitalist
markets, and the not yet industrialized markets the European and North American
continents, capital had to throw itself into the conquest of a new non-capitalist sphere,
that of the agricultural countries of Asia and Africa.

Mercantilism

In its deepest meaning, mercantilism encouraged accumulations of gold and

other precious metals as measures of value in determining the worth of a nation prior
and during our of study. It is generally believed a nation is as powerful as the stock of
gold and precious metals at its disposal. Thus European nations embarked on organized
efforts in accumulating more gold and other precious metals than other nations. This
indeed was a strong drive towards imperialism. In addition to this, this created rift and
hostile competition that resulted into political tension, wars, and political rivalries
among European states.

Generally speaking, Mercantilists failed to understand the notions of absolute

advantage and comparative advantage and the benefits of trade. Because it also
promoted the establishment of colonies, thus, it is exploitative in nature and encouraged
imperialism and colonialism which Africa and other continents greatly suffered from in
terms of human and material resources.

Fundamentally, mercantilism encouraged conflicts, in fact, during the

mercantilist period, military conflict between nation-states was more frequently and
more extensive than any other time in history.
Theories of European Imperialism in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries by Sesan Michael Johnson, BA
History & Int l Relations, OAU, Ife, Nigeria

According to Adam Smith in the mercantile system, the interest of the consumer
is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider
production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and
commerce. The average citizen in a mercantilist country does not benefit much, only the
owner of the factory. Workers receive wages but wages or money that is not worth
much if their quality of life is not improved. Adam Smith went on to write:

In the restraints upon the importation of all foreign commodities which can
come into competition with those of our own growth or manufacture, the
interest of the home consumer is evidently sacrificed to that of the producer.
It is altogether for the benefit of the latter, that the former is obliged to pay
that enhancement of price which this monopoly almost always occasions.
The average citizen pays for the oligarch s lifestyle. Much of Smith s book
wealth of Nations was a criticism of the mercantilist economic system. For
nations and people there is a difference between acting on enlighten self-
interest (capitalism) and selfishness (mercantilism).

Cultural or Social Theory

Generally speaking, there were a number of racist ideas widely believed by

Europeans. It was widely believed that Whites were superior to non-whites. One
variation was Rudyard Kipling s idea of the White Man s Burden. The White man had the
burden and responsibility of bringing the blessings of their superior civilization to the
savages of the non-European world. Another was a variation of Social Darwinism in
which White European were considered more fit in the struggle for survival. In addition
to this was the notion that Christianity was the only true religion which the Europeans
felt that it was their responsibility to take to non-Europeans. It is very important to note
that racist attitude also separated northern Europeans from southern Europeans:
Anglo-Saxons, Nordics and Teutons from Latin, and Aryan from Semites. Significantly,
racism and anti-Semitism was a virulent motivating force in the 19th century.

While writing about the motivation behind British imperialism, J.S. Mill put
forward his cultural argument as his second justification for the expanding British
Empire; he maintained that England's imperialism served a civilizing function. Like his
father, he assumed that there was a readily available scale of civilization upon which
peoples could be ranked. He was quite certain that the English were civilized and that
the peoples of Asia, Africa, and Ireland were uncivilized and barbarous.
Theories of European Imperialism in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries by Sesan Michael Johnson, BA
History & Int l Relations, OAU, Ife, Nigeria

J.S. Mill believed also that, depending on the degree of civilization a people had
attained, different rules of international law and morality applied. "The same rules of
international morality do not apply between civilized nations and between civilized
nations and barbarians." In particular, nationalism and the desire for national
independence were valued sentiments only for civilized peoples. "The sacred duties
which civilized nations owe to the independence and nationality of each other are not
binding towards those to whom nationality and independence are either a certain evil
or at best a questionable good." Mill used this cultural argument to justify both the
creation of white settler colonies and the direct governance of native populations. He
did not exactly advocate that England go forth and conquer the uncivilized world.
Rather, he defended and legitimated the process of conquest which was already
occurring.

In Considerations on Representative Government, for example, Mill held that "it

is already a common and is rapidly tending to become the universal condition of the more
backward populations to be either held in direct subjection by the more advanced or to be
under their complete political ascendancy." Mill maintained that the English were
entitled to govern uncivilized peoples against their will because English government
brought gradual improvement. A people's lack of civilization was not an innate or
genetic characteristic; it was a result of history and could now be remedied by history.
In this justification of imperialism, Mill basically generalized.

No doubt that justification and motivation for European imperialism was

strongly tied to the belief that the Christian religion and European forms of government,
education, and law would improve the lives of the indigenous peoples of Africa, Asia,
Australasia and that it was, therefore, a duty to spread European civilization. Thus, the
works of the Christian Mission (Bible and Plough) was important for many Europeans
who believed the native inhabitants of their nations empires to be pagan or without
true religion.

Conservative Theories

Imperialism according to writers such as Disraeli, Rhodes and Kipling using

Conservative Theories, is necessary to preserve the existing (old) social order in the
Theories of European Imperialism in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries by Sesan Michael Johnson, BA
History & Int l Relations, OAU, Ife, Nigeria

more developed countries. Traditionally, European society was ruled by Monarchism

and Theology; however, the 18th and 19th centuries were characterized by renaissance
and the Industrial Revolution which were triggered by the writings of various writers,
philosophers, and scientists. These centuries were pervaded with positivism, whereby,
the people started challenging the established old order. People, especially the masses
started questioning authorities and demanding for a change of order in terms of
representative government and improve standard of living. This development created
tensions in so many European metropolitan cities like Manchester, Liverpool, etc.

Therefore, it is necessary to secure trade, markets, to maintain employment and

capital exports, and to channel the energies and social conflicts of the metropolitan
populations into foreign countries. Thus, European powers such as Great Britain
encouraged the migration of her populace into form colonies outside Europe. This
accounted formation of White colonies outside Europe.

Conclusion

It is evident that there are avalanche materials on imperialism as a historical

concept. In fact, it is very difficult to that any nation or group of people has not been
affected by imperialism be it as an imposing nation or a subservient nation. Africa, Asia,
Australasia and other parts of the world will continue to include imperialism as part of
their history, especially, with the towering effects of its attending results such as
militarism, colonialism, capitalism and Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. More also
considering the current international economic and political configuration of the
international system, it will not be out of place to say that the world is still pervaded
with imperialism, which many have described as neo-imperialism. John A. Hobson
before his death had succinctly summed this view when he said in the bluntest words
that we shall never get rid of Imperialism and Militarism "until the axe is laid at the
economic root of the tree"

This work exposes some of the theories that try to explain the motivation,
foundation and philosophy behind the 18th and 19th centuries European imperialism
vis-à-vis a critical analysis of the works and writings of writers such as Adams Smith,
John A. Hobson, Lenin, J. Mills, Karl Marx, and others.
Theories of European Imperialism in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries by Sesan Michael Johnson, BA
History & Int l Relations, OAU, Ife, Nigeria

Reference

 Fieldhouse, D.K. The Colonial Empires: A Comparative Survey from the

Eighteenth Century. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan, 1982.
 Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. Alan
Sheridan. London: Penguin, 1977.
 Hobson, J.A. Imperialism: A Study. London: Allen and Unwin, 1938.
 Kemp, Tom. Theories of Imperialism. London: Dobson, 1967.
 Lenin, V.I. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Peking: Foreign
Language Press, 1965.