Social-imperialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social-imperialism is a Marxist expression, typically used in a derogatory fashion, to describe people, parties, or nations that are "socialist in words, imperialist in deeds"^[1]. The phrase was first used in Marxist circles during the early 20th C discussions on the position of the international workers' movement towards the impending European war and particularly in regards to the Social Democratic Party of Germany ^[2][3]. In this context it is very similar to, but not interchangeable with, the terms social chauvinism and social patriotism

In later decades the most significant use of the phrase has been in the Maoist critique of the Soviet Union. Mao argued that the Soviet Union had itself become an imperialist power while maintaining a socialist façade^[4]. Albanian Communist leader Enver Hoxha agreed with Mao in this analysis, before later using the expression to also condemn China's Three Worlds Theory.^[5]

[edit] Academic use

The term has also been used as a conceptual device by left-wing academics. The academic use of the phrase is usually used to describe governments that engage in imperialism meant to preserve the domestic social peace. The German historian Hans-Ulrich Wehler has defined social imperialism "the diversions outwards of internal tensions and forces of change in order to preseve the social and political status quo", and as a "defensive ideology" to counter the "disruptive effects of industrialization on the social and economic structure of Germany"^[6] In Wehler's opinion, social imperialism was a device that allowed the German government to distract public attention from domestic problems

One of the more notable uses of the social imperialism concept was by the British Marxist historian Timothy Mason who argued that World War II was caused by social imperialism. In Mason’s opinion, German foreign policy was driven by domestic political considerations, and the launch of World War II in 1939 was best understood as a “barbaric variant of social imperialism”^[7]. Mason argued that “Nazi Germany was always bent at some time upon a major war of expansion” ”^[8] However, Mason that the timing of a such a war was determined by domestic political pressures, especially as relating to a failing economy^[9] According to Mason, by 1939, the “overheating” of the German economy caused by rearmament, the failure of various rearmament plans caused by the shortages of skilled workers, industrial unrest caused by the breakdown of German social policies, and the a sharp drop in living standards for the German working class forced Hitler into going to war at a time and place not of his choosing in 1939^[10] Mason contented that when faced with the deep socio-economic crisis the Nazi leadership had decided to embark upon a ruthless “smash and grab” foreign policy of seizing territory in Eastern Europe which could be pitilessly plundered to support living standards in Germany^[11] Mason described German foreign policy as driven by an opportunistic “next victim” syndrome after the Anschluss, in which the “promiscuity of aggressive intentions” was nurtured by every successful foreign policy move^[12]. In Mason’s opinion, the decision to sign the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact and to attack Poland and with it risking a war with Britain and France were the abandonment by Hitler of his foreign policy programme outlined in Mein Kampf forced on him by the need to stop a collapsing German economy by seizing territory abroad to be plundered^[13]

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Social chauvinism
• Social patriotism