{"id":976,"date":"2020-10-12T23:41:25","date_gmt":"2020-10-13T03:41:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/abolition1313\/?p=976"},"modified":"2021-04-27T15:02:27","modified_gmt":"2021-04-27T19:02:27","slug":"robert-gooding-williams-democratic-despotism-and-the-new-imperialism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/abolition1313\/robert-gooding-williams-democratic-despotism-and-the-new-imperialism\/","title":{"rendered":"Robert Gooding-Williams | Democratic Despotism and The New Imperialism"},"content":{"rendered":"

By\u00a0Robert Gooding-Williams<\/a><\/h2>\n

Note to Reader:\u00a0I have excerpted the following remarks from a manuscript-in-progress on Du Bois\u2019s Political Aesthetics.\u00a0 They focus on Du Bois\u2019s conception of democratic despotism. They bear on our forthcoming 13\/13 discussion, because Du Bois understands democratic despotism to have been the world-historical successor to the shipwreck of abolition democracy.\u00a0 In my remarks on Thursday, I will develop this last point a bit further and spell out my interpretation of Du Bois\u2019s notion of abolition democracy.<\/em><\/p>\n

Democratic Despotism and The New Imperialism<\/h1>\n

Quoting Pliny the Elder\u2019s pronouncement that out of Africa there is always something new\u2014\u201cSemper novi quid ex Africa\u201d\u2014Du Bois opens \u201cThe African Roots of War\u201d by remarking that \u201cthe Roman proconsul\u2026voiced the verdict of forty centuries.\u201d Published in the May 1915 issue of Atlantic Monthly<\/em>, Du Bois\u2019s essay makes the case that the cause of the then ongoing World War was to be sought in Africa\u2014and, indeed, in the advent of something new<\/em> in Africa.\u00a0 While Pliny\u2019s proclamation has been historically verified through any number of events, including, the essay argues, the first welding of iron and the emergence of Christianity as a world religion, Du Bois\u2019s interest is the comparatively recent event of Europe\u2019s colonial expansion into Africa, a \u201cprime cause\u201d of the World War and a world-historical catastrophe of \u201clying treaties, rivers of rum, murder, assassination, mutilation, rape, and torture [that] have marked the progress of Englishman, German, Frenchman, and Belgian on the dark continent.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 Like J.A. Hobson, with whom he attended the \u201cFirst Universal Races Congress\u201d\u2028held at the University of London in 1911, Du Bois described this catastrophe as \u201cthe new imperialism.\u201d[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Nine years earlier, in his book on the new imperialism, Hobson had argued that \u201cthe novelty of recent Imperialism regarded as a policy consists chiefly in its adoption by several nations.\u201d\u00a0 Hobson\u2019s epitome of the \u201croot idea of empire,\u201d of the \u201cconception of a single empire<\/em> wielding political authority over the civilized world,\u201d was the hegemony that Rome exercised over the entire \u201crecognized world\u2026under the so-called pax Romana.\u201d\u00a0 With the fall of Rome, he tells us, this conception \u201cdid not disappear,\u201d but survived in the ambitions of Charlemagne, Rudolph of Hapsburg, and Charles V, as well as in \u201cthe policy of Peter the Great, Catherine, and Napoleon.\u201d\u00a0 In contrast to the initially Roman idea of empire, Hobson\u2019s \u201cessentially modern\u201d notion is exemplified by the competitive \u201cscramble\u201d of several European nations (Britain, France, Germany) politically to absorb \u201ctropical or sub-tropical lands in which white men will not settle with their families.\u201d\u00a0 The \u201cnew imperialism,\u201d Hobson writes, is \u201cdriven more and more into the annexation and administration of tropical countries.\u201d[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

With his opening reference to Pliny, who, during the early years of the Roman Empire, seems to have spent part of his career as a procurator in Africa, Du Bois tacitly echoes Hobson in contrasting an older, Roman imperialism to \u201cthe new Imperialism;\u201d that is, to the efforts of England, France, Germany and Portugal, in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian war, to seek \u201cpower and dominion away from Europe.\u201d The upshot of these efforts, of the \u201cscramble for Africa,\u201d he argues, is that \u201ca continent where Europe claimed but a tenth of the land in 1875, was in twenty-five more years practically absorbed.\u201d\u00a0 Du Bois reminds us that the scramble for Africa began with Stanley\u2019s explorations of Central Africa and King Leopold\u2019s establishment of the Congo Free State, whose murder, mutilation, and robbery of black Africans \u201cdiffered only in degree and concentration from the tale of all Africa in this rape of a continent already furiously mangled by the slave trade.\u201d\u00a0 But while Stanley\u2019s explorations were \u201cthe occasion\u201d of European nations seeking dominion away from Europe, \u201cthe cause lay deeper.\u201d\u00a0 \u201cWhy was this?,\u201d Du Bois\u00a0 asks, \u201cWhat was the new call for dominion?\u201d[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is admitted by all business men,\u201d Hobson writes, \u201cthat the growth of the powers of production in their country exceeds the growth in consumption, that more goods can be produced than can be sold at a profit, and that more capital exists than can find remunerative investment.\u201d\u00a0 It is \u201cthis economic condition of affairs,\u201d he adds, \u201cthat forms the taproot of Imperialism.\u201d\u00a0 Owing to deficient demand\u2014to underconsumption\u2014among Europe\u2019s domestic working classes, capitalists and financiers have a material, economic interest in opening up new markets for goods that can be sold at a profit.\u00a0 In each of several nations, these potential beneficiaries of investment abroad press the nation, the state, to annex foreign territory for the purpose of satisfying that interest.\u00a0\u00a0 When this pressure succeeds, when, more exactly, the capitalists and financiers \u201csecure the active co-operation of statesmen and political cliques,\u201d persuading them to confound class-specific economic interests with the nation\u2019s interests, the upshot is the nation\u2019s acquiescence to imperialist foreign policies and a consequent \u201cfight\u201d among European nations \u201cfor foreign markets or foreign areas of investment.\u201d\u00a0 This dynamic could be halted, Hobson proposes, were each nation to follow the lead of the trade unionists and the socialists by resdistributing income to the working class, or to public expenditure, thus raising \u201cthe general standard of home consumption\u201d and abating \u201cthe pressure for foreign markets.\u201d[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Like Hobson, Du Bois conceptualizes the nation as an agent of material, economic interests. On three critical points, however, Du Bois breaks with Hobson.\u00a0 The first is Du Bois\u2019s rejection of Hobson\u2019s explanation of the genesis of the new imperialism.\u00a0 The second is his rejection of Hobson\u2019s analysis of the relationship between nations\u2019 interests and the material interests that drive the new imperialism.\u00a0 For example, Du Bois denies that European imperialism is driven by a false identification of the interests of the nation with the interests of capitalists and financiers.\u00a0 The third is Du Bois\u2019s rejection of Hobson\u2019s view of the sort of remedy the dynamic of the new imperialism requires.\u00a0 In Du Bois\u2019s argument these three points belong together, for each of them stems from his effort in \u201cThe African Roots of War\u201d clearly to formulate \u201cthe theory\u201d of the \u201cnew democratic despotism.\u201d[5]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Du Bois\u2019s presents his formulation of that theory as the solution to a philosophical paradox.\u00a0 \u201cMost philosophers,\u201d he writes, \u201csee the ship of state launched on the broad, irresistible tide of democracy, with only delaying eddies here and there.\u201d\u00a0 \u201cOthers,\u201d however, \u201clooking closer, are more disturbed. Are we, they ask, reverting to aristocracy and despotism\u2014the rule of might?\u201d\u00a0 The paradox is not simply conceptual, but observable in the world, for it has \u201creconciled the Imperialists and captains of industry to any amount of ‘Democracy’,\u201d while allowing \u201cin America the most rapid advance of democracy to go hand in hand\u2026with increased aristocracy and hatred toward darker races.\u201d\u00a0 Du Bois\u2019s solution is straigtforward: \u201cThe paradox is easily explained,\u201d he writes, \u201cthe white workingman has been asked to share the spoil of exploiting ‘chinks and niggers.’\u201d[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Du Bois sees democratic political movements as \u201cefforts to increase the number of beneficiaries of the ruling [of men].\u201d[7]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 \u201cIn 18th century Europe,\u201d he adds, \u201cthe effort became so broad and sweeping that an attempt was made at universal expression and the philosophy of the movement said that if All ruled they would rule for All and thus Universal Good was sought through Universal Suffrage.\u201d[8]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 As European democratic movements have advanced from the 18th\u00a0<\/sup>through the 20th<\/sup> centuries, the effort to increase the numbers of those who benefit from government has meant \u201cthe dipping of more and grimier hands into the wealth bag of the nation, until to-day only the ultra stubborn fail to see that democracy in determining income is the next inevitable step to Democracy in political power.\u201d[9]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 In turn, increasing democracy in the determination of income has profoundly altered the structure of exploitation: it is no longer the \u201cmerchant prince\u201d or the \u201caristocratic monopoly\u201d or simply \u201cthe employing class\u201d that dominates and exploits the world in order to reap \u201cinordinate profits\u201d and \u201cdividends,\u201d but \u201cthe nation; a new democratic nation<\/em> composed of united capital and labor.\u201d[10]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 For Du Bois, the paradox of modern democracy is explained by the circumstance that democratic progress within Europe and America for white laborers has entailed the despotic exploitation in America and elsewhere of\u00a0 \u201cchinks\u2019 and \u2018niggers\u2019.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cThe present world war,\u201d he maintains, is \u201cthe result of jealousies engendered by the recent rise of armed national associations of labor and capital whose aim is the exploitation of the wealth of the world mainly outside the European circle of nations.\u201d[11]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Notes<\/h1>\n

[1]<\/a> For all the material quoted in this paragraph, see Du Bois, \u201cThe African Roots of War,\u201d 707-708.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> For all the material quoted in this paragraph, see J.A. Hobson, Imperialism: A Study<\/em> (New York: James Pott & Co., 1902), 6-7, 11, 26, 42.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> For the material quoted in the paragraph, see Du Bois, \u201cThe African Roots of War,\u201d 708.\u00a0 For evidence regarding Pliny\u2019s career in Africa, see Ronald Syme, \u201cPliny the Procurator,\u201d Harvard Studies in Classical Philology<\/em>, Vol. 73 (1969), 201-236.\u00a0 For recent discussion of Pliny as a political theorist, and a defense of the thesis that his Natural History<\/em> can be read as a defense of empire, see Thomas R. Laehn, Pliny\u2019s Defense of Empire <\/em>(New York: Routledge, 2013).\u00a0 As for as I know, there is no evidence that Du Bois read Pliny in a similar light, but one wonders.\u00a0 In the introduction to his magisterial 1991 volume, The Scramble for Africa: White Man\u2019s Conquest of the Dark Continet form 1876-1912 <\/em>(New York: Avon Books, 1991), the historian, Thomas Packenham wrote that there is still no \u201cgeneral <\/em>explanation\u201d of the scramble for Africa \u201cacceptable to historians\u201d (xxii).<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> For the material quoted in this paragraph, see Hobson, Imperialism, <\/em>86, 224, 91, 96.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Du Bois, \u201cThe African Roots of War,\u201d 709.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> For all the material quoted in this paragraph,, see Ibid.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Du Bois, Darkwater<\/em>, 105.<\/em><\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Du Bois, \u201cThe African Roots of War,\u201d 709.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Du Bois, \u201cAfrican Roots of War,\u201d 709; Darkwater, <\/em>31.\u00a0 Emphasis mine.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Ibid., 711.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By\u00a0Robert Gooding-Williams Note to Reader:\u00a0I have excerpted the following remarks from a manuscript-in-progress on Du Bois\u2019s Political Aesthetics.\u00a0 They focus on Du Bois\u2019s conception of democratic despotism. They bear on our forthcoming 13\/13 discussion, because Du Bois understands democratic despotism… Continue Reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1641,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[51803],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-976","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-posts-2-13"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/abolition1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/976","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/abolition1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/abolition1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/abolition1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1641"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/abolition1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=976"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/abolition1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/976\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/abolition1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=976"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/abolition1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=976"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/abolition1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=976"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}