Semi-colony

In Marxist theory, a semi-colony is a country which is officially (or legally) recognized as an independent and sovereign nation, but which is in reality very much dependent and dominated by an imperialist country (or, in some cases, several imperialist countries).

This domination could take different forms:

• economic (the supply of capital, technology or goods, and control over strategic assets and 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),
• cultural/ideological (e.g. 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 (settler colonialism - the immigration into the semi-colony of large numbers of settlers from the imperialist countries which dominate the semi-colony).

The term semi-colony is often used interchangeably with "neo-colony". The term "neo-colony" often refers to colonies which later became formally sovereign countries, although de facto they still remain dominated by another country. In this case, there exists a "new" type of (informal) colonialism replacing the old colonialism, despite formal independence.

Semi-colonies are often countries which, although they officially never became full-scale colonies or were not colonized on a large scale, were nevertheless dominated by and dependent on other (imperialist) countries. In this case, there exist national characteristics analogous to colonial dependence and domination alongside a prior tradition of national sovereignty or political independence.

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

There have been many different types, histories and gradations of colonization, and consequently also many different types, histories and gradations of decolonization. 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.

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. To some extent, the descriptions can remain controversial or contested.

Client relationship

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) and
• the imperialist country, which obtains profits and cheap resources from its investments in the semi-colony.

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 agricultural industries).

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 strong landowning class, and an urban comprador bourgeoisie.

Many semi-colonies in Africa, Asia and Latin America are, according to some Marxists, dominated by the imperialist countries which once colonised them, or by other imperialist powers. Some countries may never have been a colony but are nonetheless dominated by a superpower such as the United States or they were formerly dominated by the Soviet Union.

Origins of the term

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."

The concept of a "semi-colony" was popularized in the earlier years of the Communist International, which classified the countries of the world as being either imperialist countries, semi-colonies, and colonies. 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). 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.

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.”

The term "semi-colony" has continued to be used particularly in the Maoist movement, for instance, all three of the Shining Path, Communist Party of India (Maoist) and the Communist Party of the Philippines characterize their respective countries as "semi-colonies".

Controversy

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) were able to industrialize to a significant extent so that they became at least "semi-industrialised" or fully industrialized countries. They gained more financial, political and cultural autonomy, and the local elite became a major foreign investor in its own right. On the other side, 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. Whatever the case, the definition of a country as a semi-colony as such refers to a specific analysis of its place in the world economy, world trade and the world political order, as well as its local political/economic culture and social structure.

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.

See also

• Dependency theory
• Imperialism
• National question
• Neocolonialism
• Satellite state

References

• Ernest Mandel, "Semicolonial Countries and Semi-Industrialised Dependent Countries", New International (New York), No.5, 1985, pp. 149–175).
• Stanley L. Engerman & Kenneth L. Sokoloff, Colonialism, inequality, and long-run paths of development. Cambridge, MA : National Bureau of Economic Research, 2005.
• Donald Denoon, Settler Capitalism: The Dynamics of Dependent Development in the Southern Hemisphere. Oxford University Press, 1983.
• Jack Woddis, An introduction to neo-colonialism. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1967.
• The Communist International, 1919-1943; documents, selected and edited by Jane Degras. Oxford University Press, 1956-65.
• “The Dynamics of World Revolution Today”, resolution adopted at the 1963 Reunification Congress of the Fourth International.
• Michael Löwy, The politics of uneven and combined development. Verso.
• Ronald H. Chilcote, Imperialism: Theoretical Directions.
• Ronald H. Chilcote, The Political Economy of Imperialism.
• Ronald H. Chilcote, Dependency and Marxism: Toward a Resolution of the Debate.

External links

• The relationship between semi-colonialism and semi-feudalism
• Capitalist or semi-feudal semi-colonial countries?