Imagine a pharaoh with a pointed crown looking at the Nile and thinking, "You know what? I want it all, right down to the sea." Or a Roman general who, after conquering half of Gaul, turns to his men and says, "Boys, why stop here? Let's go for a ride around the Mediterranean." When it stops being an election campaign slogan and becomes pure practice/action, we have imperialism on the ground. In the fourth article of our "Schumpeter for Everyone" column, we dive into the chapter "Imperialism as Practice" of Sociology of Imperialism . Joseph Schumpeter takes us by the hand and takes us on a historical journey from ancient Egypt to the Germans of the Middle Ages, all the way to English colonialism. It's no longer just talk: it's action. And the beauty is that it's not just a question of money or resources—it's a question of power, of the desire to dominate for the sake of it. Get ready, because here we move from talk to action, and Schumpeter has a map full of arrows to show us.
Imperialism in the Field: Examples from Ancient History
Let's start with ancient Egypt. Schumpeter uses it as an example of pure, almost primordial imperialism. The pharaohs didn't expand just for grain or slaves—though those never hurt—but to leave a mark, to tell the world: "I am here, and I'm in charge." Think of Ramses II: he builds gigantic temples, fights epic battles like Kadesh, and all for what? For prestige, for glory. Schumpeter calls it "objectless expansion": there's no practical objective that justifies everything, like "we need more land for the cows." No, it's a self-sustaining force, an instinct for conquest that stops at nothing. It's as if the pharaoh were saying: "I've got this, now I want that, and then we'll see." And indeed, the Egyptian empire expands, collapses, rises again, always with that hunger for greatness.
Fast forward a few centuries and we arrive at the Romans. Here, imperialism becomes an art. Schumpeter describes them as masters of transforming conquest into a system: it's not just about defeating enemies, but absorbing them, making them Roman. Take Carthage: they destroy it, yes, but then they rebuild it their way. It's not just spoils—salt, oil, grain—but supremacy. "Victory for the sake of victory," says Schumpeter. Winning a battle isn't enough for them; they want total domination, the idea that no one can raise their head without asking Rome's permission. And it works: the Mediterranean becomes their private lake. But beware: here too, it's not just economic rationality. Sure, taxes and silver mines help, but behind it lies that irrational drive, that desire to say "the world is ours."
Imperialism in the Field: From the Middle Ages to the Colonial Era
Then there's the Middle Ages, with the German emperors dreaming of being the new Caesars. Schumpeter cites them to show how imperialism doesn't need capitalism to exist. Take Frederick Barbarossa: he wants a Holy Roman Empire that will shake Europe, and it's not to sell more grain at the market. It's for the title, for the power, for the idea of a dominion reminiscent of Rome. He fights against the Italian communes, against the Pope, against anyone who dares challenge him. The result? A semi-disaster, but the dream remains. Schumpeter emphasizes: this isn't a policy of concrete interests, like "we need that Alpine pass for the goats." It's an ambition that goes beyond, that feeds on itself, even when the numbers don't add up.
And finally, we come to English colonialism. Here Schumpeter shows us how imperialism evolves, but remains essentially unchanged. Nineteenth-century England expanded not just for tea or cotton—although, let's face it, those matter—but almost by inertia. It's as if, after setting foot in India, they said, "Well, while we're here, let's take the rest too." Schumpeter explains it with an example straight out of a movie: colonies aren't conquered by the state with a precise plan, but by "private imperialists"—adventurers, merchants, dreamers—who then drag the government along with them. The state intervenes "reluctantly," he says, only when it can't help but do so. Consider the East India Company: it began as a commercial enterprise, and ended up governing a subcontinent. It's not a cold calculation; it's a mechanism that, once started, never stops.
The common elements of imperialism
What do these cases have in common? Schumpeter slams it in our faces: imperialism on the ground, in practice, is not a new aspect of capitalism, as Lenin thought . Lenin said: "It's monopoly capitalism that exports capital and plunders the world." Schumpeter responds: "No, friend, look at history. This stuff has always existed." From Egypt to Rome, from the Middle Ages to British India, you don't need modern industry to want to dominate others. It's a human constant, a mix of pride, ambition, and that strange joy in crushing those beneath. Sure, money helps—Egyptian gold, Roman silver, English spices—but it's not the driving force. The driving force is within, it's that "objectless disposition" that Schumpeter so aptly defines: expand for the sake of expanding, conquer for the sake of conquering.
This article is a bit like a historical action movie : battles, unbridled ambitions, empires rising and falling. Schumpeter is our director, and he tells us: "Stop, it's not just about the money." It's a thought-provoking idea. Today, in 2025, we no longer have pharaohs or legionnaires, but we do have drones, multinationals, wars for control of resources—or perhaps for prestige? Think of the United States in the Middle East or China in Africa: is it just business, or is that old instinct for domination still there? Schumpeter doesn't say it explicitly—his book dates back to 1919—but he leaves us a bridge to think about it. Imperialism changes face, but the heart remains the same?
And now, get ready: the next article will discuss "Imperialism in Modern Absolute Monarchy," and we'll enter the palaces of kings and nobles. Here, imperialism becomes a court game, between military castes and sovereigns eager to make their mark. No more slogans or wild conquests: it's all about intrigue, alliances, a power built with the sword but held with politics. It'll be a bit like Game of Thrones , but with Schumpeter as the narrator.
