# Power & Independence Review — full text

> Power & Independence Review is an independent publication about empire, decolonization, sovereignty, and geopolitical argument. It is not a political party, campaign, government body, university, advocacy organization, or continuation of any former entity associated with this domain.

# Anti-Imperialist Movements: Organizing Across Borders

> Anti-imperialist movements brought together people and organizations opposing imperial domination, but they did not share one membership, strategy, or destination. This history follows organizing across borders: an American league, an interwar coalition, a Pan-African congress, Asian-African diplomacy, and international state coordination. These are selected examples, not universal stages through which every independence struggle passed. Their documents reveal both shared demands and important disagreements.

Source: https://anti-imperialism.org/anti-imperialism-movement-history/  
Publisher: Power & Independence Review  
Published: 2026-09-15  
Updated: 2026-09-15

## Was there one anti-imperialist movement?

Anti-imperialist movements brought together people and organizations opposing imperial domination, but they did not share one membership, strategy, or destination. This history follows organizing across borders: an American league, an interwar coalition, a Pan-African congress, Asian-African diplomacy, and international state coordination. These are selected examples, not universal stages through which every independence struggle passed. Their documents reveal both shared demands and important disagreements.

The useful question is not simply who opposed empire. It is how opponents organized, whom they claimed to represent, and what cooperation required them to agree on. An electoral association, a congress of activists, and a meeting of governments can use similar language while possessing very different authority.

For the conceptual distinction between imperial domination and objections to it, start with [what anti-imperialism means](/what-is-anti-imperialism/). Here the focus is organizational history. Statements below establish what their authors advocated; a declaration by itself does not establish that its demands were fulfilled.

## What did the American Anti-Imperialist League demand in 1899?

The [League's 1899 platform](https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1899antiimp.asp) grounded legitimate government in the consent of the governed. It condemned the United States' war in the Philippines and demanded that Congress announce an intention to grant Philippine independence. Its argument connected domination abroad with damage to representative institutions at home.

The platform also specified an electoral response: defeat candidates supporting the forcible subjugation of other peoples. It invited men and women committed to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to cooperate. This was an appeal framed around American political principles, rather than a programme requiring agreement with socialism.

Read the invitation and the demand separately. The invitation tells us whom the platform sought to recruit; the demand identifies the policy it wanted changed. Neither sentence supplies a membership census or proves that the organization represented the people whose independence it advocated. Opposition within an imperial power and a colonized population's own political organization are analytically distinct, even when their stated objectives overlap.

## How did Brussels organizers build an international coalition in 1927?

In his [February 1927 report on the Brussels Congress](https://nehruarchive.in/documents/report-on-the-brussels-congress-19-february-1927-on67wl), Jawaharlal Nehru described a gathering that connected colonial-country representatives with European labour figures. He attended for the Indian National Congress. His account distinguishes the communist influence behind the congress from the much wider range of people participating.

The meeting established the League against Imperialism, with a general council and executive machinery. Nehru's report also records a procedural dispute: a lengthy manifesto arrived late and was pushed through without adequate time for consideration. He objected to that method of adoption. A shared platform of opposition therefore did not remove arguments about how collective positions should be authorized.

That distinction matters when reading a congress resolution. A text presented as the voice of a gathering may have a contested drafting history. The existence of a final document should prompt examination of its adoption, not an assumption that every delegate independently endorsed every proposition.

### What held the coalition together after the meeting?

Nehru's [4 April 1927 organizational note](https://nehruarchive.in/documents/note-for-the-working-committee-4-april-1927-gok21l) gives a more practical answer. It describes a distinction between affiliated organizations and associated organizations, allowing bodies that accepted only part of the League's programme to cooperate. He pressed this arrangement because the Indian National Congress had not adopted a socialist viewpoint.

The note also records decisions to issue a congress report and a regular news bulletin in several languages. It discusses office staffing, subscriptions, financial reporting, and the location of the headquarters. These were organizational tasks needed to maintain communication beyond a single gathering.

Nehru nevertheless warned that the new League's future was uncertain and that the Indian Congress could exercise little control over its policy or funds from a distance. His support for association was therefore a judgement about cooperation under acknowledged limitations, not a claim that ideological differences had disappeared.

## Whom did the Manchester Pan-African Congress ask to organize in 1945?

The [Manchester Congress resolutions, reproduced in Colin Legum's documentary appendix](https://www.freedomarchives.org/Documents/Finder/Black%20Liberation%20Disk/Black%20Power!/SugahData/Books/Legum.S.pdf), joined political independence to social and economic demands. The declaration to colonial powers sought autonomy and independence, education, decent living conditions, and freedom of expression. It also opposed private monopoly of wealth.

The declaration to colonial peoples addressed workers, farmers, and intellectuals as political participants. It called for organization and defended rights of association, including trade unions, cooperatives, a free press, and assembly. This was a programme for popular participation as well as a demand to remove foreign political and economic control.

The [University of Manchester's catalogue of its Congress archive](https://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=35308) helps recover the organizational setting. It identifies George Padmore and Kwame Nkrumah as organizers and describes surviving press releases, correspondence, photographs, and other papers. Its catalogue entries name railway employees, cocoa delegates, trade unions, youth organizations, and West Indian political organizations among the bodies appearing in Congress material.

That evidence offers a useful research route beyond biographies of prominent leaders. Follow an organization's correspondence or delegation record alongside the published resolutions. Being listed in an archive does not establish how influential a delegation was; it provides a specific body whose participation can be investigated. The people pictured at a congress, the groups represented there, and the populations addressed by its declaration are different categories of evidence.

## What changed when Asian and African governments met at Bandung in 1955?

In his [18 April 1955 opening speech](https://sourcebooks.web.fordham.edu/mod/1955sukarno-bandong.asp), Indonesian president Sukarno appealed for cooperation across differences among Asian and African participants. He identified opposition to colonialism and racialism, alongside a desire for peace, as common ground. He also described colonialism as capable of continuing through economic and intellectual control beyond its familiar territorial form.

This was an argument for coordinated political and moral influence, not evidence that participants had identical domestic systems or external relationships. The distinction changes how the conference should be placed in movement history: governmental cooperation was a particular organizational vehicle, with its own limits, rather than a substitute for every independence campaign.

Our [Bandung conference guide](/bandung-1955-anti-imperialism/) examines the meeting itself. In this wider comparison, Sukarno's speech is useful for showing the effort to define common ground without requiring complete uniformity.

## How did anti-colonial demands enter the United Nations?

The [UN's procedural history of the declaration on colonial independence](https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/dicc/dicc.html) records an Asian-African draft introduced by Cambodia in November 1960. The draft ultimately had 43 sponsors. On 14 December, the General Assembly adopted resolution 1514 (XV) by 89 votes to none, with nine abstentions.

Those are distinct measures: sponsorship identifies governments formally backing a draft, while the vote records the Assembly's decision. No votes against does not mean every participating government voted in favour. Nor does adoption establish that colonial rule ended wherever it existed. The institutional change visible here is the use of an international assembly to advance a general declaration about colonial independence.

## How did Nehru describe non-alignment at Belgrade in 1961?

Addressing the [non-aligned conference on 2 September 1961](https://nehruarchive.in/documents/to-the-non-aligned-conference-2-september-1961-yywoq), Nehru spoke to participants who included former freedom fighters now leading states. He distinguished non-alignment from joining the great powers' military blocs and emphasized negotiation amid the danger of nuclear war.

He also questioned the usefulness of long resolutions without practical effect. His speech acknowledged limits on the conference's power and the central role of the United States and Soviet Union in the international crisis. This was Nehru's argument to the gathering, not proof that every participant assigned every issue the same priority.

Read alongside the earlier documents, it shows a change in the problem of organization. Building opposition to colonial authority and coordinating governments already responsible for foreign policy involved different decisions. A movement's history should preserve that difference rather than treat statehood as the point at which disagreement necessarily ended.

## What should a comparison of these movements preserve?

Keep three records separate: membership, declared programme, and demonstrated action. Use a membership list to establish who joined; use a resolution to establish the position it adopted; seek additional records before claiming what happened because of it. These are complementary questions, not interchangeable proofs.

This comparison also leaves much outside its frame. These meetings and platforms cannot stand for every local campaign, participant, or political tradition. Treat them as entry points into different forms of cooperation. For a method of examining the claims made in their name, continue with [how to read an anti-imperialist argument](/read-anti-imperialist-argument/).

## Sources

- [American Anti-Imperialist League platform, 1899](https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1899antiimp.asp).
- [Nehru's Brussels report, February 1927](https://nehruarchive.in/documents/report-on-the-brussels-congress-19-february-1927-on67wl).
- [Nehru's organizational note, April 1927](https://nehruarchive.in/documents/note-for-the-working-committee-4-april-1927-gok21l).
- [Manchester resolutions: Legum, printed pages 153–155](https://www.freedomarchives.org/Documents/Finder/Black%20Liberation%20Disk/Black%20Power!/SugahData/Books/Legum.S.pdf).
- [University of Manchester: Congress archive catalogue](https://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=35308).
- [Sukarno's Bandung opening speech, 1955](https://sourcebooks.web.fordham.edu/mod/1955sukarno-bandong.asp).
- [United Nations: declaration and procedural history](https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/dicc/dicc.html).
- [Nehru's Belgrade speech, September 1961](https://nehruarchive.in/documents/to-the-non-aligned-conference-2-september-1961-yywoq).

## Frequently asked questions

**Was anti-imperialism a single organization?**

No. The label can describe different organizations and forms of cooperation. This history compares an electoral association, an international coalition, a Pan-African congress, and meetings of governments. Their documents need to be read separately: a shared objection to imperial domination does not establish common membership, strategy, or agreement on every policy.

**What did the American Anti-Imperialist League want in 1899?**

Its platform demanded that Congress announce an intention to grant Philippine independence. It condemned forcible subjugation and called for electoral opposition to candidates supporting it. The document tied its argument to consent of the governed and American constitutional principles; it records a programme, rather than proof that those aims were achieved.

**Was the Brussels coalition entirely communist?**

Nehru’s February 1927 report distinguishes communist influence behind the Brussels Congress from its wider participation, including colonial-country representatives and European labour figures. That distinction matters: the political background of organizers does not, by itself, identify every delegate’s beliefs or prove complete agreement across the gathering.

**Did the Manchester Congress address ordinary people?**

The 1945 declarations addressed workers, farmers, and intellectuals, calling for organization as well as political independence. They defended association through trade unions, cooperatives, a free press, and assembly. Read these as the Congress’s stated programme for participation, rather than evidence that every person in those groups took part.

**Was the UN colonial-independence declaration adopted unanimously?**

The General Assembly adopted resolution 1514 (XV) on 14 December 1960 with 89 votes in favour, none against, and nine abstentions. Saying there were no opposing votes is accurate; saying every participating government supported it overlooks those abstentions. The vote also does not establish that colonial rule immediately ended.


---

# Bandung 1955: Anti-Imperialism Beyond One Bloc

> The 1955 Bandung Conference made anti-imperialism a platform for independent Asian and African political agency rather than allegiance to either Cold War bloc. Twenty-nine governments endorsed self-determination, sovereignty, non-interference, racial equality, cooperation, and peaceful settlement while differing in ideology and alignment. Bandung strengthened diplomatic space for decolonization and later nonalignment, but it was a conference of states, not a single movement, and it had no enforcement power. Its value lies in both its shared principles and the unresolved tests those principles created.

Source: https://anti-imperialism.org/bandung-1955-anti-imperialism/  
Publisher: Power & Independence Review  
Published: 2026-07-19  
Updated: 2026-08-26

## A conference larger than the Cold War boxes

From 18 to 24 April 1955, representatives of 29 Asian and African governments met in Bandung, Indonesia. The hosts—Burma, Ceylon, India, Indonesia, and Pakistan—had invited countries with sharply different political systems and foreign-policy ties. The People's Republic of China attended. So did US-aligned governments. Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union had a seat.

That guest list is the first defense against a common mistake: treating Bandung as a meeting of one bloc preparing to join another. According to the US State Department's [historical overview](https://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/bandung-conf), the agenda covered peace, economic development, decolonization, and the place of newly independent states in the Cold War. Participants had disagreements. What they shared was a refusal to assume that European empires or the two superpowers should write every political script.

That is a more interesting form of anti-imperialism than matching lapel pins and unanimous ideology. It begins with political agency.

## What the communiqué actually joined together

The final communiqué ranged across economic and cultural cooperation, human rights, self-determination, dependent peoples, and international peace. In its section on colonialism, the conference described alien subjection, domination, and exploitation as a denial of fundamental rights. A version preserved in the [United Nations legal record](https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/775095/files/A_C.6_L.537_Rev.1_Add.1-EN.pdf) records support for self-determination under the UN Charter and opposition to racial segregation and discrimination.

The peace declaration emphasized sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-aggression, non-interference, equality, peaceful settlement, and respect for international obligations. These were not decorative nouns arranged for a handsome group photograph. Recently independent governments had practical reasons to defend legal equality when military and economic power were plainly unequal.

Yet the communiqué was also a negotiated document. Broad language made common ground possible among governments that differed over communism, Western alliances, regional conflicts, and development. Consensus shows what delegates could affirm together; it does not prove that they agreed on every cause, remedy, or future partner.

For a useful way to resist reading any declaration as self-interpreting, see our guide to [evaluating an anti-imperialist argument](/read-anti-imperialist-argument/).

## Nonalignment was not political silence

Bandung helped create the diplomatic ground from which the Non-Aligned Movement formally emerged in 1961. But “nonaligned” did not mean indifferent, perfectly neutral, or equally distant from every power on every issue. It described room to make judgments outside compulsory bloc discipline. Member governments could cooperate with a superpower, criticize another, or disagree among themselves while resisting the claim that only two legitimate camps existed.

That distinction matters. A government can reject colonial rule without having a pure foreign policy. It can invoke sovereignty consistently in one dispute and selectively in another. Bandung's principles supply standards against which such conduct can be judged; they do not certify every later action by every participant.

The conference also operated mainly through sovereign governments. Delegates spoke in solidarity with peoples still under colonial rule, particularly where independent states did not yet exist. That widened the political horizon, but it did not make governments transparent substitutes for every worker, woman, minority, Indigenous community, or liberation movement within the societies they represented. State independence and popular emancipation overlap. They are not synonyms.

## What Bandung changed—and what it could not

Bandung gave Asian and African governments a major venue in which they were protagonists rather than agenda items. It strengthened diplomatic relationships, amplified decolonization, and stated that international order should rest on equal sovereignty rather than racial hierarchy. Contemporary US records also reveal anxiety that Asian and African states might act collectively, a useful reminder that independent coordination itself altered the balance of diplomacy.

The conference did not have an enforcement body capable of ending colonialism. It did not dissolve unequal trade, settle every border, or prevent participating governments from later coercion. Claims that it single-handedly caused subsequent independence movements would outrun the evidence; those struggles had their own organizations, histories, sacrifices, and local decisions.

Its durable achievement is better understood as political and intellectual space. Bandung made it harder to describe the postwar world solely as Washington versus Moscow, with everyone else serving as scenery. It joined anti-colonial demands to cooperation, rights, sovereignty, and peace while leaving arguments over their application very much alive.

That untidiness is not a defect to hide. It is the reason Bandung remains worth reading in [decolonization history](/decolonization-history/) and in the study of [argument and evidence](/argument-and-evidence/). A serious legacy is not a halo. It is a set of principles, conflicts, and unfinished tests.

## Frequently asked questions

**What was the Bandung Conference?**

The Bandung Conference, also called the Asian-African Conference, brought representatives of 29 governments to Bandung, Indonesia, from 18 to 24 April 1955. Its agenda included decolonization, economic and cultural cooperation, human rights, self-determination, racial discrimination, sovereignty, and international peace. Burma, Ceylon, India, Indonesia, and Pakistan sponsored it. The United States and Soviet Union did not participate.

**Was Bandung a communist conference?**

No. The participating governments represented different political systems and foreign-policy alignments. The People's Republic of China attended, but so did governments aligned with the United States and governments seeking greater independence from both Cold War blocs. Their final consensus opposed colonialism and supported sovereignty and cooperation; it did not place every participant inside one ideology or erase their substantial disagreements.

**How did Bandung relate to the Non-Aligned Movement?**

Bandung helped establish principles and relationships that contributed to the Non-Aligned Movement, which formally emerged in 1961. The two are not identical. Bandung was a 1955 Asian-African conference with 29 participating governments; nonalignment became a broader organized movement. In practice, nonalignment meant preserving independent judgment outside compulsory bloc politics, not perfect neutrality or equal distance from every major power.

**What did the Bandung communiqué say about colonialism?**

The communiqué treated alien subjection, domination, and exploitation as denials of fundamental human rights and obstacles to peace. It supported self-determination under the United Nations Charter, opposed racial segregation and discrimination, and declared support for dependent peoples. It also linked anti-colonial politics with economic and cultural cooperation, sovereign equality, non-interference, peaceful settlement, and respect for international obligations.

**What were the limits of the Bandung Conference?**

Bandung had no enforcement institution capable of ending colonial rule or correcting global economic inequality. Its participants disagreed over alliances, communism, regional disputes, and policy, and their later conduct did not always satisfy the principles they endorsed. As a state-led conference, it could not automatically represent every group within participating or colonized societies. It amplified decolonization without single-handedly causing later independence struggles.


---

# How to Read an Anti-Imperialist Argument

> Evaluate an anti-imperialist argument by defining the alleged form of domination, identifying the relevant actors, and tracing a concrete mechanism through a defensible timeline. Distinguish external constraint from local agency, explanation from excuse, and evidence of intent from evidence of action. Check primary records against contextual scholarship and affected communities' varied accounts. Then apply a flag-swap test: would the same conduct receive the same judgment if an ally and rival exchanged places? Strong analysis survives inconvenient facts without erasing unequal power.

Source: https://anti-imperialism.org/read-anti-imperialist-argument/  
Publisher: Power & Independence Review  
Published: 2026-07-19  
Updated: 2026-08-26

## Start by making “imperialism” do actual work

An anti-imperialist argument should identify a relationship of domination, not merely point at a powerful country and ring a large rhetorical bell. Ask what the writer means by imperialism. Direct colonial administration? Settler dispossession? Military occupation? Political control through a dependent government? Economic leverage backed by coercion? The mechanisms can overlap, but they are not interchangeable.

This is not pedantry. The [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/colonialism/) notes that scholars use *colonialism* and *imperialism* in inconsistent ways, often distinguishing settlement or direct rule from broader political, military, or economic domination. A writer can choose a definition. They cannot quietly change it whenever the cast changes uniforms.

Write the claim in plain language: **Actor A constrained the meaningful choices of people B through mechanism C, producing or protecting outcome D.** Now the argument has parts that evidence can test.

## Find the actors without erasing agency

Geopolitical prose loves enormous subjects: “the West,” “the Global South,” “capital,” “the nation.” Those labels may describe structures, but people and institutions still make decisions inside them. Identify governments, militaries, firms, colonial administrations, local elites, social movements, communities, and dissenters. Ask who controlled which decision and who bore the cost.

External intervention can narrow local choices without eliminating them. Local agency can matter without making an unequal relationship equal. Good analysis holds both facts at once. Bad analysis treats a smaller state as either a helpless chess piece or a fully unconstrained actor, depending on which answer flatters the thesis.

The same care applies to resistance movements. Opposing domination does not make a movement internally democratic, immune to faction, or representative of every person it claims to speak for. Critiquing its conduct does not vindicate the power it resists. Explanation is not absolution, and criticism is not automatic equivalence.

Our essay on [Bandung in 1955](/bandung-1955-anti-imperialism/) shows why this matters: shared anti-colonial principles did not turn 29 governments into one ideology.

## Trace a mechanism, then build a timeline

A persuasive account explains how power traveled. Was pressure applied through law, debt terms, ownership, sanctions, military presence, diplomatic recognition, intelligence activity, a treaty, or direct force? Who had authority to approve it? What alternatives were available, and at what cost?

Then put events in order. Separate a long structural condition from the immediate decision under examination. Avoid beginning history at the moment most convenient to one side. Also avoid retreating so far into the past that no living decision-maker can apparently choose anything. A useful timeline identifies both inherited constraints and turning points where actors selected among options.

Periodization prevents another trick: using a true statement about one era as automatic proof about another. Formal independence may end colonial administration while leaving economic dependency or military arrangements in place. Conversely, present-day inequality alone does not establish that every outcome was dictated from abroad. Name the continuing mechanism and show the evidence.

## Audit the evidence in layers

Start with primary material: laws, treaties, budgets, ownership records, meeting minutes, speeches, archives, official correspondence, and direct testimony. Read state documents as records of what an institution said or did, not as truth machines. Propaganda can contain facts; an archive can preserve interested claims; a leaked document can be authentic yet incomplete.

Next use careful scholarship to supply context and test competing explanations. Seek work grounded in the languages and archives of the places discussed. Include testimony and research from affected communities without pretending any community has one voice. Ask whether evidence demonstrates intent, capability, action, or merely correlation. Those are different shelves, and a confident paragraph cannot secretly move an item between them.

Record what would weaken the claim. If no possible evidence could do that, the argument is functioning as identity or doctrine, not historical inquiry.

## Run the flag-swap test

Replace the favored state or movement with its rival while keeping the conduct the same. Would military occupation, imposed political control, civilian punishment, or territorial annexation receive the same judgment? If the standard changes with the flag, the argument is defending a camp rather than opposing domination.

Symmetry does not mean ignoring differences of scale, history, capacity, or legal status. It means using stable principles while accounting for relevant differences openly. “Both sides” can be a dodge when power is radically unequal; “our side is different” can be the same dodge wearing a more exciting hat.

Use the resources in [argument and evidence](/argument-and-evidence/) to test definitions and sourcing, then return to [decolonization history](/decolonization-history/) for context. The final question is not whether an argument sounds radical, realistic, or respectable. It is whether it identifies domination accurately, respects the agency of affected people, applies consistent standards, and survives contact with inconvenient facts.

## Frequently asked questions

**What counts as imperialism in an argument?**

The writer should specify the meaning rather than rely on the label alone. The claim might concern direct colonial rule, settlement and dispossession, military occupation, territorial annexation, political control through dependent institutions, or economic leverage reinforced by coercion. These forms may overlap, but each requires evidence of a mechanism connecting a powerful actor to constrained choices or domination. A definition should remain consistent across cases.

**Does foreign influence erase a smaller country's agency?**

Usually no. External power can severely restrict available choices while governments, elites, movements, and communities still make consequential decisions within those constraints. Analysis should identify who controlled which decisions, which alternatives remained, and what each alternative cost. Treating local actors as puppets erases responsibility and political creativity; pretending every actor was equally free ignores coercion and structural inequality. Both errors flatten history.

**What is the flag-swap test?**

The flag-swap test asks whether you would judge the same conduct by the same principle if an ally and adversary exchanged places. It exposes standards that change to protect a preferred camp. The test does not require pretending that all cases have equal scale, histories, capabilities, or legal status. Relevant differences belong in the analysis, but they should be named and supported rather than smuggled in through loyalty.

**Which sources are useful for anti-imperialist history?**

Useful primary sources include treaties, laws, budgets, ownership records, diplomatic correspondence, archives, meeting minutes, speeches, and testimony. Each has a perspective and must be contextualized. Historical scholarship can compare archives and competing explanations, especially when it draws on local languages and sources. Accounts from affected communities are essential but should not be compressed into one voice. Corroborate claims and distinguish records of statements from proof of truth.

**Can an anti-imperialist movement act imperially?**

Opposing one structure of domination does not make a state or movement incapable of coercion, exclusion, territorial ambition, or internal hierarchy. Its conduct should be evaluated using the same principles applied to its opponent, while preserving relevant differences in power and context. Criticizing abuses by a resistance movement does not vindicate colonial rule; acknowledging domination by an outside power does not excuse every act committed against it.


---

# What Is Anti-Imperialism? Meanings and Traditions

> Anti-imperialism is opposition to domination by an empire or imperial power. It includes arguments for colonial independence, national self-government and freedom from foreign coercion, as well as theories linking empire to economic structures. Liberal, socialist, nationalist and religious thinkers can share this concern while disagreeing about causes, methods and the society that should replace foreign rule. The label identifies a position, not a complete ideology or an endorsement of every action.

Source: https://anti-imperialism.org/what-is-anti-imperialism/  
Publisher: Power & Independence Review  
Published: 2026-09-08  
Updated: 2026-09-08

## What is anti-imperialism?

Anti-imperialism is opposition to domination by an empire or an imperial power. Its common concern is who controls a people's political and economic choices. Beyond that, the term covers competing positions: ending colonial rule, defending national self-government, rejecting foreign coercion, or transforming an economic system thought to produce imperial expansion. An anti-imperialist is someone who supports one or more of those aims; the label alone does not specify a complete ideology.

The distinction between a shared concern and a shared programme matters. Two writers can oppose the same conquest while disagreeing about capitalism, religion, national identity and the institutions that should replace foreign rule. They may also disagree about whether independence has been achieved once a colonial administration leaves.

This guide treats anti-imperialism as a family of arguments. The examples below are primary texts or institutional records of those arguments, not endorsements of everything their authors believed or did.

## Where does the term come from?

The word defines a position against imperialism, but organised opposition to empire has no single founding text. Resistance to a conquest, a constitutional objection to annexation and a theory of international capitalism need not begin together or share a vocabulary.

One clear historical use is the **1899 platform of the American Anti-Imperialist League**. The [platform reproduced by Fordham's history sourcebook](https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1899antiimp.asp) attacked American policy in the Philippines and invoked government by consent. The label therefore cannot be explained as an invention of the Cold War or as an exclusively communist identity.

That document is an example of usage, not proof of the first occasion on which anyone used the word. Establishing a first use would require a separate history of the term across languages, publications and political organisations. Nor should a surviving printed platform be mistaken for the beginning of the resistance it discussed.

There are consequently two different historical questions. When did a person or organisation call itself anti-imperialist? And when did people resist a relationship we would now describe as imperial? Keeping them separate avoids treating every earlier revolt as a member of a movement whose language and aims developed elsewhere.

## What counts as imperialism in this definition?

For practical reading, separate three possible objects of opposition.

**Direct political rule** means that authority over a territory is formally held outside it. An argument may focus on the absence of consent, the denial of equal rights or a demand for independence.

**Control without annexation** means that a country can retain its flag and formal institutions while important decisions are effectively directed from outside. The claim requires more than noticing unequal wealth: it must identify how control operates.

**An international economic system** is a broader object. Here imperialism is explained through the organisation of investment, production, markets and rivalry. Removing one colonial governor would not necessarily remove the system being criticised.

These are useful reading categories, not universally accepted definitions. A writer may use more than one. The mistake is to assume that an argument about economic structure can be answered simply by showing that the country in question has an independent government.

## Which traditions have claimed anti-imperialist aims?

The following comparison is a map of emphases. It does not sort every participant into a permanent or exclusive category.

| Tradition or emphasis | Main objection | What success would require | Question left open by the label |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal or republican | Rule imposed without the governed people's consent | Political consent, independence or restraints on conquest | How widely are equal rights applied? |
| Socialist | Imperial expansion connected to capitalist power and rivalry | Changes in economic ownership and power as well as political rule | Which economic institutions must change? |
| National liberation | A people is denied the power to determine its own future | Self-government and the means to pursue collective development | Who represents the people after independence? |
| Religious or ethical | Domination violates moral obligations and deforms social life | Freedom pursued through an ethically defensible social order | Which methods and forms of modernisation are acceptable? |

The categories overlap. A national liberation movement can be socialist, religious, liberal or a coalition. “National” describes the political community being claimed; it does not settle the movement's economic or ethical programme.

## How can a liberal or republican be anti-imperialist?

The League's platform condemned American policy in the Philippines as a betrayal of government by consent. It sought Philippine independence and electoral opposition to supporters of forcible subjugation. It also argued that conquest endangered representative government at home.

That is a republican concern with self-government, not a statement about membership in a modern political party. Its central test is consent, without requiring a socialist explanation of capitalism. The platform establishes a public position; consistency in other cases requires separate evidence.

## How does socialist anti-imperialism differ?

In [chapter VII of *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm), Lenin tied imperialism to monopoly, the combination of banking and industrial capital, investment abroad, international capitalist associations and the division of territory among major powers. This is a theory about a stage of capitalism, not simply an objection to an unusually aggressive ruler.

In the same chapter he rejected separating imperial policy from the economic structure that sustained it. That explains why a promise to conduct foreign policy more peacefully could seem insufficient from this standpoint.

The distinction should be stated as Lenin's argument, not smuggled into the dictionary definition as an uncontested fact. To agree that colonial domination is wrong does not logically oblige a reader to accept his explanation of its causes. Conversely, disagreement with that explanation does not demonstrate that a particular exercise of foreign control was harmless.

## What does national self-determination add?

Self-determination concerns a people's ability to determine its political status and pursue its development. It makes the governed people an agent of political change rather than an object to be administered.

The United Nations' [record of the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples](https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/dicc/dicc.html) explains this combination of political status with economic, social and cultural development. It also records the declaration's demand for the transfer of powers in territories that had not attained independence.

That is wider than changing the nationality of a governor. Yet it does not specify a single domestic constitution or economic programme. The idea can unite people who disagree deeply over those choices.

Nationalism and anti-imperialism therefore intersect without being identical. A demand for the nation's self-government can be anti-imperialist; a claim that the nation is entitled to control somebody else is a different proposition. The right claimed for one community and the rights recognised for others need separate examination.

## Can the argument be religious as well as political?

Gandhi's *Hind Swaraj* shows why it can. In [chapters IV and VIII](https://www.mkgandhi.org/ebks/hind_swaraj.pdf), his dialogue rejects merely reproducing English rule with different rulers and grounds its criticism of modern civilisation partly in religion and moral life. In chapter XIV, Gandhi also objects to tyranny exercised by Indian princes.

The argument is thus about the character of self-rule as well as the nationality of those governing. Treating it as a demand to expel every English person misses its ethical distinction between opposing domination and judging people solely by nationality.

This does not make Gandhi representative of all religious opposition to empire. It demonstrates a more limited point: anti-colonial reasoning can draw on moral and religious commitments that cannot be reduced to either constitutional liberalism or a socialist theory of finance.

## Does independence end the problem?

It can end direct colonial administration without settling every argument about external control. That is the problem Kwame Nkrumah addressed in the introduction to his 1965 book [*Neo-Colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism*](https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/nkrumah/neo-colonialism/introduction.htm).

He described a formally sovereign state whose economic system and political policy were directed from outside. He discussed monetary control, financing and other means of influence. Crucially, his stated objection was not to all foreign investment: he distinguished investment serving a country's own development plan from financial power used to subordinate it.

That distinction prevents a misleading shortcut. The presence of foreign investors is not, on its own, proof of neo-colonialism. The relevant claim is that a relationship deprives the state or its people of meaningful control. Evidence must establish that relationship rather than merely repeat the term.

Our [Bandung essay](/bandung-1955-anti-imperialism/) examines another setting in which independence, cooperation and freedom from bloc discipline were brought together.

## Why is the label used as both praise and accusation?

Calling an actor anti-imperialist can express approval of its opposition to domination. Calling that same actor a selective anti-imperialist can accuse it of defending independence only when an opponent threatens it.

Neither use decides the underlying case. A person's declared identity, the argument they make and the effects of their actions are three different things. One may accept a valid criticism made by an inconsistent author without accepting that author's whole programme.

The reverse is equally necessary: a movement's opposition to an empire does not automatically justify every method it uses or every institution it proposes. Whether civilians are protected, dissent is tolerated and minorities have rights remains open to scrutiny.

For the evidence work that follows this conceptual map, use our guide to [reading an anti-imperialist argument](/read-anti-imperialist-argument/). The definitional question establishes what is being claimed; investigation decides whether the claim holds.

## Frequently asked questions

### Is anti-imperialism always socialist?

No. Liberal and republican arguments can oppose foreign rule on grounds of consent, while socialist arguments connect imperial power to an economic structure. The League's 1899 platform and Lenin's analysis illustrate different approaches. Agreement against a particular conquest does not mean agreement about capitalism or the society that should follow independence.

### Is anti-imperialism the same as anti-colonialism?

They overlap. Anti-colonialism directly concerns colonial domination. Anti-imperialism can also address control exercised through military, political or economic relationships without formal colonial administration. The distinction depends on the author's definitions, so identify the actual relationship being criticised instead of assuming that two labels describe exactly the same target.

### Does anti-imperialism mean opposing only the United States?

No. Nothing in the basic definition restricts it to one country. A specific text may concentrate on American power, but the broader concept concerns imperial domination. Assess which power and mechanism the author identifies, and whether the principle would also apply when another state exercised comparable control.

### Can nationalism and anti-imperialism conflict?

Yes. A movement may defend its own nation's independence while denying another people's autonomy. The first position does not validate the second. Conversely, a national liberation demand can oppose imperial control without claiming national superiority. Examine who belongs to the political community and which rights it recognises beyond itself.

### Does calling a movement anti-imperialist endorse it?

No. The label can identify a stated aim or an aspect of its activity without approving its leadership, methods or domestic policies. A careful description explains the scope: which domination it opposed, what it sought to replace that relationship with, and where its claims or conduct require criticism.

## Sources

- [American Anti-Imperialist League — 1899 platform, reproduced by Fordham University](https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1899antiimp.asp)
- [V. I. Lenin — Imperialism, chapter VII](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm)
- [M. K. Gandhi — Hind Swaraj, particularly chapters IV, VIII and XIV](https://www.mkgandhi.org/ebks/hind_swaraj.pdf)
- [United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law — 1960 decolonisation declaration and its history](https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/dicc/dicc.html)
- [Kwame Nkrumah — Neo-Colonialism, introduction](https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/nkrumah/neo-colonialism/introduction.htm)

## Frequently asked questions

**Is anti-imperialism always socialist?**

No. Liberal and republican arguments can oppose foreign rule on grounds of consent, while socialist arguments connect imperial power to an economic structure. The League's 1899 platform and Lenin's analysis illustrate different approaches. Agreement against a particular conquest does not mean agreement about capitalism or the society that should follow independence.

**Is anti-imperialism the same as anti-colonialism?**

They overlap. Anti-colonialism directly concerns colonial domination. Anti-imperialism can also address control exercised through military, political or economic relationships without formal colonial administration. The distinction depends on the author's definitions, so identify the actual relationship being criticised instead of assuming that two labels describe exactly the same target.

**Does anti-imperialism mean opposing only the United States?**

No. Nothing in the basic definition restricts it to one country. A specific text may concentrate on American power, but the broader concept concerns imperial domination. Assess which power and mechanism the author identifies, and whether the principle would also apply when another state exercised comparable control.

**Can nationalism and anti-imperialism conflict?**

Yes. A movement may defend its own nation's independence while denying another people's autonomy. The first position does not validate the second. Conversely, a national liberation demand can oppose imperial control without claiming national superiority. Examine who belongs to the political community and which rights it recognises beyond itself.

**Does calling a movement anti-imperialist endorse it?**

No. The label can identify a stated aim or an aspect of its activity without approving its leadership, methods or domestic policies. A careful description explains the scope: which domination it opposed, what it sought to replace that relationship with, and where its claims or conduct require criticism.


---