Central to Fabianism and the Empire was Bernard Shaw's belief in the inevitability of imperialism. In his earlier piece in Fabian Essays cited in previous articles in this series, Shaw argued that socialism could not come about until imperialism collapsed, thereby making it necessary for imperialism to exist beforehand. Eleven years later, this theory became more sophisticated when he compared imperialism to "a trust annexing a small shopkeeper - a capitalist transaction to be sure, but one making, like all advanced capitalism, for Socialism." [1] This theory is expounded on further in Fabianism and the Empire. Yet, though Shaw posited that imperialism was inevitable and indeed necessary for socialism to eventually occur, he did not maintain that British imperialism was inevitable. Rather, the central question was "whether England is to be the centre and nucleus of one of those Great Powers of the future [which were to split up the world], or to be cast off by its colonies, ousted from its provinces, and reduced to its old island status..." [2] It is this dichotomy of views, on the one hand arguing that imperialism was inevitable but also maintaining that a British one was not, which makes Fabianism and the Empire such an interesting document. For Shaw clearly sees a British Empire going astray and though the tract is imperialist in theory, it is harshly critical on several levels of British imperialism in practice.
He began by deriding the consular service and the then newly opened Imperial Institute as "an exceptionally silly job." This would not be so bad except for the fact that the apparatus that then existed represented the interests of "the private financial interests" rather than those of "the Commonwealth." [3] Yet, even this criticism was mild compared to those he lobbed against the British Government in regard to their policies in India:
- Take the case of India, famine-stricken and plague-stricken. At present we govern India despotically and bureaucratically, treating the native as a child who must be governed for his own good. Without raising the question whether India subtlely understands parliamentary institutions too well, or does not understand them at all... that is no reason for placing thousands of miles between the exams for the Indian Civil Service, and maintaining it so as to provide lucrative posts for Englishmen whose pensions add cruelty to the drain of rupees from a very poor country to a very rich one.[4]
