Imperialism

From Free net encyclopedia

Imperialism is a policy of extending control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial conquest or settlement, or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries. The term is often used to describe the policy of a country in maintaining and dominating over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire.

Imperialism was initially coined in the mid to late 1800s[1] to identify empire-like behavior; being that empires such as the British Empire existed at that time, the notion was more concrete. Since then, however, 'imperialism' has been extended by Marxist scholars to be a synonym of capitalistic international trade and banking [2].

Insofar as 'imperialism' in the non-Marxist sense might be used to refer to an intellectual position, it would imply the belief that the acquisition and maintenance of empires is a positive good, probably combined with an assumption of cultural or other such superiority inherent to imperial power (see The White Man's Burden).

Imperialism draws heavy criticism on the grounds that historically it has been frequently employed for economic exploitation in which the imperialist power makes use of other countries as sources of raw materials and cheap labor, shaping their economies to suit its own interests, and keeping their people in poverty. When imperialism is accompanied by overt military conquest, it is also seen as a violation of freedom and human rights.

In recent years, there has also been a trend to criticize imperialism not at an economic or political level, but at a simply cultural level, particularly the widespread global influence of American culture - see cultural imperialism. Some dispute this extension, however, on the grounds that it is highly subjective (to differentiate between mutual interaction and undue influence) and also applied selectively (hamburgers being imperialist and black tea not).

1 Etymology
2 Modern imperialism
3 Marxist theory of Imperialism
4 Name dualism
5 See also

[edit]

Etymology

The Latin root is imperium (command or supreme power). The original meaning of imperialist was "an adherent of an emperor". Its current meaning dates from the late 19th century in relation to the actions of the British Empire; it subsequently grew to apply to any historical or contemporary instance of a greater power acting, or perceived to be acting, at the expense of a lesser power. Imperialism is therefore not only used to describe bona fide empire-building policies, such as those of the Romans, the Spanish or the British, but it is also used controversially and/or disparagingly, for example by both sides in communist and anti-communist propaganda, or to describe actions of the United States since its acquisition of overseas territory during the Spanish American War, to its present-day position as the world's only superpower.

[edit]

Modern imperialism

Image:Mergefrom.gif It has been suggested that Modern Western Imperialism be merged into this article or section. ([[{{{2|: talk:Imperialism}}}|Discuss]])

There is a contemporary debate surrounding the United States and whether the power it exerts upon much of the world and its policy amounts to imperialism — hence sometimes the U.S. is referred to as the "American Empire." This is because, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the United States is now the dominant power in the world. Furthermore, the U.S. has, many times over the past century, used both military intervention and economic or political influence to shape the countries within the Western Hemisphere. Opinions vary greatly within the U.S.: there are those who regard the active use of military force abroad as a part of the nation's responsibility or national interest, and there are others who argue for non-interventionism, and many shades of opinion in between.

The term American Empire is naturally controversial, since empire is largely limited to descriptions of history (rather than contemporary events) and likewise the historical examples of empire tend to be more familiar and evocative of the concept. As such, modern examples of coercion and militarism may be viewed differently.

The United States has also only had very few years of status as sole superpower, without the Soviet Union as its dominant political, military, and ideological foe. The Cold War battle for geopolitical supremacy tends to be cast in terms of 'freedom versus repression,' thereby diminishing the imperial aspects of both powers. Further, as "imperialism" tends to have negative connotations of tyranny and repression, such a claimed empire's "subjects" may be naturally disinclined to use it in any reference to themselves.

In the early 21st Century, the U.S. has turned military, political, and economic resources towards oil-rich countries in Central Asia and the Middle East. Beginning with the end of World War II, the U.S. largely took over from the UK certain roles by which it exerted influence in the Middle East. Through United States-instigated and assisted assassinations and coups, several Middle Eastern nations have felt the strong influence of Western societies: Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel have been directly or otherwise substantially influenced by U.S. policy. (This does not include prior or continuing British Empire holdings of the time — notably in India and Pakistan.)

As there are few other countries with such a capability, it has been said by some that U.S. military actions are partly or mostly acts of militarist imperialism. Others simply believe that such allegations are used as groundless criticism against the U.S. whenever it takes a military action. Two uncontroversial facts are that the U.S. currently has a much larger and more sophisticated military than any other country — operating over 100 bases in every part of the world. The U.S. has also used its military to control its interests. It is debatable whether these things alone constitute imperialism, or whether such "imperialism" adequately resembles past incarnations — Roman, British, German or otherwise.

[edit]

Marxist theory of Imperialism

Karl Marx never published a theory of imperialism, although he referred to colonialism in Das Kapital as an aspect of the prehistory of the capitalist mode of production. In various articles he also analysed British colonial rule in Ireland and India.

Marxists use the term imperialism as Lenin defined it: "the highest stage of capitalism", specifically the era in which monopoly finance capital becomes dominant, forcing nations and corporations to compete amongst themselves increasingly for control over resources and markets all over the world. Such control may take the form of geopolitical machinations, military adventures, or financial maneuvers. This usage of the term "imperialism" is in some ways inaccurate, since imperialism is historically implicated in the very origins of capitalism - although historians differ in their assessment of its economic importance.

The essential feature of the Marxist theories of imperialism, or related theories such as dependency theory, is their focus on the economic relation between countries, rather than the formal political relationship. Imperialism thus consists not necessarily in the direct control of one country by another, but in the economic exploitation of one region by another, or of a group by another. This Marxist usage contrasts with many people's understanding of the connotation of the word 'imperialism', which they think of as relating to the era when countries directly controlled vast empires, rather than the economic domination that some parts of the world have over others today - this popular view is a conflation of imperialism with colonialism, the establishment of overseas colonies.

As noted above, the Marxist theory of imperialism is not founded on the works of Karl Marx, but on those of Vladimir Lenin. Nevertheless, the theory is accepted today by the majority of Marxists, even those who are not Leninists. It states that imperialism allows the capitalists from developed (rich) countries to extract a superprofit from the working class of undeveloped (poor) countries. The majority of this superprofit is kept by the capitalists themselves, but some of it is shared with the working class of the developed countries (in the form of higher standards of living, cheaper consumer goods, etc.), in order to placate that working class and avoid revolution at home.

The Soviet Union, which claimed to follow Leninism, proclaimed itself the foremost enemy of imperialism and supported many independence movements throughout the Third World. However, at the same time, it asserted its dominance over the countries of Eastern Europe. This has led many to accuse the Soviet Union of hypocrisy, and it is often used as an argument for the idea that the Soviet Union did not, in fact, follow Leninist principles.

New developments in the Marxist study of imperialism stem from the ground-breaking study The Age of Imperialism, written by Harry Magdoff in 1969. Globalization is generally viewed as the latest incarnation of imperialism among Marxists.

[edit]

Name dualism

One thing to note in some allegedly imperialistic countries is the "melting" between the name — and in many times, the sense of national identity — of the titular nation and the other territories controlled by this nation including the titular nation itself. Some examples are: