The USA is an empire?

[Nox]

During a History lesson at college today, we were learning about the rise of the British Empire, and we were discussing what defines an empire, my history teacher then said that there are two kinds of empires; formal and informal.

He said that the USA could be classed as an informal empire because of its economic grip on many nations, control of many foreign natural resources, and its huge sphere of economic and military influence.

Is this a fair statement to make?

[thesadmafioso]

I'd say so, given it's massive network of military and economic infrastructural across the globe and the often brutal measures which are applied to maintain such.

Of course it is informal, as the age of the direct empire has long since passed, but it is still an empire in its own respect. Military coups and covertly funded right wing guerilla armies have since replaced the literal and direct conquest of territory, as they are capable of producing comparable results with much less of the hassle. As the nature of global politics has changed, so have the tactics of empire building. The US certainly still uses the blunt stick of mass military involvement, though they generally have to put some effort into maintaining a facade of self governance in the region which is subjected to such and it is more limited in its potential that it was a century or so ago. Issues like public opinion have more sway than they did in previous centuries as well, meaning that a much higher rate of domestic instability can be generated through the use of such means, further discouraging their use in many instances.

[Nox]

Thanks for the responses, one other thing he said however was that an informal empire (gaining economic control) is a the precursive to a formal empire (getting full control).

Do you think a formal empire is possible today?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I am honestly unsure if a formal empire is possible in modern times since it would be transparent in its military conquests.The U.S,and allies,hides behind humanitarian bullshit reasons,which makes it informal,so if a named empire where to spring up, somehow, I think it wouldn't last very long.

[thesadmafioso]

Thanks for the responses, one other thing he said however was that an informal empire (gaining economic control) is a the precursive to a formal empire (getting full control).

Do you think a formal empire is possible today?

I suppose it's possible, but the effort which would need to go into it far outweighs the potential gains to be had for the capitalist state involved in the creation of such. The current structure provides the US with all of the economic and military benefits of a physical empire without the vast majority of the difficulties involved in its upkeep.

I can't see a reason for the US wanting to extend its formal reach to such a point. After all, why would they bother sending in US troops when they can just throw together some fascist death squads with a bit of covert funding to do their bidding? It's cheaper and it spares them the difficulties involved in having a public which is actually aware of the undertakings of its government.

[Invader Zim]

During a History lesson at college today, we were learning about the rise of the British Empire, and we were discussing what defines an empire, my history teacher then said that there are two kinds of empires; formal and informal.

He said that the USA could be classed as an informal empire because of its economic grip on many nations, control of many foreign natural resources, and its huge sphere of economic and military influence.

Is this a fair statement to make?


Yes.

In terms of Britain and the informal empire, one of the key examples is Argentina.

[Nox]

I am honestly unsure if a formal empire is possible in modern times since it would be transparent in its military conquests.The U.S,and allies,hides behind humanitarian bullshit reasons,which makes it informal,so if a named empire where to spring up, somehow, I think it wouldn't last very long.

It doesn't have to be called an empire to be a formal empire. It just has to have actual control over the land, not just economic power over the land.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

It doesn't have to be called an empire to be a formal empire. It just has to have actual control over the land, not just economic power over the land.

Ah,I see.

Since that is the case I suppose it would be possible to a certain degree but I think eventually with the amount of resources it would take to maintain control it would collapse.For instance,I don't exactly see any of the major imperialist powers subjugating one another's land like in the world wars.

[Nox]

I am honestly unsure if a formal empire is possible in modern times since it would be transparent in its military conquests.The U.S,and allies,hides behind humanitarian bullshit reasons,which makes it informal,so if a named empire where to spring up, somehow, I think it wouldn't last very long.


An empire doesn't have to call itself an empire to be classed as a formal empire. It just has to have direct control over the land rather than economic power over the land.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Thanks for the responses, one other thing he said however was that an informal empire (gaining economic control) is a the precursive to a formal empire (getting full control).

Do you think a formal empire is possible today?

A formal empire is possible today, but right now it would be less efficient to build a formal empire than an informal one. Saddam Hussein tried twice to create a "formal" empire as did Gaddafi but they lacked the resources to build it let alone hold onto it. So while formal empire is "possible" right now there's not really an incentive to create one. If a leader tries to create one they are likely to invite military opposition from other countries, and even if they succeed then the economic isolation from the world after they sanction the country. After that, there will surely be a never-ending guerrilla war that will be next to un-winnable thanks to the massive surplus supply of Kalashnikovs left over from the USSR. Countries don't do it because it is no longer economically beneficial.

And Russia, the USA, Iran and China still hold old Imperial territories which were conquered. Places like Puerto Rico, Tibet, Kurdistan and Chechnya are "formal" imperial territories in many respects as they were conquered during an era of Imperial expansion in said countries, they have large amounts of dissent against the "center". However, in most cases these are either small in population and geographic area.

There are also "Accidental" empires like Sudan, where a newly independent country in the post-colonial era with arbitrary borders drawn by Europeans 100 years ago saw a single population gain a monopoly on power and use the national borders given to them to exploit communities in the peripheral areas. This is why South Sudan demanded independence-they had no power in the center and had been reduced to economic servitude by the Arab population in the North. Now other ethnic groups in Sudan but outside of the newly independent southern nation are demanding equality because they too are exploited.

I think the great "End" of "Formal" Empires started around the time of the British withdrawl from India, the Suez Crisis, the Algerian revolution, the Mau Mau uprising, and ending with the collapse of Portugal's African empire in the 70s. These events showed that, at least in this particular era, traditional empires are no longer economically or politically viable, though in an abstract sense they are certainly possible (and could come back who knows?).


Yes.

In terms of Britain and the informal empire, one of the key examples is Argentina.

Are you talking about the Falklands? That doesn't seem like Empire at all since residents on the island actively chose membership in the UK. Or did the UK have to do with the debt crisis in Argentina? This example needs more explanation.

[Proteus]

I am honestly unsure if a formal empire is possible in modern times since it would be transparent in its military conquests.The U.S,and allies,hides behind humanitarian bullshit reasons,which makes it informal,so if a named empire where to spring up, somehow, I think it wouldn't last very long.

We may live in a different era of language but the results tend to be the same. The USA is already stretched militarily and economically and its hegemony is reversing. Even as the only superpower the USA simply has not the resources to directly control everything, no one state can. The USA concentrates its actions and resources most heavily on the middle east in its desire to strategically control energy reserves. This usually requires a greater or lesser control over this or that state to achieve this. Democracy is fine if it has outcomes that conform to US interests, otherwise its a dictator who will conform or be removed. I think its just plain expediency. Whatever suits US investors is what will be supported or made happen. The US wants, like the empires before it, to have access to markets and resources on its terms and force will be used against those who do not conform to this hegemony, like the empires before it.

[ColonelCossack]

Globalisation is a kind of imperialism. So yeah... they do...

[Misanthrope]

I'd say absolutely. America has military bases all over the world, they occupy numerous countries internationally. The state benefits off of imperialism, politically and economically.

[Invader Zim]

Are you talking about the Falklands? That doesn't seem like Empire at all since residents on the island actively chose membership in the UK. Or did the UK have to do with the debt crisis in Argentina? This example needs more explanation.

No, I am talking directly about Argentina.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/649897

[Aussie_Leftist]

yes its a fair statement. the us is an empire. a very effective empire for the reason it exists; to serve the corporations and capitalists.

[GPDP]

I believe if the global system of capitalism keeps decaying at the current rate, we may eventually see a return to formal, literal empires, only with a fascistic twist this time around.

[Invader Zim]

I believe if the global system of capitalism keeps decaying at the current rate, we may eventually see a return to formal, literal empires, only with a fascistic twist this time around.

Fortunately it is only your belief. And more fortunately still that belief is not based on how the world currently is and how it was historically. The reason these empires rose, and died, is because they were the product of culture, economic and geographical structure that was unique to the early modern period, and as the early modern period gave way to the modern, and this structure changed, empires of that sort ceased to be viable. even if the economic situation were to utterly collapse it would not create the same economic or cultural structure that led to the rise of imperial powers.

[Le Socialiste]

I'd say it is, if unofficially. It's hegemonic role in world affairs, economies, and military matters lends to the general (if silent) acceptance of American power. It may not become an imperialistic state outright, but its current place in the world as a global force capable of projecting power abroad lends to the - again, unofficial - status of empire. I believe the old concepts surrounding what constitutes an empire have given way largely to the modern ones; that is, it is more politically viable and financially sustainable to create spheres of influence than to conquer entire peoples. You can see that practically all major powers have adopted this model lately. It can be seen in Russia and its near abroad, China and southeast asia, etc. And of course, the USA. Indirect control on the political, economic, and security affairs of foreign governments are far more profitable than direct control.

[Caoimhin]

I believe it is a fair assessment

Washington currently has something in the region of 900 military bases outside its on shores,controlling vast resources ,from the Caspian basin to their openly flouting of Canada's territory by sailing war ships through her waters,America hasn't been anything but an empire since it first tried to annex Cuba in the early 1800's

[Commissar Rykov]

I believe it is a fair assessment

Washington currently has something in the region of 900 military bases outside its on shores,controlling vast resources ,from the Caspian basin to their openly flouting of Canada's territory by sailing war ships through her waters,America hasn't been anything but an empire since it first tried to annex Cuba in the early 1800's
Uh we were an empire or attempting long before that. The War of 1812 comes to mind since the sole goal in that war was the annexation of Canada.

[Dumb]

Given the number of indigenous peoples the U.S. conquered in the 18th and 19th centuries, I fail to see how the "formal" label wouldn't fit. The U.S. has been a formal empire for several decades from that perspective.

[ВАЛТЕР]

The United States had imperialistic goals from the beginning. From seizing Native American land, to getting bases in Guam, the Philippines, and Cuba, up until the modern day military bases it has on foreign nations in the name of preserving freedom. Most recently the attempt to build a missile shield in Europe to "protect" Europe from "Iran"...

If it does turn into a formal empire, expect war...lots of it. Even more than today.