Define U.S. Imperialism.

[Deicide]

The U.S. behaves a little differently than previous empires. It doesn't ''impose'' its complete domination in the same way that Britain or the Romans did.

What constitutes U.S. imperialism? Define it.

I'm also searching for quotes by founding Fathers, who claimed the U.S. was built as an imperialist nation. I remember Chomsky quoting one of them, although I can't remember which one or which lecture it was from.

:thumbup1:

[Franz Fanonipants]

The U.S. behaves a little differently than previous empires. It doesn't ''impose'' its complete domination in the same way that Britain or the Romans did.

haha what?

land fraud (http://books.google.com/books/about/Translating_property.html?id=VR76NzvpaukC)
genocide (http://books.google.com/books?id=L6qtcQAACAAJ&dq=bury+my+heart+at+wounded+knee&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8VFFT9SxHoqYiQLlup2-Dg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAg)
settler colonialism (http://books.google.com/books?id=Ewvy9FF8-UAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=white+mother+to+a+dark+race&hl=en&sa=X&ei=E1JFT52bBsaeiQKM3fXlDg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=white%20mother%20to%20a%20dark%20race&f=false)

[Deicide]

haha what?

land fraud (http://books.google.com/books/about/Translating_property.html?id=VR76NzvpaukC)
genocide (http://books.google.com/books?id=L6qtcQAACAAJ&dq=bury+my+heart+at+wounded+knee&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8VFFT9SxHoqYiQLlup2-Dg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAg)
settler colonialism (http://books.google.com/books?id=Ewvy9FF8-UAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=white+mother+to+a+dark+race&hl=en&sa=X&ei=E1JFT52bBsaeiQKM3fXlDg&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=white%20mother%20to%20a%20dark%20race&f=false)

I mean that in contemporary context. Right now.

[Book O'Dead]

If there is any significant difference between U.S. capitalist imperialism and former imperialisms it must be its totalitarianism. Capitalist imperialism and thought-control is almost total throughout the world.

[Ostrinski]

Expansion of multinationals, usually by military means.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I mean that in contemporary context. Right now.

all of that literally persists to this day in the federal internal colony that is the US west

to see american imperialism in its late stage, do nothing further than explore the western part of the country

[Franz Fanonipants]

Expansion of multinationals, usually by military means.

which is exactly what those books will tell you.

military action, be it violent or in terms of survey and initial development, led to establishment of capital. then federal expansion in the us west with a fracturing of federal and private forms of capitalism spreading out across the west

if you study the american west you'll essentially be studying the framework for american empire

[TheGodlessUtopian]

If there is any significant difference between U.S. capitalist imperialism and former imperialisms it must be its totalitarianism. Capitalist imperialism and thought-control is almost total throughout the world.

U.S imperialism is different from roman imperialism in the sense that the current imperialism is created from economic conditions while the roman one was made from imposing control on land via army instead of markets.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/american-imperialism-t5305/index.html

[Agathor]

George Washington said that America was born as an empire, although he probably phrased it differently.

Imperialism is a the name given to the process by which a nation state subordinates another and uses it's position of domination to parasitically extract profits. This has been done in many ways, but they all begin with the installation of a puppet regime, either an official dominion, as was the case for 19th century imperialsim, or unofficial and secret, as is the case today. American imperialism first took the official route, which we can see in Manifest Destiny and the invasion of the Philippines, but now is more furtive. The same is true of French imperialism, which is in my opinion the only other imperial power still in existence. The puppet state crushes labour power and does what it can to profit imperial business: erect tariffs which favour their goods, use the repressed workers as a cheap source of labour, give them exclusive access to fuel or mineral reserves, allow them to build military bases, and so on.

In my opinion US and French imperialism are deeply moribund. For the first time, imperial control is being lost to the populations of the repressed countries rather than other imperial powers, which was how empires rose and fell for thousands of years. It's much tamer too. Mubarack's Egypt was nasty, but compared to the British Raj it was the Garden of Eden.

The term imperialism is misused around here, and is generally used to refer to every aspect of the United States' foreign policy.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

United States imperialism is not monolithic, it is very diverse when applied in different circumstances, which is one thing that makes it particularly fightening and, at the same time, hard to define. American Imperialism can range from blatantly invading nations, overthrowing their leaders, and occupying them (like in Iraq), to supporting anti-left wing rebel groups to overthrow their rightful governments that the US disagrees with (Democratic Afghanistan and Nicaragua). American imperialism is like the monster in the closet for the toilers of the world; they can never know when or how it will come out to attack them.

But here is a basic definition: American imperialism is the spreading of American influence to other nations to the point that those nations lose some of their national or economic sovereignty, if not all of it. It is usually done under the guise of spreading democracy and peace, but its real purpose is to gain profits for American companies and the American government by creating virtual colonies throughout the world .

[Tavarisch_Mike]

The form of imperialism that the U.S. is recognized by starts with the spanish-american war. Since then the U.S. industrial capitalism had expanded thanks to the conquering of the mid-west, which lead to building up new societies and populate theese areas, which, ofcourse, lead to a need of higher productivity. Comapre this the countries of Europe who colonized areas, far away from them in order to exploite them, populate them (to some extend) and that created a need of infrastructure, which then leeds to a need of higher productivity.

Now teh U.S. couldnt expande within its boarders anymore and had to look abroad. Not by the european way of colonisazing, but by taking control over important trades in one way or another. Later this would also include defending multinational corporations that plays a strong roll in the countries economy, like the event of american fruit inc in Guatemala 54. And as menthioned above the throwing over left-wing elemnts (Vietnam, Nicaragua). Instaling puppet regimes and just occupy places.

[Franz Fanonipants]

The form of imperialism that the U.S. is recognized by starts with the spanish-american war.

try 1776

e: or like 1607, as the jamestown deal is pretty much a really good forecast of US imperialism

[Rafiq]

Imperialism itself is unique to capitalism. There have been forms of colonialism before capitalism, however, not like Imperialism.

U.S. Imperialism, scientifically, is identical to other forms of Imperialism.

However, what is unique about the American "Style", is pretending it's not an empire, and it's not Imperialist. The British were open about their colonial rule, as were the French. Today, the United States practices Imperialism while under the guise of freeing countries.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The form of imperialism that the U.S. is recognized by starts with the spanish-american war.

Hmm, not sure about that. The annexation of Hawaii for example took place before the spanish american war, IIRC.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Hmm, not sure about that. The annexation of Hawaii for example took place before the spanish american war, IIRC.

and you know that whole tidy invasion of Mexico precedes both

also the shawnee

basically the entirety of the US's existence as a Thing is a pattern of empire. we just forget because as rafiq pointed out, you cannot call an american empire imperial.

unless its c. the 1890s

[gorillafuck]

economic domination and control for the benefit of American capitalists, whether through direct military means or through political maneuvering

[Tavarisch_Mike]

try 1776

e: or like 1607, as the jamestown deal is pretty much a really good forecast of US imperialism


Im not sure if i follow you. Do you mean that the imperialism starts as soon as any greater form of colonization starts there?

[Ostrinski]

U.S imperialism is different from roman imperialism in the sense that the current imperialism is created from economic conditions while the roman one was made from imposing control on land via army instead of markets.Roman expansionism doesn't really qualify as imperialism, for reasons that Rafiq laid out, but it was based on economic interests equally as much as market imperialism. As materialists, we understand that actions seen through the lens of history are not isolated or independent of other developments, but responses to other actions and developments. Nothing is done for the sake of the deed, the Romans didn't expand for the sake of expanding, and they wouldn't have done it without a pre-existing economic interest in doing so.

Similarly, firms and corporations don't expand for the sake of expanding, they expand because the global market necessitates expansion for them to stay afloat.

[Bostana]

Define: U.S. Imperialism,

The Iraq War (also known as the Occupation of Iraq, the Second Gulf War),is a military campaign that began on March 20, 2003

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

Mass 'hidden' propaganda that fuels ignorance in people. Capitalist propaganda is everywhere, but it is not presented as such. In the US, the proletariat has been made to be the tool that is used against them. They convince the proletariat to oppress themselves, of course with the help of the bourgeoisie.

[Ostrinski]

Mass 'hidden' propaganda that fuels ignorance in people. Capitalist propaganda is everywhere, but it is not presented as such. In the US, the proletariat has been made to be the tool that is used against them. They convince the proletariat to oppress themselves, of course with the help of the bourgeoisie.Indeed.. but on what grounds does this having anything to do with imperialism?

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

Indeed.. but on what grounds does this having anything to do with imperialism?

I just realized that I misunderstood the OP's question. I originally thought that he was asking how the United States gets away with capitalism and imperialism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Im not sure if i follow you. Do you mean that the imperialism starts as soon as any greater form of colonization starts there?

i mean yeah obvs. the Jamestown company was not the same thing as a 19th century company but yeah. mostly the lesson is that you cannot separate the existence of the united states from imperialism. ever.

even florida and the american west basically exists as a part of spanish imperial venture, but we're talking about the us here.

[MarxSchmarx]

"American imperialism" is one of those phrases that is quite anachronistic and IMO does more damage to the left than good. Most of the left's theories of imperialism were formulated around the turn of the last century when the nature of overseas empires and their relations to their colonies were something most of us reading this forum can't realistically appreciate. Moreover, these theories were developed with the backdrop of honest-to-goodness empire building exercises like Napoleonic wars, Japanese expansionism, and, yes, American manifest destiny in Latin America and the Pacific.

A tremendous amount of intellectual capital of the left gets sucked into trying to show how little has changed in terms of the relationship primarily between the governments of states where manufacturing capital sits and the "periphery" on which it relies for procurement of raw resources, and trying to fit the square peg of contemporary geopolitics into the round mold of some thing like Lenin's imperialism.

To what end? At best, the expression "American imperialism" has some lingering but fast diminishing to zero propaganda value. More often than not, it fails to resonate almost 100% among people who aren't already committed leftists - the possible exception being the right-wing xenophobes. And sure, it strikes a chord in Latin America and the Middle East, but then again, in most places since the last 3 decades the expression is a thinly veiled rallying cry against the very real damage of neoliberalism, rather than American imperialism as a parallel to say the British empire.

More problematic perhaps is that the approach centered on how the left uses the phrase "American imperialism" by and large requires a reductionist approach that ignores more problematic dynamics. For example, American intervention in Iraq was analyzed as being primarily about oil using the "American imperalism" line. But there were a host of other factors at play, not least of which was the considerable callousness and insane public support for the war among the (white) American working class and Iraq's strategic location. Sure, oil undoubtedly had a role, but the fact was the US got along basically fine without Iranian or Libyan oil for decades.

Coupled with the fact that cries of "American imperialism" are non-starters in terms of motivating any significant segment of the AMerican working class that isn't already leftist, I have to wonder why the left, particularly in the United States and other areas of the global north, so persistently cling to this notion.

As a method of analysis, it's not clear what insights a dogged and ensuing commitment to equating contemporary American hegemony with the empires of the 1890s really conveys that we don't already more or less know. If one is keen on historical parrallels, the commercial empires of Carthage or Venice offer quite a bit more striking resemblences to American foreign policy today.

I think it's useful to contrast a classical Leninist analysis of imperialism with something like Gramsci's analysis of super-structures. The former, while reasonable at the time of its formulation, clearly shows the mark of a theory formulated and developed in a very different era. Occasionally the theory of imperialism more generally might be useful, in for example explaining the insane coltan exploitation in Africa. It is not at all clear to me how it should be modified, and whether its conclusions are still useful, in interpreting the dynamics of how China is fueling western Australia's resource boom or in understanding China's role in acquring African coltan. Gramsci's analysis of superstructures, by contrast, continues to shed novel insight on the development of, and social adoption of, things like new communication technologies.

tl;dr version - calling American global hegemony, which is a real problem, "American imperialism" invites a host of confusion among people who aren't already leftists and in any event offers unclear insights. As such it may be useful as shorthand jargon for leftists and have some lingering propaganda value in places like Latin America, but outside of that should really be phased out of our discourse.

But don't me wrong, the legacy of that era dies hard and still plays a role in today's society. But it is not the over-arching cohesive and uniform explanation it may have once been.


If there is any significant difference between U.S. capitalist imperialism and former imperialisms it must be its totalitarianism. Capitalist imperialism and thought-control is almost total throughout the world.

While there's more to the profound differences between American imperialism of today and the empires (including American) of the late 19th early 20th century, the point about America's cultural domination is correct - the world has not seen anything like it probably since Rome and China.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

i mean yeah obvs. the Jamestown company was not the same thing as a 19th century company but yeah. mostly the lesson is that you cannot separate the existence of the united states from imperialism. ever.

even florida and the american west basically exists as a part of spanish imperial venture, but we're talking about the us here.


Ok! then i get it comrade ;)