Which countries are 'imperialist'?

[Blanquist]

Can someone list all the countries they believe are imperialist?

Why does a major power like Japan not play a more aggressive role in the world?

[Rooster]

Imperialism isn't about just nation states. It's about international capital using nation states to continue the process of capitalism. This is why arguments about anti-imperialism are often just inane babbling. For example, North Korea is often held up to be an anti-imperialist nation. However, this can't be the case because it helps facilitate the exploitation of the proletariat and capital accumulation through it's exportation of cheap labour, etc.

[Blanquist]

Imperialism isn't about just nation states. It's about international capital using nation states to continue the process of capitalism. This is why arguments about anti-imperialism are often just inane babbling. For example, North Korea is often held up to be an anti-imperialist nation. However, this can't be the case because it helps facilitate the exploitation of the proletariat and capital accumulation through it's exportation of cheap labour, etc.

There are imperialist 'nation states' and there are those that aren't. North Korean is not an imperialist nation.

[zimmerwald1915]

There are imperialist 'nation states' and there are those that aren't. North Korean is not an imperialist nation.
Imperialism isn't a policy. It's a system into which the capitalists of every country are forced by competition to buy in. North Korea and countries like it aren't victims of imperialism, as though they exist outside imperialism and imperialism was forced up on them; they're losers in imperialism.

[Ostrinski]

There are imperialist 'nation states' and there are those that aren't. North Korean is not an imperialist nation.No nation state is imperialist in and of itself, that just negates an understanding of imperialism. The global market necessitates constant growth and infinite expansion of the capital accumulation process. However, private entities use the all the mechanisms of the state to carry this out abroad. This is probably where your misunderstanding comes from.

[Blanquist]

No nation state is imperialist in and of itself, that just negates an understanding of imperialism. The global market necessitates constant growth and infinite expansion of the capital accumulation process. However, private entities use the all the mechanisms of the state to carry this out abroad. This is probably where your misunderstanding comes from.

What the hell are you talking about? There are imperialist nations that exploit other nations and at times go to war with other imperialist nations for control and the right to exploit other nations.

Lenin told me so.

Marxist texts (Lenin and Trotsky) are littered with references to specific 'imperialist nations' and references to 'non-imperialist nations'

Don't complicate this thread by trying to act smart and patronize.

There is American imperialism, Russian imperialism, and go on....

That's what this thread is about.

Second question is why Japan is not more aggressive, according to theory and history it should be.

[Ostrinski]

What the hell are you talking about? There are imperialist nations that exploit other nations and at times go to war with other imperialist nations for control and the right to exploit other nations.And do you think they do this for the hell of it? No, it's in the interest of capital.


Lenin told me so.Not sure if this was meant to be comical. Lenin was wrong on the national question.


Marxist texts (Lenin and Trotsky) are littered with references to specific 'imperialist nations' and references to 'non-imperialist nations'The nation-states that facilitate imperialism is probably what they are referring to.


Don't complicate this thread by trying to act smart and patronize.Chill.


There is American imperialism, Russian imperialism, and go on....There is the imperialism of American capital, Russian capital, and so on. They use the state mechanisms of the American and Russian governments to meet their ends. That is where your misunderstanding lies.


Second question is why Japan is not more aggressive, according to theory and history it should be.What theory? They're pretty heavily subsidized by the west, they don't need to be as aggressive as before.

[Blanquist]

And do you think they do this for the hell of it? No, it's in the interest of capital.

Not sure if this was meant to be comical. Lenin was wrong on the national question.

The nation-states that facilitate imperialism is probably what they are referring to.

Chill.

There is the imperialism of American capital, Russian capital, and so on. They use the state mechanisms of the American and Russian governments to meet their ends. That is where your misunderstanding lies.

What theory? They're pretty heavily subsidized by the west, they don't need to be as aggressive as before.

OK, so the US is an imperialist country, American capital uses the state mechanism to meet their ends. Russia as well, and who else? Don't tell me you think all countries are imperialist.

How is Japan heavily subsidized by the west? Give examples.

[Blanquist]

Imperialism isn't about just nation states. It's about international capital using nation states to continue the process of capitalism. This is why arguments about anti-imperialism are often just inane babbling. For example, North Korea is often held up to be an anti-imperialist nation. However, this can't be the case because it helps facilitate the exploitation of the proletariat and capital accumulation through it's exportation of cheap labour, etc.

I don't think NK is an 'anti' imperialist nation. But it is not an imperialist nation. Facilitating the exploitation of the proletariat does not make a nation 'imperialist'

If NK is imperialist for this reason, then every country on earth is imperialist.
This is simply nonsense.

[zimmerwald1915]

Don't tell me you think all countries are imperialist.
This formulation betrays a misunderstanding of what imperialism is, and as such it is a very weak attack on the arguments of people who try to go deeper than attaching labels to countries they don't like.

[Ostrinski]

OK, so the US is an imperialist country, American capital uses the state mechanism to meet their ends. Russia as well, and who else? Don't tell me you think all countries are imperialist.Those with dominance in the global market are the imperialists. US, Russia, China, etc.


How is Japan heavily subsidized by the west? Give examples.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan
I don't know the specifics of the Japanese economy.

[Q]

Like others have mentioned imperialism can only be understood if one views capitalism as a global system, with a hierarchy of states. Depending on where states are within this hierarchy, they can be exploitative or exploited. But exploited capitalist countries aren't in any way "better" than the exploiting ones. Arguing that would lead to the logical conclusion of third-worldism and saying that the proletariat in the core capitalist states cannot be revolutionary due to their role in exploiting the third world.

[Blanquist]

Those with dominance in the global market are the imperialists. US, Russia, China, etc.


I don't know the specifics of the Japanese economy.


Dont say 'etc.' Go on, list all the countries you consider imperialist. That's the point of the thread!

List all of them. Thank you.

[Omsk]

Imperialist powers from the 19th century =/= modern imperialist powers.

[Rooster]

EDIT: oh weird, see post below.

[Blanquist]

Like others have mentioned imperialism can only be understood if one views capitalism as a global system, with a hierarchy of states. Depending on where states are within this hierarchy, they can be exploitative or exploited. But exploited capitalist countries aren't in any way "better" than the exploiting ones. Arguing that would lead to the logical conclusion of third-worldism and saying that the proletariat in the core capitalist states cannot be revolutionary due to their role in exploiting the third world.

Nobody said anything about 'better' no one denies capitalism is a global system. Please spare me..

List all the states you consider imperialist. Thank you.

[Blanquist]

Imperialist powers from the 19th century =/= modern imperialist powers.

Who in this thread said otherwise? Are you imagining things?

[zimmerwald1915]

Dont say 'etc.' Go on, list all the countries you consider imperialist. That's the point of the thread!
As an aside, don't start a thread on a discussion forum and expect it not to include discussion. Naming countries does not lead to clarity on the question of imperialism or a deeper understanding of imperialism. Nor does it tell you anything about a particular user's understanding of imperialism that you can't figure out from looking at their profile.

[Rooster]

I don't think NK is an 'anti' imperialist nation. But it is not an imperialist nation. Facilitating the exploitation of the proletariat does not make a nation 'imperialist'

If NK is imperialist for this reason, then every country on earth is imperialist.
This is simply nonsense.

You're right, it's not anti-imperialist. It's not the negation of imperialism. Imperialism is a stage of capital exploitation so it's not as if you can have imperialist nation states and non-imperialist nation states. Every nation on the Earth is imperialist for that reason. They are all connected within the capitalist global system. It's like saying that one capitalist isn't a capitalist because they're not very good at business.

[Q]

List all the states you consider imperialist. Thank you.

Any country that is in some way participating in the global capitalist system.

There are of course countries that are capitalist and fall outside the state hierarchy. An example is Iran. A former example was Libya. Such states cannot be tolerated by global capital, as it must always expand, always be able to reach the "market" to the fullest extent. Such countries are therefore to be "disciplined" to abide by the state hierarchy as soon as the top hegemon(s) have this political space to do so, hence the war in Libya for example and the war drums on Iran.

Incidentally, large sections of the left have had issues over this, typifying states like Iran and Libya as "anti-imperialist". This leads to stupid positions, like the SWP in the UK had before 2008 of supporting the Tehran regime as it was supposedly "anti-imperialist"...

[Blanquist]

As an aside, don't start a thread on a discussion forum and expect it not to include discussion. Naming countries does not lead to clarity on the question of imperialism or a deeper understanding of imperialism. Nor does it tell you anything about a particular user's understanding of imperialism that you can't figure out from looking at their profile.

:blushing: I just want someone to answer the OP, list the countries and then "well of course this means nothing and i understand imperialism so well and blah blah blah"

I don't mind discussion but I made this thread to have the OP answered but have a feeling no one will, maybe because they can't? And try to find an excuse for why they can't by saying "you are misunderstanding this and that"

Just answer the OP is all I ask, and then you can discuss whatever you want.

[Omsk]

Who in this thread said otherwise? Are you imagining things?

Some users concentrated on the historical examples of imperialism,i just wrote that as a reminder of some sort.

[Q]

:blushing: I just want someone to answer the OP, list the countries and then "well of course this means nothing and i understand imperialism so well and blah blah blah"

I don't mind discussion but I made this thread to have the OP answered but have a feeling no one will, maybe because they can't? And try to find an excuse for why they can't by saying "you are misunderstanding this and that"

Just answer the OP is all I ask, and then you can discuss whatever you want.

We answered the OP. It's just that you don't like the answer.

[Blanquist]

Any country that is in some way participating in the global capitalist system.

There are of course countries that are capitalist and fall outside the state hierarchy. An example is Iran. A former example was Libya. Such states cannot be tolerated by global capital, as it must always expand, always be able to reach the "market" to the fullest extent. Such countries are therefore to be "disciplined" to abide by the state hierarchy as soon as the top hegemon(s) have this political space to do so, hence the war in Libya for example and the war drums on Iran.

Libya and Iran dont 'in some way participate in the global capitalist system?'

This is crazy, according to you every country is imperialist but Iran isnt even capitalist?

Absurd.

[Q]

Libya and Iran dont 'in some way participate in the global capitalist system?'

This is crazy, according to you every country is imperialist but Iran isnt even capitalist?

Absurd.

You misread: Iran is an example of a capitalist country that is outside the hierarchy of states, but still participates in the global capitalist system (like, it still trades oil for example).

[Ostrinski]

Every state that is involved with the global market facilitates imperialism in some way or other. Some sort of list to the effect of what you're asking for would be useless as the lines are not that clear cut.

[Omsk]

Maybe a better explenation: Iran,Libya,and other countries are not willing to give away their sometimes,natural resources [Libya=Oil] so the large imperialist powers,and capitalists,need to change the leading top of the country [By war,or suporting local rebels] in order to control the country and get as much as profit from it as they can.

[zimmerwald1915]

I don't mind discussion but I made this thread to have the OP answered but have a feeling no one will, maybe because they can't? And try to find an excuse for why they can't by saying "you are misunderstanding this and that"

Just answer the OP is all I ask, and then you can discuss whatever you want.
If you want an honest answer, that's what you've got. You can't name "imperialist countries" because imperialism isn't something countries do. It isn't a policy choice. It's the shape taken by the global market in the current epoch, and shapes the choices of capitalists in all countries - in how they deal with capitalists in other countries and with workers at home and abroad.

If I'm avoiding the question, and I don't think I am, but rather trying to clarify and deepen, it's because the question is meaningless.

[Blanquist]

If you want an honest answer, that's what you've got. You can't name "imperialist countries" because imperialism isn't something countries do. It isn't a policy choice. It's the shape taken by the global market in the current epoch, and shapes the choices of capitalists in all countries - in how they deal with capitalists in other countries and with workers at home and abroad.

If I'm avoiding the question, and I don't think I am, but rather trying to clarify and deepen, it's because the question is meaningless.

Nobody said it was a policy choice, nobody said its just something countries do.

You are avoiding the question because you are unable to answer it. Why idk.

[Blanquist]

Every state that is involved with the global market facilitates imperialism in some way or other. Some sort of list to the effect of what you're asking for would be useless as the lines are not that clear cut.


"Imperialism can exist only because there are backward nations on our planet."

Do you agree with this quote?

[zimmerwald1915]

Nobody said it was a policy choice, nobody said its just something countries do.

You are avoiding the question because you are unable to answer it. Why idk.
See, this is what I mean by "deepen". Look at your question, and you will see that it implies both that imperialism is a policy choice, and that the entity that chooses to pursue that policy is a state, a country. If I'm unable to answer the question, it is because the question is meaningless in light of reality. Why you'd persist in badgering people over a meaningless question, idk.

[Blanquist]

See, this is what I mean by "deepen". Look at your question, and you will see that it implies both that imperialism is a policy choice, and that the entity that chooses to pursue that policy is a state, a country. If I'm unable to answer the question, it is because the question is meaningless in light of reality. Why you'd persist in badgering people over a meaningless question, idk.

Which countries today would you classify as 'imperialist'?

[Q]

"Imperialism can exist only because there are backward nations on our planet."

Do you agree with this quote?

No. It is rather inherent in the nature of capitalism that there are advanced and backward countries. Imperialism keeps states that are at the bottom of the state hierarchy backward and poor.

The global crisis we're in now is an example of this point: The US is the top hegemon in the state system and simply issues more money to devalue the dollar and as such keep their state debt manageable. Thus, the rest of the world that is holding US state debt in dollars will get their money back, but at a much lower value. Thus, the rest of the world is made to pay for the US debt.

They can do this due to their position politically. Their state debt is ultimately supported by an immense Pentagon budget, a huge nuclear stockpile and a fleet of aircraft carriers.

Likewise, Greece, that is much lower on the state hierarchy, and of course part of the Eurozone, cannot simply issue new money and as such faces imminent bankruptcy. The same is seen in the Arabic world, where such indebtedness led to the "Arab Awakening" last year. There are of course many more examples.

Thus imperialism creates "backward" countries.

[Omsk]

The entire "imperialism/anti-imperialism" was one of the reasons that distanced me from the local non-right wing,social-democratic organizations.It is natural for leftist to oppose the American/NATO bombing raids and terror campaignes in which thousands die and millions are left without anything,and it is normal for leftist to oppose Right-Wing reaction and such,but why should a leftist organization be so perfervid in its support for a non-communist non-socialist leader like Gaddafi,(hes a nationalist too) or even Assad?There were also many Iran supporters.

Such people,and their rhetoric were the main reason for me to abandon a plan to join a big organization.

[Q]

That is an incredibly ahistorical view.

Your one-liner has totally convinced me of my erroneous ways.

[Blanquist]

No. It is rather inherent in the nature of capitalism that there are advanced and backward countries. Imperialism keeps states that are at the bottom of the state hierarchy backward and poor.

The global crisis we're in now is an example of this point: The US is the top hegemon in the state system and simply issues more money to devalue the dollar and as such keep their state debt manageable. Thus, the rest of the world that is holding US state debt in dollars will get their money back, but at a much lower value. Thus, the rest of the world is made to pay for the US debt.

They can do this due to their position politically. Their state debt is ultimately supported by an immense Pentagon budget, a huge nuclear stockpile and a fleet of aircraft carriers.

Likewise, Greece, that is much lower on the state hierarchy, and of course part of the Eurozone, cannot simply issue new money and as such faces imminent bankruptcy. The same is seen in the Arabic world, where such indebtedness led to the "Arab Awakening" last year. There are of course many more examples.

Thus imperialism creates "backward" countries.


Your one-liner has totally convinced me of my erroneous ways.

Yeah, wasn't able to delete in time.

Why do you not agree with the quote?

[Blanquist]

Hold on, I'm a little confused by the usernames. Q said all countries are imperialist? So you arnt a Marxist so there isn't really anything for me to say.

[Q]

Why do you not agree with the quote?

Post #33 explains why I don't agree with it. Of course, once upon a time, when capitalism started to expand from beyond its borders, it was probably a correct thing to say. But right now, anno 2012, it is putting things upside down.


Hold on, I'm a little confused by the usernames. Q said all countries are imperialist? So you arnt a Marxist so there isn't really anything for me to say.
Ok bro. Nice escape hatch there.

Let me reply that your understanding of imperialism is rather static and has little to do with a Marxist understanding of it.

[Blanquist]

Ok bro. Nice escape hatch there.

Let me reply that your understanding of imperialism is rather static and has little to do with a Marxist understanding of it.

Sorry maybe you are right, maybe you have surpassed the masters in this question but it is impossible for my dogmatic Marxist mind to accept.

All states are imperialist, NK is imperialist, Haiti is imperialist? No, I can not go along with this.

[Rooster]

Hold on, I'm a little confused by the usernames. Q said all countries are imperialist? So you arnt a Marxist so there isn't really anything for me to say.

Where did Marx mention imperialism?

[zimmerwald1915]

All states are imperialist, NK is imperialist, Haiti is imperialist? No, I can not go along with this.
Because you can't get beyond the conception that imperialism is something that countries do, rather than a space that they inhabit and a system in which they work.

[Rooster]

Sorry maybe you are right, maybe you have surpassed the masters in this question but it is impossible for my dogmatic Marxist mind to accept.

All states are imperialist, NK is imperialist, Haiti is imperialist? No, I can not go along with this.

Imperialism is a stage in capitalism. Why is this so hard to understand? I really can't put it any simpler. Capitalism is global, the existence of a state shows a class society, all class societies today are capitalist, capitalists have to constantly accumulate capital, some do that through the state and some are able to do it better. The age of imperialism describes how some areas are held backwards for exploitation. It doesn't define each state as being either imperialist or not.

[Q]

Sorry maybe you are right, maybe you have surpassed the masters in this question but it is impossible for my dogmatic Marxist mind to accept.

All states are imperialist, NK is imperialist, Haiti is imperialist? No, I can not go along with this.

1. Which "masters"?
2. Marxism has nothing to do with dogmatism. Marxism is a science and as such must be tested against changing conditions. If it cannot be falsified, it fails as a science.
3. Again, you fail to understand that it is not individual states that are or are not imperialist. Like others have said, it is not a policy question. The Marxist understanding of it views imperialism as the global entity of capital. Thus, one cannot say if an individual state, isolated out of the context of other states, is imperialist or not.

As an aside, and to probably confuse you even more, I don't think North-Korea is capitalist, but a Bonapartist regime that is tending towards capitalism (as is evidenced by their "free trade zones").

[Ostrinski]

"Imperialism can exist only because there are backward nations on our planet."I don't know who said this, but whoever did had it backwards. Backward nations only exist because of imperialism, nations only exist because of the global market (at this point in global industrial development). Without the global market, the nation state political structure would fall apart as it is of little use outside international capital.

[Blanquist]

I don't know who said this, but whoever did had it backwards. Backward nations only exist because of imperialism, nations only exist because of the global market (at this point in global industrial development). Without the global market, the nation state political structure would fall apart as it is of little use outside international capital.

Trotsky said it.

[Ostrinski]

Trotsky said it.Then Trotsky was wrong.

[Jazz 98 757]

Countries that are imperialist are usually capitalist countries that have existed for a few hundred years and have conquered other countries in the past. The UK, France, Spain and the US are seen as imperialist countries.

Japan is less prominent now because the US created laws for Japan and they can't have a proper army anymore. They might be very powerful economically, but the US tries to keep them at a low position on the powerful scale overall.

[citizen of industry]

Can someone list all the countries they believe are imperialist?

Why does a major power like Japan not play a more aggressive role in the world?

Japan brutally exploits its domestic workforce and immigrant population. The country cannot realize its surplus domestically at all, and is dependent on exports. It has something like the 5th largest military in the world, and has close ties with the US government. It hosts US bases and has sent troops to Iraq. It is aggresively neo-liberal, smashed socialist parties and the trade union movement in the 80's, and the governer of Tokyo, Ishihara, is a fascist. It uses gunboat diplomacy against Korea, China, and Russia, and virtually all of its manufacturing facilities are in China or SE Asia. It's media promotes neo-liberalism, militarism, rascism, and capitalism. It is aggresively imperialist. Also take note of the police repression and media blackout over the anti-nuke movement post Fukushima. The US 7th fleet, based in Yokosuka, and the marines, based in Okinawa, go on maneuvers with the Japanese fleet. Japanese people have been fighting the occupation, militarization, nuclearization and imperialism of their country for about 70 years, to say nothing of the communist movement decades before the war.

The US has no direct influence over the Japanese government, even less so after 2008. Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, which makes one of the world's most powerful militaries a "self-defense force" is always under attack by conservatives in parliament, and loopholes were found for Iraq, Afghanistan, and so-called "pirates" in the Indian ocean.

Capitalism must expand, cannot function inside borders. If a country is capitalist, and not a puppet, territory or dependent, it is imperialist. Same as in the 19th century, same as now.

[Imposter Marxist]

the worse capitalist countries are currently: China, North Korea, Russia. USA is in the top 5.

[gorillafuck]

imperialism is the tendency of capital to want to expand itself internationally. imperialist countries are the countries which successfully do this because they have the means to. countries which do not do this are still a part of the imperialist world system but aren't imperialist themselves because they don't have the means to be, but they aspire to be imperialist because all capitalist states aspire to expand their control over capitalism as much as possible.

but I don't buy into the idea that countries which are completely controlled by other nations are imperialist themselves just because they are a part of the imperialist global system.


the worse capitalist countries are currently: China, North Korea, Russia. USA is in the top 5.you literally just listed the three countries that are propagated against the most in the US and listed them as the "worst capitalist countries".

as for listing off imperialist countries? that seems really pointless tbh. but uh, the United States, Russia, Turkey, China, Britain, France. those are some.

[DaringMehring]

Imperialism was described by Lenin as a stage of capitalism.

The basis of that stage in his theory, was the increasing concentration of capital, and centralization of production.

In Lenin's time, it was obvious which way the different nations participated in the Imperialist system. Russia, England, etc. had gobbled up numerous countries and intensely exploited the populations.

The question today is, how, if at all, the Imperialism theory is still valid.
Some questions:

1) USA has had a near monopoly on military force, with various national capitals free-riding eg Japan on the violence and "security" provided by US militarism.

2) Massive trans-nationalization of capital. For instance, big financial firms have assets in all kinds of companies in all kinds of countries. Big companies like Coke have subsidiaries and divisions all over the globe, and also investment portfolios tying them to other companies.

3) National liberation movements have won nominal "independence" for many of the former colonies/territories/protectorates/whatever name the Imperialists gave them.

Lenin called Imperialism "the highest stage of capitalism" but he also expected capitalism to end in a few decades. We may be in a new stage, making Imperialist theory not applicable or needing a new interpretation. On the other hand, with the development of a "multi-polar" military world, mainly, China, Imperialism may have renewed application. However, the transnationalization of capital seems to negate that possibility or at least mean it will be much different this time around.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

It is also useful to understand that there are a few different Marxist conceptions of Imperialism.

Gramsci for example suggested that US imperialism was in part defined by its ideological and economic superiority to pre WW2 Europe. What he meant by this was the expansion of American values and productive characteristics, were large parts of how the US operated as an imperialist.

Gramsci suggested that a large part of American capitalism was the promotion of mass consumption, and mass production, and that this was largely a cultural peculiarity which spread to Europe and then the rest of the world. He called it ‘Americanism’.

This type of capitalism is, unlike other forms of capitalism, very attractive and was sold by the US as a something that should be imitated. This meant that they were able to determine the features of minor capitalist powers more effectively.

Therefore to emulate the US, you need a liberal capitalist state. Which, the USA peruses in fostering around the globe. Indeed much of the international organisations, like the IMF, WTO, World Bank recommend liberal government as the ideal form of capitalism.

It’s the creation of a system global governance and management that the US aims to create and maintain, and it is why non-liberal regimes come into conflict with the US.
Also, there are the Kautsky type theories which suggest a high degree of cooperation by the capitalist countries, such as US, EU and Japan, which they do to stop the potential conflict from inter imperialist rivalry. They are able to recognise that inter imperialist conflict is only good if they win, they probably won’t, so they choose to cooperate to maintain the imperialist system.

This also implies that, whereas in Lenin’s idea each state can only be as strong as its own capabilities are, in Kautsky’s idea of super-imperialism imperialism is a tougher global system to stop because the imperialist country have more combined power than they would have independently.

[Os Cangaceiros]

you literally just listed the three countries that are propagated against the most in the US and listed them as the "worst capitalist countries".

I'm pretty sure that dude's a troll, it was only recently that he was a WWP member and just as much of a tankie as you would expect a WWP member to be. Now he has a Tony Cliff avatar and prattles on about "state capitalism". :sleep:

[Caj]

I don't know who said this, but whoever did had it backwards. Backward nations only exist because of imperialism, nations only exist because of the global market (at this point in global industrial development). Without the global market, the nation state political structure would fall apart as it is of little use outside international capital.

Couldn't it be understood as a reciprocal interaction? That is, the existence of backward nations causes imperialism. Imperialism then perpetuates and intensifies the backwardness of these nations.

[Ostrinski]

Couldn't it be understood as a reciprocal interaction? That is, the existence of backward nations causes imperialism. Imperialism then perpetuates and intensifies the backwardness of these nations.I suppose you're right. The most productive national economies were those that had the capacity to rise to prominence in the global market.

[Tovarisch]

Most imperialist countries:

USA
Russia
UK
Iran
France
Australia
India

[Rooster]

From my understanding; imperialism doesn't try to create strong nations. What it does is to try and remove nations and national boundaries altogether, something that is commonly called the neo-liberal project. Does this mean that national struggles are a good or progessive thing when the concept of nationhood itself is under attack? Look at Europe. There we basically have no borders within the European bloc and many countries use the same currency. When a state tries to evade this, it will usually be crushed to allow more freedom of exploitation.

[QUOTE=DaringMehring;2368765]1) USA has had a near monopoly on military force, with various national capitals free-riding eg Japan on the violence and "security" provided by US militarism./QUOTE]

I think this raises a very good point. How can a small, so called, anti-imperialist country exist or even hope to succeed when the US can wipe them off the map in a couple of days?

[Tovarisch]

With a few exceptions, almost all cases of imperialism were about land and money. "Converting uncivilized people into civilization and Christianity" is just a cover for murdering natives and exploiting them for financial gain. Belgian Congo, Spanish West Indies, British India, all terrible examples of financial imperialism.