Leftist Definition of Empirialism - Do they know nothing?

[Stormin Norman]

In my time here, I have heard many lefists claim that the United States is an imperial power. I was wondering if any of you can back this accusation up with facts. If you look at the definition of empire, I think you will find that this does not accurately describe the position of the United States. Furthermore, the U.S. was never really competitive in the 19th-20th century race to colonize third world countries. What facts support your claim that America is an empire and/or a colonist?

Empire: a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or people under a single soveriegn authority; esp: one having an emperor as chief of state. (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 10th Edition)

Colonialism: control by one power over a dependent area or people (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 10th Edition)

Please give me your version of why the U.S. is considered by you to be an empire. Give historic facts that back your position if necessary. Is the left's attempt to reclassify the United States another example of them misrepresenting the facts? Do the communists on this board have a version of history distorted enough to rival Karl Marx or Noam Chomsky?

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 10:53 am on Nov. 5, 2002)

[Exploited Class]

Peurto Rico, Anything West of the Mississippi. Hawaii, America Samoa, Marshall Islands, A little tip off of Cuba - Guatanamo Bay, Panama - till recently, Afghanistan, Virgin Islands, Guam, Mariana Islands, Federal States of Micronesia, Republic of Palau.

Those are just the more obvious.

[guerrillaradio]

It's amazing how someone can question our understanding of a word he can't even spell!!! After me, Norman:

I-M-P-E-R-I-A-L-I-S-M

:biggrin:

[Stormin Norman]

Are you going to answer the question? My apologies for the typographical error, but I think that has little to do with the question that you seem to be incapable of answering. My area of expertise lies in the Math and Sciences. I am not a typist and never claimed to be. If you are so distracted by my typing I can go back and fix it. I have seen worse grammatical and spelling errors made by you, and others on this board. I don't think that is the point.

I think that fact that we lack an emperor might counter the left's claim that we are an empire. What do you mean by 'anything west of the Missippi'? Would you care to qualify that statement, exploited class?

[j]

I think the claim that the US is a strict imperial power the way Britain once was is not true. In the past the US has used imperial tactics (Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc.) but the main argument by those I know on the left is that the US is a CULTURAL IMPERIALIST. This means that the US is taking their military power and attempting things like "regime change." The US uses its strength to undermine governments it does not like and often installs people that will do whatever the US wants. This is what many would call cultural imperialism where the US is not actually governing these countries but installing governments who will act in accordance with the US. You see, this is the difference between the US today and say the Belgian Congo circa 1963.

No the US is not an imperialist country in the classical sense of the word (according to Miriam Webster).

j

[antieverything]

Wow...one would think that when Norman decided to go to the dictionary he would have actually looked up the word "imperialism" (I guess he couldnt find it in the e's!). Instead he just looked up "empire" and "colonialism"

The definitions of "imperialism" according to www.dictionary.com are:

1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

2. The system, policies, or practices of such a government.

These, of course, are very good descriptors of the United States. The only way one could refute this is to deny established historical truths.

Sorry, SN. You lose.

[vox]

Hmmm. Just how stupid are right-wingers, you ask? Let me show you just how veryvery stupid they are.

See, if you go to www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) and look up the word imperialism (http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=imperialism), here's the very first definition you'll find:

"The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations."

Notice that second part? I underlined it for the right-wingers, because I know that they need help with such things, and I'm very kind.

In answer to the question, that's what the Left means by US imperialism.

Speaking of, the new Monthly Review (http://www.monthlyreview.org) has a piece about the rediscovery of imperialism (http://www.monthlyreview.org/1102jbf.htm) that's quite interesting.

vox

[vox]

Hee! We must have been posting at the same time, antieverything. Maybe if they read it twice, the right-wingers will understand.

I doubt it, though.

vox

[antieverything]

Just beat you by a few seconds. :)

[Sol]

I'm glad you asked Norman, I wanted to know what you thought of US 'imperialism'. I agree totally with what's been said before, mainly that the kind of control the US maintains over a large part of the Third World is economical, in certain cases accompanied by indirect military action. Examples of this are Nicuaragua, Brazil, Chile, Venezuela, and Columbia just to name a few in the general area.

Also, the control isn't so much administered through the US government (like the 70's, 80's), but through American and European transnationals. There are certainly exceptions, like Columbia, which is rife with political violence between guerillas/narcotraffickers and government/para-military organizations, backed by US dollars.

What makes you think Chomsky and Marx are biased? Just that they're respected theorists of the Left?

[Stormin Norman]

The problem still exists with your definition. Sorry but the question still stands, as it can be seen that the United States is not currently engaged in 'territorial aquisition'. Furthermore, the incidents that leftist would use as examples of U.S. interference in the affairs of other nations do not constitute the establishment of U.S. authority over such countries. It seems that by your definition one would have to dominate the political and economic structure in order to fit that description. I have seen no evidence of this. If you want to continue to the word hegemony; meaning preponderant influence or authority over others, I think that it should be argued that the type of influence applied in these cases remains discrete. The governments that we have helped to install remain soveriegn entities that have interests parallel to the United States. The fact that some of these governments remain autocratic does not counter those nation's right to self rule. They are still free to pursue there own interest, a characteristic that is not common in most of history's colonies.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 8:25 pm on Nov. 5, 2002)

[vox]

"The fact that some of these governments remain autocratic does not counter those nation's right to self rule."

Comrades,

Take a look at that quote to see a shining example of right-wing idiocy. Here's a translation of what SN is saying:

"If the US installs a dictator, the country in which he rules is free."

What other interpretation can there be?

Sol already brought up the example of Chile, which is a perfect example of the kind of "right" to self-rule that SN talks about. It's rather like locking a person in a cage and then arguing that the person still has a right to live where he pleases!

This is what the right-wing offers in the way of intellect.

vox

[Exploited Class]

See Vox, you have to understand, I think you just aren't see eye to eye on this with Stormin Normin.

When he says, "The governments that we have helped to install remain soveriegn entities that have interests parallel to the United States. The fact that some of these governments remain autocratic does not counter those nation's right to self rule. They are still free to pursue there own interest"

See they are allowed to pursue there own intrests, so long as those intrests are what America wants. America isn't sending over people to control other governments, they are taking locals, proping them up as leaders then dictating what they want. Its a big difference.

1. We send americans over, take over the country and rule it with Americans.
We don't do that Vox, that is Imperilism.
We do it much better.

2. We send Americans and weapons over, train locals and arm them so they have an advandtage over the established power and have them take over the country and then they are free to do what we want them to do.

See it is so much more different. How could you doubt Stormin Norman?

/cynacism now turned off.

[vox]

exploitedclass,

Thank you for the explanation. Perhaps you could clear something else up for me. When SN says, "They are still free to pursue there own interest," it sounds to me like the puppet gov't set up by the US is free to pursue its own interest (with US approval), not that the people of the country are allowed to pursue their own interest. Again, Chile is an example, where a democratically elected leader was overthrown and a dictator was installed.

I guess my question is about the pronoun "they." I have this weird commie notion that gov'ts should be accountable to the people, but SN seems to be suggesting that the government's interests always coincide with the interest of the people, hence "they" are still free.

It occurs to me that SN would have felt at home in Stalin's USSR.

But perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Help?

vox

[Exploited Class]

Oh I would love to try and clear some things up for you Vox.

Yes indeed he would have felt very much at home in Stalin's Russia. With a statement like that.

Oh I just saw this sorry I wasn't ignoring you SN.

What do you mean by 'anything west of the Missippi'? Would you care to qualify that statement, exploited class?

It should be anything west of the apalachian mountains. Here is your book definition you gave earlier, "Empire: a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories"

West of the mississipi is when we went through manifest destiny period of our country. Oregon Territory, Louisiana Purchase, took land from mexico - who were more of a decedents of the original inhabitants than Americans ever were.

Its not just how we took all that land either. We were one of the very first countries to engage in chemical warfare - we gave indians blankets that we knew to be ridden with pox, we took away their food supply - buffalo bill that part of our history were we just killed buffalo to kill buffalo. We moved them all over the country - trail of tears. And they were called territories then later states.

When reffering to America, I use all of America's history being that it isn't a very old country, and its history is still very much the mind set we hold today of if we want it we will take it. The method might be different but we are still in that same mind set.

Look at Afgahnistan now. Our troops are still over there, our troops are protecting their president. That is by all rights the govenor we set up for us. We are getting that oil pipe that we have wanted for our corporations. We are going to be doing it again in Iraq. We will put somebody in power from that region that is going to do what benefits us. It will be no different if we sent in an American to do the job for us.

[Jaha]

imperialism is an attempt to create hegemony. to control other nations whether or not you "own" the land.

the US is the world super power. we have the most powerful influence and economic power. we as a nation desire to own the world whether or not we hold the deed. nobody ignores the US. that is a fact. nobody ignores us because they know of our forign policy.

and, this is an afterthought. the CIA cannot opperate within the US right? then why the hell do they exist if they arent enforcing the law? one can easily deduce that they are causing machinations in forign countries.

[Sol]

Norman, if you're denying that US corporations and the US government hold power over a score of 'sovereign' nations, all you have to do is take a quick study of their histories. You'll find economic and often times military conflict between the masses and the governments and US companies, which end with predictable results.

There's plenty of books out there Norm. Pretty much anything on Central and South America.

Here's something else we can bring up: US regard to International Law. They don't have any. They follow the law only when it fits them (and it doesn't very often which explains the huge roles NATO and the WTO/IMF have on world policy). The biggest example of this was in the '80's in (surprise) a Latin American nation, Nicaragua. The UN denounced US action in that nation and ORDERED them to 'cease and decist' from their atrocious activities there. The US vetoed the resolution in the Security Council, and was one of only two nations that voted against it in the General assembly, the other being Israel. They continued their plunder and murder.

So, are you starting to get the point Norman? No, the US does not have recognized political control over these nations. You won't find the definition of US domination in a book. Look out the fucking window Norman, look at what's happening in the world and who it effects and benefits. However you'd describe it, Leftists would call that same thing domination.

[antieverything]

I hate to nitpick here but America is, in my opinion, irrefutably an imperialist power.


Imperialism-

1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

Key words are by the establishment of economic and political hegomony over other nations.

Hegomony is not defined as total control but as predominant influence...as in being most the important or powerful force.

In the case of American imperialism, America and its corporations do in fact have predominant influence over "controlled" countries.

Just as in Northern Ireland or Scotland or England, the hegomony rests not with the individual country but with the unitary government of the United Kingdom. Scotland is not a soveriegn nation-state. It has the right to self-governance up to the point where this right is checked by an act of the central government of the UK. The UK government, being more powerful that the government of Scotland, has hegomony (which, again, is defined as "predominate influence") in Scotland.

In the same way do "American interests" govern "controlled" nations. A nation, like Scotland in the previous example, has the right of self-governance up until the predominant power (American interests) says otherwise. To say that America does not practice imperialism is to say that Soviet democracy was genuine democracy or that a state in the United States or a country in the UK is a soveriegn nation-state.

Thank you for your time.

[antieverything]

By the way, SN, you never answered the question I asked you. Did you not post the definition to the word "imperialism" because you simply couldn't find it in the "e's" of the dictionary?

I think that you can bring yourself to answer a little light-hearted question now, as the argument is over due to the embarassing turning-of-the-tables that has occured and the subsequent, total destruction that has fallen upon your every argument. ;) Cheers.

[Stormin Norman]

Don't confuse soveriegnty with freedom. A nations ability to make its own laws and rule free from direct intervention is quite different than how much democracy the citizens of that state enjoy. I thought my statement might have been taken out of context, so please allow me to clarify. The perceived legitimacy of the government and institutions of that country is a whole different subject. If you noticed I said, "the nations right to self rule", not the people's.

Currently, we have many foreign diplomats living in our borders. Many times they try to influence our policies. Does that mean they are Imperialists? I don't think it does. Although they exert certain pressures, we still maintain our sovereignty. Sometimes the nature of the pressure is economic and sometimes it is political. The answer lies in the degree of this pressure. Often times, these nations have a particularly large bargaining chip by which to deal at the table, as is the case with Saudi Arabia. Would you say Saudi Arabia has an empire, because they have control over a large portion of our economic bloodline? I wouldn't. It is essentially the same game we play. We use our international clout to indirectly control policy in parts of the world that remain interesting. Capitalizing on already unstable regions, becoming a stabilizing catalyst, and assuring friendly relations with the winner, is hardly direct control.

There is no greater example that attests to our lack of political and economic control in these situations than Iraq. If we exerted the kind of direct pressure that you would have me believe, why then do we have a bad track record with these so-called 'puppet regimes' turning on us? Wouldn't that mean that we are playing less of a role in the political systems than conspiracy theorist would have us belief.

Go ahead, look at South America. These countries are constantly shifting power. Coups are an everyday occurance. If we were the evil imperialists that you claim, wouldn't we issue direct controls over these unstable governments in order to assure our interests are being met?

Fact is, we don't go in and forcefully rule those states, because we have reservations about such practices. Our history would provide answers about why we don't. Look at our heritage. We were a colony that suffered the abuses of corrupt leadership. We fought a revolution in order to sever those ties. The freedoms that we now cherish are a direct result of that struggle, and the new philosophy that emerged from that period. The sacred principles that America adopted would keep us from engaging in that kind of practice. That explanation also provides a reason why we did very little colonizing when that represented the popular political game in Europe.

I also have a problem with your inability to distinguish between territory aqcuired as a result of winning war and what the Germans tried to do during WWII. I think there is a difference.

(Edited by Stormin Norman at 11:57 pm on Nov. 7, 2002)

[antieverything]

If invading a country or funding and sponsoring a government take-over or coup whenever a government becomes too leftist doesn't constitute hegomony, I don't know what does. There is a diference between foriegn diplomats or a need for oil and invading a country who's policies we don't agree with BECAUSE we don't agree with their domestic and economic policies (Panama, Chile...possibly Venezuala).

Once again, you lose.

[Sol]

You say that the United States undermining a democratically elected government, often times forcefully overthrowing that government, and helping a right-wing faction into power isn't a sign of direct control? And you seem to put a lot of faith in the openess of our government. They don't admit when they fund butchers Norman, it doesn't sit well with the people at home.

You keep acknowledging that American companies and the American government have massive influence over governments. None of these governments are accountable or even humane in their dealings with their public. Our companies exert crushing economic force against native competition, and since its a legal trust, they charge whatever they want.

All these things KILL PEOPLE Norman, if not in the original sense of colonialism or imperialism. I see these words as something to put a feel on policies, but antieverything even out argued your very definition.

So, when the US government and US companies kill people for profit, that's some form of domination. I don't give a fuck if you call it imperialism or "free-trade" and "intervention" or the "war on drugs". Imperialism merely means domination.

[Stormin Norman]

I think the claim that the US is a strict imperial power the way Britain once was is not true. In the past the US has used imperial tactics (Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc.) but the main argument by those I know on the left is that the US is a CULTURAL IMPERIALIST. This means that the US is taking their military power and attempting things like "regime change." The US uses its strength to undermine governments it does not like and often installs people that will do whatever the US wants. This is what many would call cultural imperialism where the US is not actually governing these countries but installing governments who will act in accordance with the US. You see, this is the difference between the US today and say the Belgian Congo circa 1963. -J

I think J is the only reasonable person who has given a response. By admiting how the left interprets and defines the word empire, he shows that he has an understanding of how loosely the term is used. I agree that we have in the past engaged in Imperialistic tactics. However, I do not agree that this is our current policy, nor do I defend brutal transgressions in the past.

I would also differ on the application of the phrase cultural empire. Being sovereign entities, those countries we have influenced do not have to adopt our culture, and many times they do not. I think the nature of our culture is contagious in the sense that many peoples favor our freedom and technology to the backword conditions that may prevail in certain parts of the world. It is then true that our culture has a way of influencing and even merging with those cultures who have been exposed to our way of life. Why else would we be facing the shear number of immigrants that we are gracious enough to import. Many people love the idea of the American dream.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Being a true conservative, I lean more toward an isolationist stance. The Panama canal is a different story. Since we sunk the money and capital into creating this shipping route, and ownership could have a astronomical impact on our economy, we have a duty to make sure our needs are met. We made that part of the world what it is and they owe it to us to return the favor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting side note:

I believe that someone here claimed the United States invented or was one of the first to use biological weapons by giving Indians smallpox infected blankets. I agree this was a dispicable practice, but I do believe the incidents were isolated and does not reflect the official policy at that time.

Let me also set the record straight by saying biological warfare is much older. For example, during the middle ages people who had been infected and died from bubonic plague were often catapulted into enemy strongholds with disasterous results.

Lifeforms have adapted complex biological systems in order to help them compete with each other for the globes limited resources. For example, The Komono Dragon has developed a highly toxic baterial colony inside its mouth. One bite from this creature will certainly end in death.

Chemical warfare is as old as life. Bacterial colonies have been engaged in this practice to compete for territory since the beginning. Right now there is an intense war being waged in your intestines by bacteria for its limit amount of real estate. Your life depends on the outcome. You depend on some of the bateria involved in order to digest your food. Without it you would die.

[antieverything]

Nice post, Norm. I think that we can just leave it at this and simply agree to disagree.

[RGacky3]

the U$ admits its imperialism, I don't see why any one would deny it. Storman Norman you should stop supporting the U$ you know deep down the U$ is bad.

[Stormin Norman]

"the U$ admits its imperialism"

Could you give me a source, please?

[LeninCCCP]

How come Stormin Norman just cant admit he is wrong? And am i the only one who finds it funny that his avatar is the death star which is basically a metaphor for Nazi Germany and that he is talking about imperialism. I think maybe someone here has a swastika tatooed on his body.