Imperialism

[Viet Minh]

I read the word 'Imperialism' a lot here, but I have some questions about the words exact meaning. To me Imperialism means invading another country in order to syphon its wealth or control its populace. This of course is in absolute opposition to leftist principles. However on the other hand that other country per se should not be in existence either, so why do some immediately jump to its defence, regardless of the motivations. Both sides in most cases just want to appropriate the regions wealth for their own benefit. So my question is, is invading another nation always an act of Imperialism, as you understand it? For instance the USSR had control of regions where perhaps even the majority were against their rule, and have since their independence gone on to form conservative nationalist states (not to mention any names). China took control of Tibet, but for the peasantry this was almost akin to emancipation. I'm not actually commenting on these particular situations, just using them as a hypothetical instance.

Is it in some ways a term of convenience, for instance the UN aiding the rebels was immediately dismissed as Imperialism, arguments of whether they already had control of the oil aside, what gives the UN less right to control Libya than Gadaffi? Their nationality? What gives anyone the right? Are there any circumstances under which the UN (or any other organisation) can free an opressed people, or aid rebels fighting against opression?

As I understand it Socialism has a global agenda, is this not in some ways 'Imperialist'?

[Omsk]

~

Imperialism, as defined by The Dictionary of Human Geography, is "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." The imperialism of the last 500 years, as described by the above work, is primarily a western undertaking that employs "expansionist – mercantilism

Imperialism is the final state of capitalism,but it is a term that can serve both as a powerful weapon in the hands of the west,and the east.Imperialism has many examples,the many empires that maintained a firm iron grip over its lesser-patron states,and in the modern example of the United States and their 'world police' role.

When the US fought in the Great Patriotic War,that was not imperialism,but when they helped disolve Yugoslavia,when they attacked Vietnam,when they invaded middle-east countries,that was imperialism.

Imperialism has many examples in the past,primeraly,the British Empire,a carcase of evil and capitalism,that proved to be one of the greater evils of this world.

The US,with its 737 military bases in foreign countries, according to official sources,is an imperialist country.

Imperialism was on its hight during the The Age of Imperialism a time period beginning around 1870 when modern, relatively developed nations were taking over less developed areas, colonizing them, or influencing them in order to expand their own power. Although imperialist practices have existed for thousands of years, the term "Age of Imperialism" generally refers to the activities of nations such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States in the mid 19th through the middle 20th centuries, e.g. the "The Great Game" in Persian lands, the "Scramble for Africa," and the "Open Door Policy" in China.[

Imperialism brought much destruction and death to the colonies and its occupants,as when the imperial rule failed,the colonies were left in dissarey.Wounded and neglected,while the prime countries of the Empire flourished.

Imperialism is the greatest crime a leader can commit.

[Viet Minh]

I know the history, and I'm not in any way condoning that. What I'm talking about is the actual act of war, invading 'someone elses country'. Is it always Imperialism? For instance if Russia had invaded Francos Spain, or Nazi Germany (leaving aside their invasion of Poland).

[Thirsty Crow]

I know the history, and I'm not in any way condoning that. What I'm talking about is the actual act of war, invading 'someone elses country'. Is it always Imperialism? For instance if Russia had invaded Francos Spain, or Nazi Germany (leaving aside their invasion of Poland).

This question relates to another question: what is the most important function of the (capitalist) state?
The answer would be: to faciliatte accumulation of capital within the conditions of national competition (the fact of regional and international blocs do not alter the basic fact of national capital and national competition).

What follows is this: any kind of military venture will tend to incorporate measures which correspond to this basic function of the bourgeois state. In other words - interests of a national capital always play role in venutres like this.

Now, the issue of military assault on behalf of a declared "workers' state" is not so clear cut. I for one believe that there may be instances of non-imperialist military operations which enable the proletariat of one country to overthrow the sheer force of bourgeois military domination. But I don't think that the character of the Soviet state is a very good example when debating such a possibility (maybe it would be in the hypothetical context of military aid to Hungarian Soviet Republic in 1919).

[Che a chara]

I think a few Lenin quotes can sum up imperialism and imperialist wars perfectly

"The war of 1914-18 was imperialist (that is, an annexationist, predatory, war of plunder) on the part of both sides; it was a war for the division of the world, for the partition and repartition of colonies and spheres of influence of finance capital."
- Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1914)

"Monopolies, oligarchy, the striving for domination and not for freedom, the exploitation of an increasing number of small or weak nations by a handful of the richest or most powerful nations — all these have given birth to those distinctive characteristics of imperialism which compel us to define it as parasitic or decaying capitalism."
- Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1914)

"When nine-tenths of Africa had been seized (by 1900), when the whole world had been divided up,there was inevitably ushered in the era of monopoly possession of colonies and, consequently, of particularly intense struggle for the division and the redivision of the world."
- Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1914)

"The so-called Great Powers have long been exploiting and enslaving a whole number of small and weak nations. And the imperialist war is a war for the division and redivision of this kind of booty."
- Lenin, State and Revolution (1917)

"Modern monopolist capitalism on a world-wide scale — imperialist wars are absolutely inevitable under such an economic system, as long as private property in the means of production exists."
- Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1920)

"Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capitalism is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed."
- VLADIMIR ILYICH LENIN, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism

[Chimurenga.]

Imperialism does not explicitly mean military intervention although military intervention can certainly be part of it.

As Lenin laid on in Imperialism and the Split in Socialism (1916),

Imperialism is a specific historical stage of capitalism. Its specific character is threefold: imperialism is monopoly capitalism; parasitic, or decaying capitalism; moribund capitalism. The supplanting of free competition by monopoly is the fundamental economic feature, the quintessence of imperialism. Monopoly manifests itself in five principal forms: (1) cartels, syndicates and trusts—the concentration of production has reached a degree which gives rise to these monopolistic associations of capitalists; (2) the monopolistic position of the big banks—three, four or five giant banks manipulate the whole economic life of America, France, Germany; (3) seizure of the sources of raw material by the trusts and the financial oligarchy (finance capital is monopoly industrial capital merged with bank capital); (4) the (economic) partition of the world by the international cartels has begun. There are already over one hundred such international cartels, which command the entire world market and divide it “amicably” among themselves—until war redivides it. The export of capital, as distinct from the export of commodities under non-monopoly capitalism, is a highly characteristic phenomenon and is closely linked with the economic and territorial-political partition of the world; (5) the territorial partition of the world (colonies) is completed.

Imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism in America and Europe, and later in Asia, took final shape in the period 1898–1914. The Spanish-American War (1898), the Anglo-Boer War (1899–1902), the Russo-Japanese War (1904–05) and the economic crisis in Europe in 1900 are the chief historical landmarks in the new era of world history.

[RGacky3]

However on the other hand that other country per se should not be in existence either, so why do some immediately jump to its defence, regardless of the motivations. Both sides in most cases just want to appropriate the regions wealth for their own benefit. So my question is, is invading another nation always an act of Imperialism, as you understand it? For instance the USSR had control of regions where perhaps even the majority were against their rule, and have since their independence gone on to form conservative nationalist states (not to mention any names). China took control of Tibet, but for the peasantry this was almost akin to emancipation. I'm not actually commenting on these particular situations, just using them as a hypothetical instance.

The reason we oppose imperialism is'nt some sort of nationalism, its because it hurts poor people, becaues its exploitation of the poor by the wealthy.

Imperialism is never justified, because ultimately it never helps, alsojuts according to most people ethics its wrong.

[Viet Minh]

The reason we oppose imperialism is'nt some sort of nationalism, its because it hurts poor people, becaues its exploitation of the poor by the wealthy.

Imperialism is never justified, because ultimately it never helps, alsojuts according to most people ethics its wrong.

But is it wrong for any nation to attack another, under any circumstances? For instance was it wrong for Egpyt and Lebanon to attack Israel on behalf of Palestine? My question is how do you define Imperialism? And where do you draw the line?

[Tim Finnegan]

I wish people would stop quoting Lenin as the authority on imperialism, given that, at this point, even a great many Leninists are increasingly consider his work to be deficient in several crucial respects. It's just misleading...



Anyway, in the Marxist sense, imperialism is the economic subjugation of one geographic locale to another through the use of state force, either directly, through conquest, or indirectly, through manipulation and bullying; in both cases, varying degrees of politically autonomy may be permitted (obviously to a greater extent in the latter than in the former), but not to the extent that they substantially challenge the control of the superior state or the bourgeoisie associated with that state. It tends to be distinguished by the denial of indigenous economic development that would challenge; for example, the forcible stifling of indigenous industry in Egypt that kept the subcontinent an agrarian colony of the Lancashire cotton barons.

[RGacky3]

For instance was it wrong for Egpyt and Lebanon to attack Israel on behalf of Palestine? My question is how do you define Imperialism? And where do you draw the line?

Lebannon and Egypt were Attacking in response to imperialism, Imperialism is already pretty well defined, and I draw the line at imperialism ...

[Viet Minh]

I wish people would stop quoting Lenin as the authority on imperialism, given that, at this point, even a great many Leninists are increasingly consider his work to be deficient in several crucial respects. It's just misleading...

Thats partly why I started this thread, my understanding of imperialism is obviously flawed, as I understand it the USSR, PRC and possibly also Vietnam and Korea could be described by those criteria as imperialist to some degree. I suspect its used as a buzzword in some cases but then I don't really know the definitive meaning. I am a pacifist so I will never justify any form of violence or forceful manipulation I'm just confused by what seems to me to be a double standard. No offense to anyones beliefs its just the way I see it just now. I can understand the fundamental difference between a Capitalist and (proscribed) Socialist or Communist State but in practice the effect on a 'subjugated' imperialised populous is the same surely? For instance Catholics who had fled from North Korea, or Chechnyan Muslims.

Anyway, in the Marxist sense, imperialism is the economic subjugation of one geographic locale to another through the use of state force, either directly, through conquest, or indirectly, through manipulation and bullying; in both cases, varying degrees of politically autonomy may be permitted (obviously to a greater extent in the latter than in the former), but not to the extent that they substantially challenge the control of the superior state or the bourgeoisie associated with that state. It tends to be distinguished by the denial of indigenous economic development that would challenge; for example, the forcible stifling of indigenous industry in Egypt that kept the subcontinent an agrarian colony of the Lancashire cotton barons.

But is that the be-all and end-all? Take this fictitious example; say for arguments sake that country a is ruled in a series of local Kingdoms, with religious, ethnic and tribal divisions, massive differential between classes and castes etc but then they are conquered by the slightly more progressive country b (obviously this is a highly unlikely scenario I'm simply using the example for lack of an irl situation) and importantly those citizens are given the same rights as the citizens of the imperialist nation, and the poor, ethnic minorities and women are to some extent more liberated under that Imperial nation, and their local culture, language and customs are respected and encouraged, in that instance would it not be fair, as a defender of the lower classes, to support the continuation of that rule, until a fair and just system can be implemented by the people of that nation? I'm not talking about ethnic or religious nationalism just local rule which makes more sense economically and politically.

[Che a chara]

Thats partly why I started this thread, my understanding of imperialism is obviously flawed, as I understand it the USSR, PRC and possibly also Vietnam and Korea could be described by those criteria as imperialist to some degree. I suspect its used as a buzzword in some cases but then I don't really know the definitive meaning. I am a pacifist so I will never justify any form of violence or forceful manipulation I'm just confused by what seems to me to be a double standard. No offense to anyones beliefs its just the way I see it just now. I can understand the fundamental difference between a Capitalist and (proscribed) Socialist or Communist State but in practice the effect on a 'subjugated' imperialised populous is the same surely? For instance Catholics who had fled from North Korea, or Chechnyan Muslims.

Imperialism is plunder. the USSR's intention was not to plunder or to colonise or to promote capitalist and private interests. It can be argued that the USSR over time did become somewhat 'social-imperialist', hence 'state capitalist' is often used to describe it.

But is that the be-all and end-all? Take this fictitious example; say for arguments sake that country a is ruled in a series of local Kingdoms, with religious, ethnic and tribal divisions, massive differential between classes and castes etc but then they are conquered by the slightly more progressive country b (obviously this is a highly unlikely scenario I'm simply using the example for lack of an irl situation) and importantly those citizens are given the same rights as the citizens of the imperialist nation, and the poor, ethnic minorities and women are to some extent more liberated under that Imperial nation, and their local culture, language and customs are respected and encouraged, in that instance would it not be fair, as a defender of the lower classes, to support the continuation of that rule, until a fair and just system can be implemented by the people of that nation? I'm not talking about ethnic or religious nationalism just local rule which makes more sense economically and politically.

Fictitious indeed ^^ Then it's not imperialism.

The USSR did proscribe to encourage native and cultural rights of the other Soviet Republics.

Imperialism is basically the political, economic and cultural domination and the expansion of financial markets over a foreign territory. Now what you described above would not in anyway financially benefit the imperialist nation, it's just basically a neo-liberal outcome/situation.

[Che a chara]

Lebannon and Egypt were Attacking in response to imperialism, Imperialism is already pretty well defined, and I draw the line at imperialism ...

I think what needs to be distinguished here is not the opposition for the need for a haven/home for Jews but the actual hatchet job creation of Israel which was done in a gatecrash/hit-and-run type way by the British. Not only was it very provocative, invasive and colonial but the British LoN mandate to legitimise the zionist role and their intentions was openly discriminatory, racist and totally disregarded the rights of the native Arabs and Palestinians in the region, which still continues to have devastating consequences today

[Viet Minh]

Imperialism is plunder. the USSR's intention was not to plunder or to colonise or to promote capitalist and private interests. It can be argued that the USSR over time did become somewhat 'social-imperialist', hence 'state capitalist' is often used to describe it.

Fictitious indeed ^^ Then it's not imperialism.

The USSR did proscribe to encourage native and cultural rights of the other Soviet Republics.

Imperialism is basically the political, economic and cultural domination and the expansion of financial markets over a foreign territory. Now what you described above would not in anyway financially benefit the imperialist nation, it's just basically a neo-liberal outcome/situation.

What if it did though? Say for example the Roman Empire, although of course it was unimaginably opressive by modern standards at the time there are some who might argue they did bring some improvements to the lives of a very few people who were previously under even more authoritarian rule, and in some cases arguably regressed back there after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Anyway sticking to the hypothetical for now this country A is slightly improved in its rule by another nation, but pays tribute to the ruling powers. It is arguably less than previous taxes and even the citizens of country B pay less tax than previously because the nation is now larger, and they have a greater variety of resources and agriculture available to them. This incidentally does not have to be a Capitalist regime as such.

I'm no imperial apologist, I'm naively thinking towards the future; if a truly socialist state is founded, and it has the power to free the proletarians of another nation, is it not their responisibilty to do so? Does this moral reasoning justify invading and occupying another country, or state sponsorship of regime change/ civil unrest etc?

[bailey_187]

the export of capital to other countries and extension of capitalist relations around the world

[Viet Minh]

I think what needs to be distinguished here is not the opposition for the need for a haven/home for Jews but the actual hatchet job creation of Israel which was done in a gatecrash/hit-and-run type way by the British. Not only was it very provocative, invasive and colonial but the British LoN mandate to legitimise the zionist role and their intentions was openly discriminatory, racist and totally disregarded the rights of the native Arabs and Palestinians in the region, which still continues to have devastating consequences today

The British are often made out to be the architects of Zionism, but in fairness Zionism existed outwith British control and even long before WW2. There was some complicity between the Arabs and British forces, although the British had their hand forced essentially by Zionist terror groups like Haganah for example. The original partition was unfair to the Palestinians who 'owned' the region but it was workable, were it not for aggression on both sides leading to the situation today. Zionists and Arabs attacked each other, and retaliated, escalating into the present-day situation. So the partition agreement was felt at the time to be the best of a bad situation, little realising the borders would not be respected or enforced. And of course what was the alternative? There were literally thousands of jews who had nowhere to go, they would not return to Germany or any other European country. Add to this a great number of jews fleeing pogroms in the USSR.

[Viet Minh]

the export of capital to other countries and extension of capitalist relations around the world

Isn't the upshot of that though a new world order, a global empire of equal unfairness to all of humanity? The question is do the west's proletariat sink to the level of poverty of the third world, or do they rise to ours?

[RGacky3]

The question is do the west's proletariat sink to the level of poverty of the third world, or do they rise to ours?

Well .... Look out your window, its pretty easy to answer that question. Capitalist expansion's effects, i.e. capitalist globalization i.e. economic imperialism's effects are pretty easy to see.

[Viet Minh]

Well .... Look out your window, its pretty easy to answer that question. Capitalist expansion's effects, i.e. capitalist globalization i.e. economic imperialism's effects are pretty easy to see.

I think the major problem is it isn't easy to see. Essentially the proletariat have been outsourced, the west is shielded from the reality of grinding poverty elsewhere in the World, and things are kept relatively comfortable here so nobody complains too much, or starts to question the system. Those that do are 'radicals', and any problems in the World are simply 'foreign' therefore of no concern to us. I know this is a very negative view to take but I genuinely believe thats whats happening. At the moment its almost as though the west is the upper (ruling) class, and the thrid world is the proletariat. At least if we had regulated globalisation, in a true sense, there would be a modicum of fairness. I'm an internationalist, but if there's going to be a one World Government it had better be a good one because there's nowhere to run to.

[RGacky3]

Its asolutely easy to see, the in the US and the UK poverty is on the rise, in the US its on the dramatic rise, unemployment goes up as does the dismanteling of the Social-democratic state. In the third world is definately noticable, and they are the ones that obviously see right away its negative effects.

Globalization as an idea (internationalism, cooperation between states) is obviously a great thing, but the globalization from the sense of Imperialism and economic imperialism and so on, are not globalization, its just empire building.

If neo-liberals or globalists were serious about it they would advocate open boarders just as much as open markets.