Globalization and Violence, Vol. 1, Globalizing Empires (2006) (original) (raw)
The present book is the result of the conference ‘Renovatio, inventio, absentia imperii. From the Roman Empire to Contemporary Imperialism’, held in Brussels at the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the Academia Belgica in Rome (September 11-13, 2014). At the heart of the conference was the ‘reception’, ‘Nachleben’ or ‘permanence’ of the Roman Empire, of an idea and a historical paradigm which since classical Antiquity has supported the most widespread claims to obtain and consolidate power. The volume’s focus is on culture in a broad sense, i.e. including besides the arts, philosophy, religion and, most importantly, discourse. As such, a wide array of themes are subjected to academic scrutiny. Whereas the main focus is on Europe and North America, some contributors also reach out towards non-Western contexts, whether or not directly related to the Roman example. A theoretical and sociological dimension is also added thanks to the discussion on methodological issues. More specifically, the following question(s) receive particular attention: what is our position as researchers, embedded in a contemporary, often Western, democratic and capitalist context; what about the notion of empire itself, its constituent elements and the kind of ideological prerogatives to which it is generally subjected; in other words, apart from the many historical variants and instances of reception of empire, through which filters can, and inevitably do, we approach this topic? A question that has become ever more pregnant since the beginning of the twenty-first century, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the events of September 11, which have revivified what could be called American ‘imperialism’, and at a time when an essentially economic variant, driven by ‘emerging’ powers such as China, has increasingly contested existing power structures. In light of such meta-historical awareness, this book touches as much on the nature of the Roman Empire as it does on its historical legacy and, more importantly so, on who claims the latter inheritance throughout the most diverse epochs. By discussing some highly contrasting views upon this topic, participants explore issues that are of fundamental importance to the writing, not only of cultural history, but also of history itself.
TOWARDS A NEW THEORY OF IMPERIALISM.docx
Extant theories of imperialism have been largely drawn from historical effects rather than from historical causes. Such theoretical basing for imperialism simply indicates misunderstanding of the subject, which, indeed, has led to plethora of its theories as it has been, because narratives of effects are characteristically florid and fluid. An approach like that to study of imperialism is, no doubt, simply inadequate as it has created such much confusion than understanding of this vital part of man's history. Therefore, using causality and realism, this paper argues from histories of ancient Rome and the United States of America that imperialism is typically caused, and that effects of empires are not denominator for imperialism, therefore, its description cannot be multiplied. It shows that theory of imperialism is better drawn from its causality. The paper consequently proffers ease system as the singularized functional theory of imperialism.
Beyond the Theory of Imperialism
Theories of a "new imperialism" assume that world capitalism in the 21st century is still made up of "domestic capitals" and that distinct national economies and world political dynamics are driven by US eff orts to off set the decline in hegemony amidst heightened inter-imperialist rivalry. These theories ignore empirical evidence on the transnationalization of capital and the increasingly salient role of transnational state apparatuses in imposing capitalist domination beyond the logic of the inter-state system. I argue here that US interventionism is not a departure from capitalist globalization but a response to its crisis. The class relations of global capitalism are now so deeply internalized within every nation-state that the classical image of imperialism as a relation of external domination is outdated. The end of the extensive enlargement of capitalism is the end of the imperialist era of world capitalism. The implacable logic of global accumulation is now largely internal to the complex of fractious political institutions through which ruling groups attempt to manage those relations. We need a theory of capitalist expansion -of the political processes and the institutions through which such expansion takes place, the class relations and spatial dynamics it involves. 6 W. I. Robinson / Societies Without Borders 2 (2007) 5-26 interna al complejo de instituciones políticas fragmentadas a través de las que los grupos de poder tratan de gestionar esas relaciones. Necesitamos una teoría de la expansión capitalistade los procesos políticos y las instituciones a cuyo través se produce esa expansión, de las nuevas relaciones entre clase y dinámicas espaciales.
Theories of Imperialism revisited
The aim of this presentation is to revisit the classical Marxist theories of Imperialism, namely the theories of Lenin, Bukharin and Luxembourg, and discuss their relevance for contemporary radical theory and politics. In particular, we will stress that some of the question that were posited then are still pertinent today: such as the relation between class antagonism and international behavior, the question of the centrality of the nation-state or of the world system, the interconnection between economics and politics in the international system. We will stress the importance of Lenin’s theorization of imperialism and the way it revolutionized our thinking of the international system. At the same time, we will also stress the importance of Gramsci’s intervention as exactly the missing “hegemonic” aspect from classical theories of imperialism
RECONCEPTUALISATION OF IMPERIALISM.docx
Imperialism has been conceptualised variously using Roman political history as the overall framework. Conclusions sometimes arrived at portray imperialism as exploitation, averring aggression and inequality. Such conclusions, however, misrepresent Roman imperialism as they reflect only the appearance and not the substance. This is because imperialism has been principally considered from effect rather than cause, thus creating a generic perception and indifferentiation in the stream of world political history. If viewed rather through causality, imperialism in the Roman political history is genetic, indicating that differentiation exists in the extant paradigms of imperialism. This paper, therefore, considered imperialism with causal model within historical framework of ancient Rome and the United States of America and theoretical framework of realism, using relevant elements of European foreign policies as analytical foil. The paper is then able to establish that: existing perception of imperialism as exploitative is inadequate; imperialism has another perspective; Roman imperialism differs from others; existing definitions of imperialism do not correctly define it; its existing theories do not correctly explain it; imperialism cannot be judged from effects; and that the US history contains collateral Roman variables of imperialism, thereby forming a model with Rome. Imperialism is consequently reconceptualised with the Roman/US variables.
IMPERIALISM: A diagnosis from the root
The paper will cover analysis on some most debating factors concerning ‘Imperialism’ such as – ‘what are the key debates on imperialism in the Marxist theory?’ and with that, it will add up some other ideological background to ‘Imperialism’. I will try to cover the diagnosis of the underlying co-relations of ‘colonialism’ and ‘imperialism’.
A Structural Theory of Imperialism
INTRODUCTION: This theory takes as its point of departure two of the most glaring facts about this world: the tremendous inequality, within and between nations, in almost all aspects of human living conditions, including the power to decide over those living conditions; and the resistance of this inequality to change. The world consists of Center and Periphery nations; and each nation, in turn, has its centers and periphery. Hence, our concern is with the mechanism underlying this discrepancy, particularly between the center in the Center, and the periphery in the Periphery. In other words, how to conceive of, how to explain, and how to counteract inequality as one of the major forms of structural violence.’Any theory of liberation from structural violence presupposes theoretically and practically adequate ideas of the dominance system against which the liberation is directed; and the special type of dominance system to be discussed here is imperialism. P.S. This is not my personal work. Hence, you may duly acknowledge the contributor of this article. This is an important paper for political economy and communication studies.
A review of Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin, The Making of Global Capitalism: The Political Economy of American Empire (Verso, 2012), £20 As the world commemorates the centenary of the First World War (with limited awareness of its meaning) a book by two leading Marxists that explores contemporary imperialism demands our careful assessment. A century ago there were two broad Marxist approaches to imperialism. Firstly, there was Karl Kautsky's theory of " ultra-imperialism " which suggested the potential for the replacement of rivalry by an alliance of the imperialist countries against subordinate parts of the world. The second approach, the classical Marxist perspective of inter-imperialist rivalry developed by Lenin and Bukharin, argued that competitive capital accumulation produced giant firms that operated increasingly internationally and enlisted their home states in their conflicts with other nations' capitals. The bloodshed and horrors of the war and subsequent decades showed that rivalry provided a superior explanation of international capitalist dynamics. By 1971 Bob Rowthorn noted the emergence of an additional perspective. He argued that a new US super-imperialism had developed in which the US dominated other capitalist powers and had become the " organiser of world capitalism " , able to contain such antagonisms as did appear. 1 Panitch's and Gindin's work sits squarely in this camp, with occasional nods towards ultra-imperialism. Based on earlier collaborative work and an impressive amount of research, The Making of Global Capitalism (henceforth TMGC) provides a comprehensive history of US capitalism and the economic statecraft mobilised to open the global economy to US influence over the last century or so. 2 TMGC's focus is captured in its first two sentences: This book is about globalisation and the state. It shows that the spread of capitalist markets, values and social relationships around the world, far from being an inevitable outcome of inherently expansionist economic tendencies, has depended on the agency of states—and of one state in particular: America. 3 What has emerged from the US state's role in the development of globalised capitalism, including the imposition of US-designed rules for the global economy, is " the American informal empire, which succeeded in integrating all the other capitalist powers into an effective system of coordination under its aegis ". 4 This is not Michael Hardt's and Toni Negri's Empire, within whose post-national space the idea of rival national imperialisms is outdated. 5 Nor does it neatly correspond to the transnationalist perspective developed by Marxists like William Robinson, because neither a transnational capitalist class nor a global state based on the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) is emerging. In the first place, TMGC notes that capital's national roots and institutional linkages remain important, and that US multinational corporations, however international, remain American rather than transnational. 6 Meanwhile, the IFIs were an expression of US postwar power and remain sites of negotiation and coordination between separate " national systems of regulation among the advanced capitalist states ". 7 Nevertheless, TMGC shares with these perspectives the view that US hegemony has so successfully contained conflicts within the West that the idea of inter-imperialist rivalry is no longer helpful. Appearance and essence
Ethics & International Affairs, 2011
In 2001, Frederick Cooper wrote that 'globalization talk is influential-and deeply misleading-for assuming coherence and direction instead of probing causes and processes'.(1) Burbank and Cooper heed this warning and focus very clearly and ably on the causes and processes of global empire building in this new book. They join a flurry of recent books linking empire, imperialism, and global or world history. Building on the groundbreaking works in this genre (2), this book differentiates itself by beginning in ancient Rome, rather than the 15th or 16th century, and expressly stating that it does not want to explain 'the expansion of Europe' (p. 5). While this may be strictly true, the traditional 'expansion of Europe' has here been replaced with 'the expansion of Eurasia' and the book does not really touch in great detail on the African empires (with which Cooper is undoubtedly familiar), or the pre-Columbian American empires. However, the book is successful in expanding the traditional story to encompass a wider Eurasian scope, drawing, undoubtedly, on Burbank's expertise in Russian history. The authors' unique contribution is that they 'focus instead on how different empires emerged, competed, and forged governing strategies, political ideas, and human affiliations over a long sweep of time' (p. 2).
CO-EDITOR and AUTHOR: Internationalism, imperialism and the formation of the contemporary world
Internationalism, imperialism and the formation of the contemporary world, 2017
This volume offers innovative insights into and approaches to the multiple historical intersections between distinct modalities of internationalism and imperialism during the twentieth century, across a range of contexts. Bringing together scholars from diverse theoretical, methodological and geographical backgrounds, the book explores an array of fundamental actors, institutions and processes that have decisively shaped contemporary history and the present. Among other crucial topics, it considers the expansion in the number and scope of activities of international organizations and its impact on formal and informal imperial polities, as well as the propagation of developmentalist ethos and discourses, relating them to major historical processes such as the growing institutionalization of international scrutiny in the interwar years or, later, the emerging global Cold War. “This volume of essays is the most vehement caution yet that historians of the twentieth century cannot ignore the complicating place of imperialism in the pasts of the present, regardless of whether we trace those pasts back by picking up the strands of national or international institutions, practices or thought.” (Glenda Sluga, Professor of International History, University of Sydney, Australia) “Just as empires were global phenomena, so, too, the administrative agencies, international organizations, and oppositional networks engaged by those empires' decolonization were global in vision and reach. This essay collection highlights the intersections involved. The issues addressed retain a powerful resonance, from the consideration of international organisations as sites of internationalist innovation to the public diplomacy of anti-colonialism and the imperial foundations of modernisation theories and development strategies. From first to last, it's a rewarding read.” (Martin Thomas, Professor of Imperial History, University of Exeter, UK) “This elegant edited volume innovates in terms of methodology and historiography thanks to the work of the editors. They set up a very coherent and consistent editorial project and asked a number of well-known outstanding contributors to reflect and write individual chapters that pondered, connected and intertwined the role of internationalism and imperialism in the making of our world. All authors went beyond labels, trends and buzzwords; in their respective chapters they zoomed in and out providing compelling analyses. This sophisticated and nuanced volume will trigger new research. It will be read and greatly appreciated by undergraduate, graduate students and scholars alike.” (Davide Rodogno, International History, Professor and Head of Department, The Graduate Institute Geneva, Switzerland)
Modern Imperialism and Colonialism: A Global Perspective
2010
Maps Preface Introduction Why Define? Empire Imperialism Colonialism Global and Modern Questions Part I: The Rise of Early Modern Empires, c.1350-1650 Chapter 1: Empire: The Emergence of Early Modern States and Empires in Eurasia and Africa The Emergence of the Early Modern State System A Gunpowder Revolution Sectoral Alliances The Search for Legitimacy Sub-Saharan African Empires? Conclusion Questions Chapter 2: Imperialism and Colonialism: Imperial Interaction and Nascent Colonialism in Early Modern Eurasia and North Africa Models of Early Modern Colonialism Themes in Early Modern Colonialism The Economic Underpinnings of Early Modern Integration Imperial Interaction and Grand Alliances The Portuguese Estado da India Conclusion Questions Chapter 3: Imperialism: Intersecting Empires in the Americas Iberian Motivations for Exploration, Trade, and Conquest The First Iberian Colonies in the Americas American Imperialism The Columbian Exchange Iberian Empires in the New World Questions...
Empire, geopolitics and development
Development and Change, 2007
Every single empire in its official discourse has said that it is not like all the others, that its circumstances are special, that it has a mission to enlighten, civilize, bring order and democracy, and that it uses force only as a last resort. And, sadder still, there always is a chorus of willing intellectuals to say calming words about benign or altruistic empires (Edward Said, 2003) OVERVIEW From redundancy, since the end of direct European rule in the mid-twentieth century, to taboo, the term 'empire' is being resurrected and may even be superseding globalization, the much-used term of the past two decades. This resurgence can be traced in part to Hardt and Negri's best-selling tome, Empire, with its concept of a multitude operating in a 'decentered and deterritorializing' globe (Hardt and Negri, 2000). Yet the events of 9/11 and the subsequent US-led military coalitions into Afghanistan and Iraq, combined with the consolidation of international development around the Millennium Development Goals and global justice movements for broad-based participation in poverty reduction, have brought to the fore a changing dynamic between geopolitics, empire and development. At least two divergent approaches can be distinguished in the growing empire literature. The first 'establishment' discourse on empire invokes a triumphalist return to the nineteenth century view of its grand civilizing mission. A number of recent studies revisiting British imperialism have provided not just apologia but justification for colonial rule. For instance, Cannadine's book makes a parody of Said's major analysis of culture and imperialism in Orientalism (Said, 1978), challenges his construction of the racial other in imperial rule and states that inequality was dealt with in a better way in the encounter between the British and Indians in the colonial period than in contemporary times (Cannadine, 2001; see also Ferguson, 2003). The most aggressive advocates for the US to declare itself an imperial power
GLOBALIZATION A NEW THESIS AND THE RELATIONSHIP WITH IMPERIALISM
Ever since the emergency of globalization the world has been seen as a much interconnected globe in which information freely flows, this paper aims at exposing the evolution of globalization and takes you on a journey to a different view of globalization. The concept of Globalization is protean in nature i.e. it is exceedingly variable and readily assuming different shapes or forms and this paper aims to display the latest form globalization has taken over the years.It will also expose to you the relationship between Globalization and Imperialism, why so many scholars have liked the concept of Globalization to imperialism.
(Comparativ 3_4/2020): Comparing Colonialism: Beyond European Exceptionalism
Comparativ, 2020
link to complete issue: https://www.comparativ.net/v2/issue/view/161 Editorial The topic of empire continues to keep the social sciences at large busy. After it had seemed for a long time as if the topic had definitely been handed over to historians, who are concerned with a past phenomenon that only occurs as a nostalgic reflex in the present, empires are suddenly also of interest again to the social scientists concerned with the present under quite different aspects. The question of whether the United States was and still is an empire and whether such imperial configurations were needed to maintain an international order after the multilateralism of the Cold War had come to an end played a crucial role in relaunching the debate about empires. A second layer of interest was informed by postcolonially inspired interest in the continuing mechanisms of earlier colonial empires now striking back in various ways and thus remaining present in today’s seemingly post-imperial world. At a third level, observations that view empires as a rather loose association of rule with unfinished territorialization came to the fore in interpretations of empire as a more appropriate form of governance under conditions of global or at least transregional weakening or even dissolution of boundaries. While we recently looked back at the similarities and differences between empires for the historical period from the eighteenth to the mid-twentieth centuries in a historically comparative thematic issue of this journal (no 3/2019), the current double issue, conceived from the perspective of historical sociology, is concerned with a geographically even broader comparison that seeks to revise the thesis of a European exceptionalism in the history of colonialism and imperialism that is often put forward implicitly rather than explicitly. This makes it necessary, first of all, to look for colonial imperial expansion also outside Europe and not to construct a “non-European world” as the target of expansion, as an overseas history, now out of fashion, did for a long time. This means not only to question the geography of comparative studies of empires, but also to reflect critically on their privileged time frame and to include examples that lie beyond the particular European expansion period that is often portrayed as starting in the fifteenth century. In a third level, the nesting of empires is at stake, because the confrontation with imperial conquest from outside by no means put an end to state-building processes inside the imperially overformed regions, from which a whole complex of new questions about the relationship of the various empire-building processes can be derived. Colonialism, in this perspective, is not a relationship between Europeans and non-Europeans, but a much broader, almost universal kaleidoscope of subjugation, settlement into regions other than the one of origin, and arrangements between external and internal elites. What distinguishes pre-modern forms of imperial rule and colony-building from those since the late eighteenth century, however, are (1) their positioning in struggles for dominance at a global scale, (2) the complicated blending between the formation of nation-states and ongoing attempts at imperial expansion, which can by no means be reduced to a teleology from empire to nation, and (3) the relationship between capitalist adventurism and political projects of empire building, which follow different logics but always interact. To abstract these processes in such a way that they can be made available as theoretical elements to other disciplines requires at the same time a wide range of expertise for many case studies, an important selection of which is brought together in this issue. Specialists will read these case studies as enriching knowledge about individual empires, while the thematic issue as a whole, not least with its introduction by the editors and its afterword by Frederick Cooper, pursues an ambition that goes beyond the individual case and at the same time offers a broadening of perspective beyond meticulously deconstructed European exceptionalism and a contribution to a general theory of empires.
The Contemporary Contours of Imperialism
Monthly Review, 2019
Situated largely within the Marxist debates on imperialism—but addressing the liberal formulations too—The Changing Face of Imperialism: Colonialism to Contemporary Capitalism is an important intervention regarding the material basis of imperialism and its three-hundred-year-old history of unequal power relations. The book broadly addresses five issues: (1) the nature of finance capital and the novel yet familiar processes of value extraction; (2) the world of capital; (3) global production networks and labor regimes; (4) the institutional system of nation-states in the new global order; and (5) the nature of integration from colonial regimes to now.
Introduction World Empire -or a World of Empires
Freeman, A. and B. Kagarlitsky. 2004. The politics of Empire. Globalization in Crisis. London: Pluto Press, 2004
Introduction to Freeman and Kagarlitsky "Globalisation in Crisis: The Politics of the New Imperialism". The title was eventually changed but I think the first title was better. This 2002 book, a collaboration between authors brought together by the Transnational Institute (TNI) was an important component part of what was to become 'Geopolitical Economy'. Boris and I co-wrote this introduction, which stands the test of time, at least so far. Here are our original introductory words: "On 17 February 2002, the Transnational Institute (TNI) called a weekend seminar in Amsterdam to discuss perspectives for what is variously known as the movement for global justice, the movement against anti-corporate globalisation or simply the anti-globalisation movement. The result is this unique synthesis, the product of two years of collective work and discussion between prominent writers and activists in global justice and peace movements spanning fi ve continents. From a refreshingly wide range of views two clear points of consensus emerged. First, ‘globalisation’, as commonly understood, had entered a phase of crisis. A two-decade-long process of expansion of the world market, marked by accelerated fi nancial deregulation and multilateral agreements overseen by supranational organisations, notably the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation (WTO), was in deep trouble. Second, this crisis was structural. It was not temporary and did not appear reversible. It stemmed, participants agreed, from deep-seated problems within the globalisation process itself. At the very least, globalisation had run up against some fairly heavy difficulties. More significantly, there was no clear indication that its supporters could resolve these diffi culties. Here was a new message: globalisation, as we know it, might not just be unjust: it might also be unsustainable. Doubts were surfacing, no longer about whether it was desirable but whether, as originally proposed, it was even possible. Many argued that new events augured the end of globalisation, some that it had never really existed. Wherever the actual truth lay, global justice movements and peace movements clearly faced a new stage of history and needed to make an in-depth appraisal of the tasks facing them. The discussion gave rise to this work.