RECONCEPTUALISATION OF IMPERIALISM.docx (original) (raw)
Related papers
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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
New Imperialism: Towards a Holistic Approach
A prominent theme in scholarly analyses of contemporary international affairs concerns the extent to which the unrivalled power and activities of the United States can be said to constitute a form of imperialism. Typically, the contours of this debate center on the ostensible differences between “old” and “new” varieties of imperialist practice. Yet the concept of “new imperialism” remains one on which little consensus exists. Wide differences of opinion on its origins, dynamics, and characteristics are evident, as is an analytical bifurcation between distinct “economic” and “geopolitical” explanations. This absence of conceptual unity leads to accounts of new imperialist strategy that are partial, limited, and incomplete. If the theoretical value of new imperialism is to be realized, a more holistic approach is needed. To this end, some of the key differences between the contexts of new and old imperialism are explored.A prominent theme in scholarly analyses of contemporary international affairs concerns the extent to which the unrivalled power and activities of the United States can be said to constitute a form of imperialism. Typically, the contours of this debate center on the ostensible differences between “old” and “new” varieties of imperialist practice. Yet the concept of “new imperialism” remains one on which little consensus exists. Wide differences of opinion on its origins, dynamics, and characteristics are evident, as is an analytical bifurcation between distinct “economic” and “geopolitical” explanations. This absence of conceptual unity leads to accounts of new imperialist strategy that are partial, limited, and incomplete. If the theoretical value of new imperialism is to be realized, a more holistic approach is needed. To this end, some of the key differences between the contexts of new and old imperialism are explored.