[lbo-talk] Loren Goldner query on imperialism

James Heartfield Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk
Sun Dec 3 12:19:37 PST 2006


Reading Loren Goldner's query on imperialism I was not quite sure what the point was. I think that Lenin's theory of imperialism was important, but for different reasons than Goldner, is no longer appropriate (principally that he characterised the era of imperialism as one of transition, which ours isn't).

On the substantive point, though, I think that Loren is quite as guilty as Lenin of straining the meaning of imperialism - remember Lenin linked the political fact of colonisation to an underlying economic trend of decay. The trouble is that for all of the evidence Loren cites, political power in the twenty-first century is not marked by direct colonisation. Just to remind ourselves of what Imperialism looked like, here's Rajani Palme Dutt's description of the British Empire at its height: "covers 13.3 million square miles with 500 millions of population, or rather less than a quarter of the earth's surface, and roughly a quarter of the world's population." (World Politics, 1936, p 232).

The difference between European imperialism c. 1880 - 1950 and American hegemony c.1943-date is that the latter had relatively little tendency to establish direct political authority on the colonial model. Instead - and this shows throughout Loren's examples - US influence was felt indirectly, either through proxies, like Israel, or through private sector domination, or through military 'cooperation', or intermittently, through gunboat diplomacy. But despite recent rhetoric, the US is very multilateral, almost always working alongside trusted allies (Turkey, S. Korea etc.) There are extensive US military outposts throughout the world (as in Kosovo, Guantanamo, throughout the Pacific) but relatively little enduring and direct military presence. The exceptions, may it be said, have always proved deeply problematic, such as the US presence in the Lebanon, or in Iraq today. None of this is to downplay the incessant actions against sovereign powers or privately exploitative domination of the world economy.

I can remember arguing, with others, that the return of the recession in the 1980s would lead to a re-conquest of the world on the Lenin model, but I was wrong. Maybe something of that sentiment was abroad in the talk of civilising missions and such-like, but our contemporary elites lack the inner certainty of those British District Officers from the Colonial Office who lorded it over the natives without cutting and running like Donald Rumsfeld.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list