Not sure Wojtek what you mean by liberalism other than some ill-defined freedom, a freedom which is a veiled collective form of slavery itself dependent upon the juridic individuation of individual and deconstitution of group identities.
And what did Locke write about Indians and JS Mill about the other Indians? And how did they explicitly justify colonialism--that is unfreedom--in terms of liberal principles?
Also, how does the creation of blocked potential serve as a defense of set of institutional rules rather than a call for their transcendence? Not following your argument. Unless your only specification of what those blocks are is that they have nothing to do with liberalism and presumably property!
You also use an ahistoric definition of imperialism. Plunder, territorial aggrandizement, expansion of latifundia, creation of debt ridden capitalist plantations forcibly oriented to the global market, imperialism of trade, control of investment outlets, division of labor suited to advanced capitalist nation, violent monopoly over raw materials demanded in the global market, the redistribution of value through formation of international prices of production or through commodity chains, etc. These are all very different things.
Not sure what it means to say that "liberalism" or Western economic development--which you use interchangeably--did not introduce imperialism in the abstract or served as a brake on it. Perhaps some forms of it but not others obviously. Yesterday and today. Have you read Amiya Bagchi's Perilous Passages?
Perilous Passage Mankind and the Global Ascendancy of Capital
Author(s) : Amiya Kumar Bagchi
Description Investigating the emergence of the states on the North Atlantic seaboard as prosperous and powerful nations, and their eventual domination overthe rest of the world, Perilous Passage presents an engaging account of the economic emergence of the contemporary world. Differing radically from the ‘free market’ theorists, Bagchi provides a much-needed alternative perspective of global economic history from sixteenth century to contemporary times. The author brings together insights of historians of war and those of Marxist and world-system theorists to characterize the emergence and operation of capitalism. Moving beyond the ‘European miracle’ and a Eurocentric vision, he provides a comprehensive history and the reciprocal impact of the extra-European world. Bagchi also explores the numerous ways in which the armed ascendancy of European capitalism impacted the human development of different countries. Going beyond existing interpretative frameworks, this book highlights the role of capitalist competition for markets, raw materials, territories, and human labour. It interweaves the ideologies governing the conquering career of capitalism. The author also situates the neo-global order against the backdrop of antisystemic struggles, wars, and contradictory movements within global capital. The uniqueness of this volume also lies in presenting a global history, which for the first time puts human development at centre stage. Departing from the triumphalist account of development of currently advanced countries, it treats the development of all peoples of the world as being equally important.
Readership Amiya Bagchi’s vision and nuanced approach coupled with meticulous scholarship and lucid rendition, makes this volume indispensable for scholars, teachers, and students of rise of the modern West, global economic history, and modern European history
Review Comments ‘A combative and spirited book telling the story of the economic emergence of the contemporary world in a radically different way from the standard accounts. It will not end debates, but begin them in a robust way, which surely is the function of fine “alternative history”.’ — AMARTYA SEN, Harvard University ‘A magistral work, which attempts a comprehensive explanation of the emergence of the modern world-system. A significant contribution to the world debate put forward by one of India’s leading social scientists.’ — IMMANUEL WALLERSTEIN, Yale University
Yours, Rakesh
I am not sure if these are valid criticisms. There are certainly many strands of Western liberalism and many do stress the enabling aspect of freedom (which goes back to Aristotle), as opposed to negative one (absence of constraint - cf. Holmes & Sunstein, _The Cost of Rights_).
But more importantly, Western development created unprecedented capablity in virtually any aspect of human life - so the problem is not insufficient capability but constraints to the full utilization of that capacity. To use an obvious example, the US has sufficient capacity to provide universal health care or effcient transit system - but it will not because of the constraints created by special interest groups.
If some people do not have access to that potential it is due largely to artifically created constrains, as noted above, as well as social factors (culture of poverty, etc.) rathr than insufficient potential for development, let alone Western liberalism and it semphais on individual freedom. From that perspective, liberalism's emphasis on the absence of constraint is well placed.
As to the second point, imperialism i.e. expansion of the power of one group over another group is universal since the beginning of human history. If it did not exist, we would still be living in small nomadic bands. Therefore, blaming liberalism for imperialism is like blaming it for infectious diseases - the two merely coexist rather one being the cause of the other.
If anything, Western liberalism put a brake on some of the nastier aspects of imperial expansion. The very fact that the USG is using "rendition" instead of simply torturing the captives as the Nazis or the Soviets did is the testimony to the fact that such practices are no longer acceptable in Westen liberal democracies. The thugs in USG cannot help that and they are forced to use proxies instead.
Another point, imperialism is not necessarily bad - it may lead to social progress. For example, Soviet domination of backward Eastern European states (e.g. Poland) brought a lot of progressive changes there. Th esame can probably be said about Chinese domination of Tibet. These are just two examples that come to mind, but i am pretty sure one can find more. Certainly, there were also costs if imeprial expansion - but as I said, such expansion is an inseparable part of human history. If anything, Western liberalism increased the benefit to cost balance of that expansion.
Besides, why should we cherish local nationalism, the anti-thesis of imperialism? National sovereignty has no value in itself other than giving a blank check to local power elites. Therefore, undermining it, as imprialism invariably does, by itself is not necessarily a bad thing, it can be a good thing if it brings progress - which I belive is the crux of Marx's argument about the British rule in India.
Wojtek