The evidence of the push towards imperialism needs to be placed in the contexts of both U.S politics, and the broader structural context of Global Capitalism. There is little need to dwell on the tragic situation in the U.S created by the terrorist acts of September 11 and in the ways in which those events have played into the hands of a particularly reactionary administration in Washington. It is arguable that the last two decades of the twentieth century will appear in the history as a period of transition marked by the end of colonialism after World War Two, and the fall of socialism, which brought an earlier “three” worlds into a single world of global modernity. In the process of this, the last two decades seemed to have universalized certain contradictions of capitalist modernity.
The U.S has been the main beneficiary of these changes, which have left it as the sole superpower militarily, economically and politically. However, the world of global modernity is also a world which presents challenges to the European conceived modernity of an earlier day, in both its socialist and capitalist versions. Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” points to a fundamental question of the times, one aspect of his argument may be directly important here. If Huntington is right, and there is good geopolitical evidence to support his argument, the remaining superpower may achieve its ends only by negotiation or outright coercion, because, whatever may be the appeals of McDonald’s and Coca-Cola, it is no longer the hegemonic power in the sense of providing leadership globally, or an example for emulation.
Leslie Sklair, author of “Sociology of the Global System,” believes that this gap, or contradiction, between the power to coerce and the failure to offer a social and ethical model for emulation against other claims (stated in a post socialist world in the language of culture rather then society) is a feature of the transition that we are in, and obviously a source of immense anxiety. What Skliar is expressing is the fact that we are currently in a transition period in world history. This transition period is one that has not yet produced or offered a social and ethical model to be used as a blueprint by the developing world.
The other issue in the current situation is globalization, which bears directly on the question of an imperial “Center.” The questioning of imperialism as a way to understand the structuring of the modern world is largely coincident with the emergence of the talk of globalization in the 1980’s. There are many problems associated with this issue. The one that is central here is whether or not globalization is just another term for imperialism, in particular United States imperialism.
Arguments against the comparison of globalization and imperialism include the de-centering of capitalism, especially in the emergence of the East Asian competitors to the U.S and Europe. With this in mind, questions about the meaning of imperialism are raised, as imperialism and colonialism in their modern senses have been entangled with nations and nationalism. Furthermore, in Leslie Sklair’s words, the emergence of a “transnational capitalist class,” for all its conflicts, has a common interest through the
agency of transnational corporations and other transnational organizations in sustaining Global Capitalism. These various moments in the structuring of power in the modern world inevitably lead to questions about the meaning of imperialism, as well as its center.
On the other hand, however transnational the new capitalism may be, the distribution of economic power, itself not very distinguishable from political and cultural power, is highly uneven, dominated mostly by U.S corporations international institutions in which the U.S plays a key role, and most visibly the cultural practices and products of U.S capitalism that have taken the world by storm, creating fears about cultural homogenization. Furthermore, above it all is supreme military power, and an apparent readiness to strike out in defense of U.S interests, or in their expansion, as is the case with oil presently.
The uncertainty created by this situation is apparent in the following defense of the imperialism argument against globalization by two analysts of capitalism and imperialism, which view globalization as “yet another phase in a long historical process of imperialist expansion.” The authors argue that globalization is “an ideological tool used for prescription rather than accurate description. In this context it can be compared with a term that has considerably greater descriptive value and explanatory power: Imperialism.” They explain,
Using this concept, the network of institutions that define the structure of the new global economic system is viewed not in structural terms, but as intentional and contingent, subject to the control of individuals who represent and seek to advance the interests of a new international capitalist class. This class, it is argued, is formed on the basis of institutions that include a complex of some 37,000 transnational corporations (TNSs), the operating units of global capitalism, the bearers of capital and technology and the major agents of the new imperial order. These TNC’s are not the only organizational bases of this order, which included the World Bank, the International Monetary fund… In addition, the New World Order is made up of a host of global strategic planning and policy forums…All of these institutions form an integral part of the new imperialism-the new system of global governance.
While Petras and Veltmeyer, point to the dominance of the U.S in this new imperialism, however, what makes the imperialism “new” as such is that it is no longer a national but a “class project.” It is here that the ambiguities of globalization or global capitalism appear, making its difference from earlier notions of imperialism. It may be concluded that we are in the midst of a transition period where the meaning of Globalization and imperialism seem to be dangerously fused together creating a volatile global climate.
Bibliography:
- Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonio…Empire ( Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000 )
- Morgan, Dan and Ottaway, David…Future of Iraq’s Oil already creating buzz, The Register-Guard, 16 September 2002, 1A/7A (from the Washington-Post)
- Huntington, Samuel P…The Clash of Civilizations, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996)
- Skliar, Leslie…Sociology of the Global System, (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991)
- Petras, James and Veltmeyer, Henry…Globalization Unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st century, (Halifax, NS: Fernwood publishing/ZED books, 2002), p.13
Date: April 8, 2003
Student: David Sachs
Student# 5922046
Professor: Dr. Chew
Globalization or Imperialism?
Reading between the lines
By
David Sachs
Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000)
Dan Morgan and David Ottaway, “ Future of Iraq’s Oil already creating buzz,” The Register-Guard, Monday, 16 September 2002, 1A/7A (from the /Washington Post)
Samuel P. Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations?” (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1996)
Leslie Sklair, Sociology of the Global System (Baltimore, MD : Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991)
Leslie Sklair, Sociology of the Global System (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991)
Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000)
James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer, Globalization Unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st Century (Halifax, NS: Fernwood Publishing/ZED Books, 2002), p.13
