Chapter 2 IMPERIALISM

Imperialism is a broad term that refers to various strategies used by one nation to seize power,
sometimes through the territorial conquest of another nation or region, and then to exercise control,
particularly political, economic, and territorial control over that nation or region, as well as possibly
many other nations. The phrase stems from the Roman imperium and was originally used to refer to
political dominance over one or more nearby countries. The word "empire" is derived from the Latin
word "imperium," and it was used to characterize political systems that shared the traits of Roman
authority, particularly the supreme power of the ruler, the Roman "emperor," and the vast disparity in
power between the ruler and the subject population. The idea of an empire and the act of imperialism
came to be connected with having control over enormous geographic areas and the inhabitants of those
areas over time. This trait is what causes many to link globalization and imperialism together. In reality,
many of the globalization-related phenomena covered in this book—such as trade, migration,
communication, and so forth—existed between the imperial authority and the regions it ruled. As
various countries, including Germany, Italy, Belgium, Great Britain, France, and the United States, fought
for dominance over previously undeveloped lands, particularly in Africa, the term "imperialism" became
widely used in the late nineteenth century. Prior to it, other prominent imperialist countries included
Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands. Imperialism once had a positive connotation but eventually
started to be used negatively, maybe as a result of the Boer War. The necessity of the imperial powers
controlling politics and culture was being questioned.

A new imperialism has emerged, according to David Harvey's most recent arguments, and the United
States is its principal, if not sole, representative. He refers to this as capitalist imperialism and sees it as a
paradoxical marriage of politics and economics. In comparison to Lenin or Hobson, Harvey provides a
more comprehensive understanding of imperialism. More specifically, it entails a fusion of economic
imperialism as a diffuse political-economic process in space and time where control over and use of
capital take precedence and political imperialism as a distinctively political project on the part of actors
whose power is based in command of territory and a capacity to mobilize its human and natural
resources toward political, economic, and military ends. Although there are fundamental differences
between capitalist interests in controlling and using capital and political interests in territory, the two
logics are intricately intertwined and occasionally at odds with one another. For instance, the Vietnam
War made sense to the American government politically but not at all economically, and it may even
have had a negative impact on the American economy. Harvey speculates more broadly about whether
US political imperialism is on the rise at the same time that US economic imperialism is losing ground.

Although the concepts are occasionally used interchangeably and have an obvious connection to one
another, colonialism has a more defined definition. Imperialism's most severe form entails a kind of
control without the establishment of colonies. In contrast to imperialism, colonialism typically entails
settlers and far more formal political control methods. Therefore, colonialism frequently entails the
establishment of an administrative apparatus by the colonial power in the nation or region that has
been colonized to manage its internal affairs, including its settlements. According to Edward Said,
colonialism, which is nearly invariably a result of imperialism, is the implantation of colonies on remote
territory. Imperialism is defined as the practice, theory, and attitudes of a dominant metropolitan center
governing a distant area. Although economic, political, and cultural control are all aspects of imperialism
and colonialism, imperialism is more closely associated with exploitation and economic control than
colonialism is with political control. Despite the fact that colonialism has a long history, it can be
regarded to have had two significant modern eras. The first, which started in the fourteenth century,
involved the establishment of colonies in Africa, Asia, and the Americas under the direction of European
powers, particularly Spain and Portugal. The second, or modern, phase, which included additional
European powers, most notably Great Britain, France, and Germany, as well as the US and Japan, lasted
roughly between 1820 until the conclusion of World War I.

Development can be viewed as the historical period that came before the global era, roughly from the
1940s to the 1970s. You may think of development as a project that came before globalization
specifically. As a project, it was primarily focused on the economic advancement of particular countries,
typically those that weren't thought to be economically advanced enough. Import-substitution projects
were important in several ways. That is to say, in order for Southern countries to advance in
development, they had to create their own industries as opposed to concentrating on exports and
relying on imports from other nations, particularly the North. As an illustration, emerging nations were
advised to establish a car industry. Such a sector was crucial not just for its own sake but also because it
would pave the way for other types of development like the production of parts and the construction of
roads. Such independence would not appear to be in the developed North's best interests. For instance,
wouldn't the US prefer to sell cars to Brazil rather than allowing Brazil to manufacture its own cars?
While this may be the case, the reality remains that the US and other Northern developed countries
profited greatly from import substitution development by expanding foreign direct investment (FDI) in
the emerging industries in less developed nations. A company from one country makes an investment in
a company from another country in order to take control of it.

Foreign aid provided by affluent nations to less developed nations should also be categorized under the
topic of development projects. This included both food help and financial assistance. While such
assistance was undoubtedly beneficial in the short term, over the long term, it frequently had a negative
impact on some nations' capacity to cultivate and supply their own food, which increased food
dependence in some less developed nations. For a number of reasons, development theory is criticized
by many people. Dependency theory is a body of literature that challenges development theory. It
highlights the reality that the types of programs outlined above more often than not lead to a fall in the
nation-states of the South's independence and an increase in their dependence on the nations of the
North, particularly the US, rather than to their development. Underdevelopment is a condition that is
inherent to the development process as well as to global capitalism; it is neither an abnormal condition
nor one that is brought on by the less developed countries themselves. It also includes the notion that,
rather than bringing about greater economic prosperity, development results in even greater
destitution.

The popularity of dependency theory has tended to decline, but it has been largely supplanted and
merged into the more comprehensive field of world system theory. According to this idea, the globe is
primarily divided into the core and the periphery, with the nation-states located in the latter being
reliant on and exploited by those located in the former. The development project was essentially a
failure because the North and the South continue to experience significant economic and other forms of
inequality throughout the world. More specifically, the majority of the South's countries did not
experience any meaningful growth. In fact, it could be claimed that rather from catching up to the
industrialized nations, they actually fell further behind. Additionally, the entire development effort was
perceived as disrespectful since it had a tendency to exalt the North and everything related with it,
particularly its economic system, while denigrating everything connected to the South. The globalization
effort, in contrast, seemed at least more egalitarian because it was naturally unilateral and
unidirectional, with money and other forms of help moving from the North to the South, whereas
development was unilateral and bidirectional. There is ample evidence that the distinctions between the
North and South have not significantly impacted how the globalization effort has performed compared
to the development project. In addition, many of the institutions founded during the era of reliance,
particularly those connected to the UN, are still in operation and are crucial to globalization. The
question of whether globalization is merely progress with a different, less objectionable title is brought
up by this. This would be the point of view of those who oppose neo-liberalism, which is a major driving
force behind modern economic globalization.

Another process that, like those already mentioned, is related to globalization but not the same as it or
reducible to it is Americanization. The world is divided primarily into the core and the periphery, with
the latter dependent on and exploited by the core nation-states, according to the World System Theory.
Although the fact that this work is still being produced today shows that interest in Americanization has
not diminished, there was a heavy focus on this subject in the 1960s, at or near the height of America's
global power, particularly its industrial power given the decades it took for Europe and Japan to recover
economically from World War II. No work better exemplifies this than the Frenchman J. - J. The
American Challenge by Servan - Schreiber from 1968

In many parts of the world, there has long been a counter-reaction to Americanization that might be
referred to as anti-Americanism. Anti-Americanism has spread as a phenomenon that is directly related
to Americanization and globalization. It is not only a more widespread phenomenon, but it also spreads
to distant parts of the world far more quickly than Americanization does. Additionally, it feels more
intense than in the past, and it has unquestionably received much more attention and notoriety. But
what does anti-Americanism actually mean? Even while the name itself suggests a type of broad
criticism that is conveyed similarly throughout most of the world, anti-Americanism is not a uniform
phenomenon. Anti-Americanism comes in all shapes, sizes, and manifestations; as opposed to one
general anti-Americanism, there are various anti-Americanisms. Anti-Americanism is such a broad
phrase that it encompasses both criticism of US cultural, economic, and political policies as well as more
overarching unfavorable stereotypes about the US. It might include anything from trite criticism of the
US that is only surface level to a pervasive and deeply held hostility.

According to David Harvey's (2005) interpretation of the term, neo-liberalism combines the dedication
to individual liberty of classical liberalism with neo-classical economics, which is committed to the free
market and rejects government involvement in it. Due to changes in the 1930s, liberalism came to be
known as neo-liberalism. The need to combat interventionism and collectivism, which dominated much
of thinking, particularly Keynesian and Marxian theories, and many political systems, particularly the
New Deal in the US and the rise of the Soviet Union in the early 20th century, led to the revitalization
and transformation of liberal ideas. The conceptual pioneers of neo-liberalism were economists,
particularly Friedrich von Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. The Mont Pelerin Society (MPS), a group
committed to liberal ideals, was established in 1947. The growth of collectivist socialism (particularly in
and supported by the Soviet Union) and the aggressive market involvement by liberal governments
frightened its members. People connected to MPS, particularly the well-known and powerful Chicago
economist Milton Friedman, were instrumental in developing neo-liberal theory, promoting its
application by nations around the world, and protecting traditional liberal values.
The liberal dedication to individual liberty and neo-classical economics were combined to become neo-
liberalism in the 1930s. The theory's pillars were the unrestricted operation of the market and minimum
government involvement. Free market operations are essential to neoliberalism. It places emphasis on a
dedication to market deregulation. A democratic political system is portrayed as being inextricably tied
to free markets, which promotes the financial security of the person. Tax reductions are promoted as a
way to boost economic activity, which necessitates cutting back on government spending, particularly in
the area of welfare. Although the idea supports minimal government, it supports government
involvement to support commercial interests and the removal of obstacles to the free flow of capital
across borders. Neo-liberalism has altered how the state operates to help the market function, as
opposed to making the state irrelevant.

Neo-liberalism has come under fire for its constrictive concept of well-being, which equates it with
financial well-being. The idea also hides the personal agendas of individuals who support this type of
economic structure. Neo-liberal theory adoption has caused significant financial crises in a number of
nations, increased commercialization, and environmental damage. Neo-Marxist intellectuals have
expressed both implicit and overt critique of neo-liberal doctrine. Sklair emphasizes cross-border
activities that can be carried out by transnational enterprises, the global capitalist class, and the ideology
and culture of capitalism. The capitalist class is used by transnational businesses to create and reinforce
the consumerist ideology required to satisfy the needs of the capitalist system. In terms of imperialism
and empire, Hardt and Negri attack the neo-liberal form of globalization. They identify a postmodern
turn in imperialism in Theorizing Globalization 51, which results in the decentering of the imperialist
empire and the birth of Empire. However, they regard the globalization process as having positive
potential and predict a counter-Empire that is defined by non-agential communal action.