Western imperialism has been dead for a long time. It's time to stop trotting out sun bleached bones with not the least scrap of flesh on them, and get more modern ways of viewing the world. US military action in the MENA area might have been harmful, but describing it as imperialism is wholly inaccurate.
I mean, people often talk, pretty accurately in my mind, about contemporary Chinese imperialism in Africa. The US engages in similar (or worse) practices in Africa and much of the rest of the world. I'm not sure what you mean by imperialism not existing or how you are using the word.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Marxian terminology on imperialism, especially as formulated in the early 20th century by Rosa Luxemburg and V.I. Lenin. Such analyses formed the basis of all modern world-systems theory, dependency theory, etc.
The specific analyses of Lenin and Luxemburg are of course outdated, in the same sense that Marx's analysis decades earlier is outdated; but these analyses are crucial (Marx is heavily assigned to sociology graduate students; in academic settings in Europe, Lenin is considered one of the most important social theorists of the 20th century) toward a modern understanding of the world. At least on the political left, there really are no modern descriptions of the world at all that do not rely on these analyses of imperialism.
Western imperialism has been dead for a long time. It's time to stop trotting out sun bleached bones with not the least scrap of flesh on them, and get more modern ways of viewing the world. US military action in the MENA area might have been harmful, but describing it as imperialism is wholly inaccurate.
I mean, people often talk, pretty accurately in my mind, about contemporary Chinese imperialism in Africa. The US engages in similar (or worse) practices in Africa and much of the rest of the world. I'm not sure what you mean by imperialism not existing or how you are using the word.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Marxian terminology on imperialism, especially as formulated in the early 20th century by Rosa Luxemburg and V.I. Lenin. Such analyses formed the basis of all modern world-systems theory, dependency theory, etc.
The specific analyses of Lenin and Luxemburg are of course outdated, in the same sense that Marx's analysis decades earlier is outdated; but these analyses are crucial (Marx is heavily assigned to sociology graduate students; in academic settings in Europe, Lenin is considered one of the most important social theorists of the 20th century) toward a modern understanding of the world. At least on the political left, there really are no modern descriptions of the world at all that do not rely on these analyses of imperialism. (emphasis added)
Asokolov, I promise that you are not the arbitrator or seer of what the political left believes. Get out of your echo chamber for ten seconds.
I did read your links, but ultimately I'd just say that sociologists should leave economics to economists. Marx was absolutely an important thinker, but that sort of Marxist analysis ultimately lacks nuance, is overly ideological, and lacks a strong public policy grounding. It also woefully infantalizes the developing world by completely ignoring the extremely strong positive and negative effects of each nation's own domestic policy. The Khmer Rouge, even ignoring their brutal crimes against humanity, for example, weren't betrayed by capitalist superpowers, they simply had shitty public policy. Not only is low tech subsistence farming inherently a flawed economic model, but really, really wanting something doesn't guarantee its success, well thought out and carefully implemented public policy does. Just because you threaten to murder an accountant doesn't mean he'll become an expert farmer overnight.
And your comment is exactly what I mean about taking out old bones. Concern over countries who rely on resource extraction not receiving equal benefits in trade should not be couched in the same terminology as Britain conquering and directly ruling over India. Different things are different.
I don't think mocking Muhammad is hate speech anymore than mocking L. Ron Hubbard is hate speech, which is to say not at all. But if someone thinks saying mean things about Muhammad is hate speech and should be forbidden on those grounds then one wonders why they wouldn't also forbid a book that says unbelievers deserve to be tortured forever in hell about 500 times in 200 pages.
The difference is that there is no general recognition by most of the world of Scientology as a 'religion'.
Regarding the recent 'free speech' displays in the US concerning Quran burning or mocking Muhammad (which seem the same and generally committed by the same people), it's no surprise that the ones up-in-arms defending such happen to be the political far-right. That happens in the context of the 'war on terror' and increasing discrimination against Muslims in the US and Europe, and most organizers of such events clearly support violence against Muslims.
The international legal principle is:
Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Defacement or blasphemy directed toward any specific religion should seem to qualify. I'm honestly not really sure what sort of political speech could possibly qualify as advocacy of religious hatred if burning holy books would not qualify.
If that's the case shouldn't the Quran be considered hate speech? I mean it literally calls for violence and discrimination against others based upon religion (as do many other religious texts).
I don't think mocking Muhammad is hate speech anymore than mocking L. Ron Hubbard is hate speech, which is to say not at all. But if someone thinks saying mean things about Muhammad is hate speech and should be forbidden on those grounds then one wonders why they wouldn't also forbid a book that says unbelievers deserve to be tortured forever in hell about 500 times in 200 pages.
The difference is that there is no general recognition by most of the world of Scientology as a 'religion'.
Regarding the recent 'free speech' displays in the US concerning Quran burning or mocking Muhammad (which seem the same and generally committed by the same people), it's no surprise that the ones up-in-arms defending such happen to be the political far-right. That happens in the context of the 'war on terror' and increasing discrimination against Muslims in the US and Europe, and most organizers of such events clearly support violence against Muslims.
The international legal principle is:
Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Defacement or blasphemy directed toward any specific religion should seem to qualify. I'm honestly not really sure what sort of political speech could possibly qualify as advocacy of religious hatred if burning holy books would not qualify.
If that's the case shouldn't the Quran be considered hate speech? I mean it literally calls for violence and discrimination against others based upon religion (as do many other religious texts).
Any and all suggestions for the inclusion of religions as a protected class vis a vis hate speech tend to contain exceptions excluding religious texts and statements from being hate speech.
Because a huge amount of actual content tends to be hateful towards someone. Exceptions apply, of course.
Personally, I think that religions should get no special treatment compared to any ideological association.
Any and all suggestions for the inclusion of religions as a protected class vis a vis hate speech tend to contain exceptions excluding religious texts and statements from being hate speech.
Because a huge amount of actual content tends to be hateful towards someone. Exceptions apply, of course.
I'm sure many religious folks would say the Quran and Bible aren't really hate speech, you just need to interpret them in their proper context (whatever that is) or as metaphors (whatever the metaphor is for). Or just ignore most of what they say and the history of their interpretation and claim they boil down to "God is love."
The fact that these texts, read at face-value, contain so much self-evidently hate-promoting material is why it's so important that people must be able to freely criticize them.
In Syria, ISIS has advanced on Aleppo, the country's largest city and the main (non-crazy) rebel stronghold. The rebels want us to bomb ISIS but we are wary of coordinating with them since some of them are the Nusra front. The US accuses Assad of aiding ISIS's advance by bombing the moderate rebels (who are also fighting ISIS). If Aleppo falls to ISIS that would be a catastrophe on the scale of the fall of Mosul.
I've been vaguely aware that Turkey's Erdogan has been a shitbag for some time, but since I'm really not read up on Turkey at all I've never realized to what extent or how...
So what are the odds of IS winning this war at this point?
Not sure what "winning" means, from their perspective or ours. Even if they conquered all of Syria and Iraq, that's not "winning" all the way because the caliphate still needs to expand to its former glory.
I seriously doubt they could take all of Syria and Iraq in the first place, though it seems like it's going to be very difficult to push them out of their territory, and who knows how the Iran/Saudi proxy wars will unfold to give them further opportunities.
Taking Baghdad might be a good way to define "victory." Baghdad was the main seat of the historical caliphate, and conquering the city would give ISIS enormous credibility among the zealot community.
Edit: even if ISIS "wins" in a sense like this, it will be interesting to see how they manage their antagonism of the West. If they're too antagonistic, it might severely decrease their shelf-life. For example, if ISIS sponsors a 9/11-like terrorist attack that kills thousands of people in America or Europe, it is not hard to imagine NATO sending ground troops into Raqqa and Mosul. An attack with chemical weapons might even prompt a nuclear response, or at least razing the cities WW2-style. (I'm not condoning such reactions, just saying they'd be fairly likely.)
So what are the odds of IS winning this war at this point?
Define win.
Outlast the Syrian and Iraqi governments or at least their will to fight and keep and hold enough territory to gain legitimacy as an actual state.
Alternatively establish a caliphate recognized by some significate portion of the Islamic populous?
So, #1 is basically the 'Taliban in Pakistan' outcome? Reasonable chance they'll stick around like a bunch of cockroaches for a decade or so. Legitimacy as an actual state? Not likely.
#2? Not likely. Maybe among the nutters with some under the table support (again, like we see with AQ or Taliban) but not an aboveboard recognition.
In five or ten years there will be another upstart that siphons away their support. The Iraqi and especially Syrian government aren't going to cede enough territory for IS to really get established, and I kind of doubt their ability to actually consolidate and govern. It's a lot harder than taking a bunch of territory and fragmentation / infighting are almost a guarantee.
Depends on how serious the Shia (and some Kurdish) militias get on with their ethnic cleansing of Sunni Arabs really. If the population is marginalized enough then IS won't have anything to work with, even if they somehow "win" at some point.
Kind of moot since IS can't win without something crazy happening like Turkey outright declaring war on Syria/Iraq/Iran, they're on the losing side of a war of attrition.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I've been vaguely aware that Turkey's Erdogan has been a shitbag for some time, but since I'm really not read up on Turkey at all I've never realized to what extent or how...
I've been to Turkey a few times and love the place and the peeps. Everytime I read about Erdogan, I feel miserable that not only is he such a wanker, but that he's a pretty freaking popular wanker.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
edited June 2015
If ISIS gets to the unification of Syria stage and both Assad and the Rebels are deposed, Turkey will probably toss their hat in the ring against ISIS knowing they will be next (along with Israel and probably a bunch of other local powers), likely with NATO (and possibly even Russian) support. Turkey is happy to support short term, but that's always seemed more a way for them to shoo away the Kurds and Assad. If the crosshairs are pointed at them the tune will change.
You don't declare war on everyone and get statehood. Once ISIS gets to enough of a threat to be taken seriously as a regional power, rather than a local one, probably most major nations will opt to take action rather than risk that sort of nonsense impacting regional trade and diplomacy.
I did read your links, but ultimately I'd just say that sociologists should leave economics to economists. Marx was absolutely an important thinker, but that sort of Marxist analysis ultimately lacks nuance, is overly ideological, and lacks a strong public policy grounding.
I wish you could actually reply with a substantive criticism, rather than just flatly asserting that you think something is wrong or stupid (or 'lacks nuance') without any additional explanation.
I would describe Marxism as a critical methodology rather than an ideology. I've definitely never heard anyone refer to someone like Immanuel Wallerstein in the terms you're using, and on the contrary he qualifies as basically an arch-anti-ideologue, criticizing the very divisionary foundation of, for instance, sociology and economics as separate disciplines in western thought. And neither I. Wallerstein nor Andre Gunder Frank consider/ed themselves as 'Marxists', exactly, although they're very often described as such. They are also both often described as economists. Marx, Lenin, Luxemburg were all obviously foremost economists (although Marx is also often regarded as the founder of sociology, and Lenin went pretty deep into important philosophical treatises that no one in the US has read). Economics is a discipline that, at least in the US, does skew to the right -- I would honestly assess this as a reason why the majority of US economists have such a piss-poor track record in their forecasting abilities. But there are obviously Marxist economists, describing themselves as such, even in US academia.
And your comment is exactly what I mean about taking out old bones. Concern over countries who rely on resource extraction not receiving equal benefits in trade should not be couched in the same terminology as Britain conquering and directly ruling over India. Different things are different.
A lot of India was ruled rather indirectly by Britain through princely states, and in fact British imperialism over India was at first as a whole indirect through the East India Company (chartered 'company' imperialism by the European powers bearing many similarities to contemporary corporate neocolonialism -- in fact historically in many circumstances the former and latter blur considerably, such as regarding British Petroleum and its prior incarnations); it wasn't until that scheme went bankrupt that the Queen was declared 'Empress' and formal direct rule by the British state began. The British Raj, anyway, was a narco-regime similar (in these terms) to the current US puppet state in Afghanistan. No one is saying that 21st century imperialism is exactly the same as 19th century imperialism, but there are a lot of parallels. Much of the present western affluence in relative global terms is still based on ownership over material resources, especially in Africa, that was established under formal colonialism. The 1979 revolution in Iran took at least some of those resources back from the west. The US declared its own imperial hegemony over the Persian Gulf monarchies pretty directly through the Carter Doctrine, which occurred only several years after Britain formally 'decolonized' its last possessions in the same region. I mean, when Bush invaded Iraq, the civilian administrator installed, Bremer, was constantly referred to semi-formally as 'Viceroy', probably the most overtly colonialist title possible in context -- and the conquest and occupation of Iraq itself marked a sort of reversion to old-style colonialism as opposed to the usual indirect neocolonialism of the second half of the 20th century. We still have actual settler colonies established by the British Empire, i.e. Israel, engaging in violent forward settler colonialism as we speak. Etc etc.
I'm disappointed that none of the hawks seem to care at all about the DIA report or its implications. In fact the discourse here regarding Islamic State seems to be ignoring any implications of the report entirely.
So what are the odds of IS winning this war at this point?
Define win.
ISIS will probably remain as an organization in 5-10 years, and may still have some sort of organized forces / held territory.
That territory isn't likely to be a wide swath of the Middle East or a caliphate that will withstand a thousand years or anything like that.
Realistically they will probably be the new Taliban - marginalized to a place nobody gives enough of a shit about to uproot them.
This is not a good description of Afghanistan. The USSR found it important enough to engage in an extremely costly 10 year occupation, and the US has now occupied the country for almost 14 years. The British Empire fought numerous (mostly failed) wars in Afghanistan. Would a place nobody gives a shit about be known as the graveyard of empires?
Western imperialism has been dead for a long time. It's time to stop trotting out sun bleached bones with not the least scrap of flesh on them, and get more modern ways of viewing the world. US military action in the MENA area might have been harmful, but describing it as imperialism is wholly inaccurate.
...I really disagree very strongly with this. Western imperialism didn't die, it succeeded in conquering most of the world. When did imperialism die, in your view? The Cold War seems to me to have been a struggle between two large empires, and the US/Western empire essentially came out on top.
Have you read the underlying PDF? The article seems to be misrepresenting it. It reads more like a grim or even terrified warning than a "here's what we should do".
For instance the Levant Report guys fail to mention that the Salafist principality is a result of "if the situation unravels".
Or that the "Deterioration of the Situation has Dire Consequences on the Iraq situation"
This is not a happy, positive lets all go to the lobby report.
The pdf in fact refers to the situation 'unraveling' as being exactly what will give rise to the Salafist principality favored by the powers backing the Syrian opposition (the powers backing the Syrian opposition are identified in the document as: the United States, Turkey, and the Gulf monarchies).
I believe there has been something like a de facto corporate media blackout on discussion of details of this document; there are somewhat differing interpretations (which I can link to if this discussion goes further), but even in the 'best case' interpretations granting the most benign possible intentions to the United States government (and I'm not sure what historical validity there is in that exercise), this is still a fucking bombshell. This at least directly contradicts remarks by Obama and even Dempsey on the rise of IS being 'unexpected.'
How could the US military leadership have actually been 'blindsided' by something predicted nearly-exactly by their own intelligence reports? Why would there be no contingency plans at all for events that were anticipated in detail?
I wonder whether they assign Sun-Tzu at US military academies?
When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.
Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.
Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.
Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.
There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
My ultimate perspective is anti-war and anti-imperialist. But tactically speaking from a dialectical-political standpoint, I almost wonder if at present the 'lesser evil' approach here will be to let US militarism extinguish itself. i.e. do not seize rope from them while they are in process of hanging themselves.
Ignoring valuable intelligence and completely not planning for obvious shit has been a hallmark of American policy for decades. 9/11. Pearl Harbor. No Child Left Behind.
As far as US militarism extinguishing itself. Might happen. You are going to have a very looong wait. The Obama years have been the resting years. I expect the next President or at most the President after that to once again start swinging the Military around.
+2
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
...I really disagree very strongly with this. Western imperialism didn't die, it succeeded in conquering most of the world. When did imperialism die, in your view? The Cold War seems to me to have been a struggle between two large empires, and the US/Western empire essentially came out on top.
edit - sorry for double post
Really? When have we installed colonial governors in far-off lands? I must have missed that bit of news. If you're talking about why the Third World is such a shithole, I'd say it's maybe because the numerous presidents-for-life take all the money and hand it out to their relatives and cronies. It's not our fault democracy didn't take among with the natives.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
...I really disagree very strongly with this. Western imperialism didn't die, it succeeded in conquering most of the world. When did imperialism die, in your view? The Cold War seems to me to have been a struggle between two large empires, and the US/Western empire essentially came out on top.
edit - sorry for double post
Really? When have we installed colonial governors in far-off lands? I must have missed that bit of news. If you're talking about why the Third World is such a shithole, I'd say it's maybe because the numerous presidents-for-life take all the money and hand it out to their relatives and cronies. It's not our fault democracy didn't take among with the natives.
well the phillipines
panama
most of the north american continent for most of the 1800s
Because the West likes it when said Presidents take power and cater to Western intrests.
I mean, you are aware of the role the CIA played in various revolutions and counter revolutions to ensure pro western governments.
+6
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Like I'm not super won over by any kind of argument that implies our chickens are coming home to roost and we deserve it, but to act like the West has never done a bad thing, or if it has it was outside of living memory is just Russian levels of whatthefuckofski
...I really disagree very strongly with this. Western imperialism didn't die, it succeeded in conquering most of the world. When did imperialism die, in your view? The Cold War seems to me to have been a struggle between two large empires, and the US/Western empire essentially came out on top.
edit - sorry for double post
Really? When have we installed colonial governors in far-off lands? I must have missed that bit of news. If you're talking about why the Third World is such a shithole, I'd say it's maybe because the numerous presidents-for-life take all the money and hand it out to their relatives and cronies. It's not our fault democracy didn't take among with the natives.
I concede that Western settler-colonialism mostly died. That is/was one specific form of imperialism. The US's decades of wars for control of the Korean Peninsula, Indochina, Central Asia, and the Middle East are another form, as were the US's efforts to overthrow governments and fund right wing paramilitaries in Latin America up through the 1980s. If you don't think the US's modern history of using military force and political subterfuge to achieve global control/influence is an example of imperialism then I'm not sure what definition of the word you're using.
Kaputa on
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I think there is a fallacious underpinning to discussions about imperialism that if something is an Empire it must be bad.
For most of history, there was a pretty good chance that you were living in The _____ Empire. Particularly in the Middle East! (look at my rant in the OP.) An empire is just a power structure that knits together several distinct cultures—more than a "kingdom" or a "nation-state." The existence of empires seems like an automatic corollary to the existence of powerful centralized governments.
Saying a government is bad simply because it's an "empire" seems to me like saying the federal government is bad by virtue of its supremacy over states, or big businesses are bad because small businesses are better. I'd agree such things are bad in the sense of risk, because they concentrate a lot of power in one place—which means abuses can be widely distributed. But empires aren't automatically more abusive than the local power structures they displace. The Ottoman Empire had a lot of problems, for example, but I'd certainly rather be under the Sultan's influence than some crazy Wahhabist warlord in the Arabian peninsula. Plus, the crazy warlords who resist the Empire's influence often end up starting their own empires.
As for colonialism, it's just empires with non-contiguous territories. This seems more like a technological distinction than a political or ethical one (you need oceangoing ships for colonialism).
I'm not arguing some naturalistic fallacy where empires are okay because they're the way things have been for most of history. I'm just not really sure what the alternative to imperialism looks like. I mean I guess America could get rid of our military bases, scrap our carrier fleet, give up our seat on the UN security council ... what happens to the places now under American hegemonic influence? In the case of the Middle East it sure seems like they'd be swallowed in a new caliphate, which is also an empire.
Qingu on
+3
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Because the West likes it when said Presidents take power and cater to Western intrests.
I mean, you are aware of the role the CIA played in various revolutions and counter revolutions to ensure pro western governments.
No, it isn't. It's not our fault that whatever big chief got elected put his cronies in power, it's not our fault when the generals shoot him and put themselves in power, and it's not our fault when the cycle repeats itself. Are we friends with whoever currently is in power? To our detriment, yes- Obama had his picture taken with a guy whose uncle shot everyone in the country who wore glasses. But it's not as if we're alone in that regard; everyone else is friends with them too.
And I can guarantee you're over-estimating the amount of CIA involvement in the various revolutions that went on. The KGB had an entire department devoted to spreading rumors about evil Westerners, and it worked. The various KGB defectors have written books about what really went on, and this one is perhaps the best. It certainly changed my view of the Cold War.
I concede that Western settler-colonialism mostly died. That is/was one specific form of imperialism. The US's decades of wars for control of the Korean Peninsula, Indochina, Central Asia, and the Middle East are another form, as were the US's efforts to overthrow governments and fund right wing paramilitaries in Latin America up through the 1980s. If you don't think the US's modern history of using military force and political subterfuge to achieve global control/influence is an example of imperialism then I'm not sure what definition of the word you're using.
Seriously? You're arguing against Korea, when a dictatorship invaded another state which asked us for help in its defense? Not everything we did was evil, as far as the rest of the stuff goes we were trying to keep a totalitarian police state from spreading its tendrils across the world, not conquer it ourselves.
And we didn't. Yes, through our military might, we've kept the peace in our hemisphere and in most of the world, although that is changing thanks to religious zealots/Obama not being stern enough with the Reds. We've stopped genocides and have been there to rebuild after natural disasters. Hegemonic? Yes. Imperialist? No. If you want to criticize imperialists, criticize Russia and Communist China. They're the ones actively seizing land.
I'm not arguing some naturalistic fallacy where empires are okay because they're the way things have been for most of history. I'm just not really sure what the alternative to imperialism looks like. I mean I guess America could get rid of our military bases, scrap our carrier fleet, give up our seat on the UN security council ... what happens to the places now under American hegemonic influence? In the case of the Middle East it sure seems like they'd be swallowed in a new caliphate, which is also an empire.
Russia dominates Europe, the PRC takes over across the Pacific. They might invade Australia for the coal if they're feeling it.
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Lol wut
We took over the Philippines in like 1898 and didn't leave until ww2
Cuba too
These are events in living memory
Not all Empire is bad empire, but Imperialism is a specific thing and generally considered a Bad Idea.
When we ensure the continuation of said President for Life's regime; via arms, help suppressing dissidents, and outright invasions; yes we are responsible.
By that logic, Russia is not responsible for Ukraine. They just give weapons, they aren't responsible for what happens there!
Not all Empire is bad empire, but Imperialism is a specific thing and generally considered a Bad Idea.
I find it striking that there are so few examples of empires who saw themselves as expanding their territories via military conquest solely to dominate and plunder resources (i.e. the "thing" of imperialism). The Mongols, I guess. Maybe the Assyrians.
But most empires throughout history have viewed their expansion as a matter of spreading civilization. America spreading freedom and democracy via airstrikes is not an outlier. The Islamic State right now sees themselves as spreading a superior rule of law; so did the early Muslims and the Caliphates neverending conquests of their borders. Europeans believed they were bringing knowledge and salvation to hopeless savages. When Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon, he portrayed himself as the savior of Mesopotamia from their wayward local ruler (and apparently many Mesopotamians agreed).
The standard Marxist critique of course is that this is all a veneer and underneath it's just mechanical resource exploitation, but I think that's too reductive; it's too universal and powerful of a sentiment to be epiphenomenal. People in powerful countries seem to often genuinely want to spread their ideals and laws. And most of the time some large subset of the people who they are "conquering" are happy to join the empire, or at least prefer it to their local authority/current empire.
Not all Empire is bad empire, but Imperialism is a specific thing and generally considered a Bad Idea.
I find it striking that there are so few examples of empires who saw themselves as expanding their territories via military conquest solely to dominate and plunder resources (i.e. the "thing" of imperialism). The Mongols, I guess. Maybe the Assyrians.
But most empires throughout history have viewed their expansion as a matter of spreading civilization. America spreading freedom and democracy via airstrikes is not an outlier. The Islamic State right now sees themselves as spreading a superior rule of law; so did the early Muslims and the Caliphates neverending conquests of their borders. Europeans believed they were bringing knowledge and salvation to hopeless savages. When Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon, he portrayed himself as the savior of Mesopotamia from their wayward local ruler (and apparently many Mesopotamians agreed).
The standard Marxist critique of course is that this is all a veneer and underneath it's just mechanical resource exploitation, but I think that's too reductive; it's too universal and powerful of a sentiment to be epiphenomenal. People in powerful countries seem to often genuinely want to spread their ideals and laws. And most of the time some large subset of the people who they are "conquering" are happy to join the empire, or at least prefer it to their local authority/current empire.
Huh? European colonists frequently saw themselves as being in it for the money. That's why you set up trading posts and resource extraction schemes. And generally think "Who gives a shit about the savages".
+1
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
Huh? European colonists frequently saw themselves as being in it for the money. That's why you set up trading posts and resource extraction schemes. And generally think "Who gives a shit about the savages".
The three G's- gold, glory, and God. The latter was the (European) civilizing bit.
In Syria, al-Qaeda’s wing, Jabhat al-Nusra, plays a leading role in a new rebel coalition that has captured key areas in the northwestern part of the country. In Yemen, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has seized parts of the country’s largest province, territory that includes military bases, an airfield and ports. Although there is little evidence that the two al-Qaeda affiliates are collaborating, both are adopting similar strategies of expanding where they can in the shadows of more powerful insurgent groups, analysts say.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bin Laden set up Al-Qaeda as a franchise deal, right? Like terror McDonalds. If they're both threatened (militarily and for recruits) by ISIS in Syria and the Houthis in Yemen, why wouldn't they put their heads together and collaborate?
most of the north american continent for most of the 1800s
I was arguing against its existence today, not two hundred years ago.
afghanistan
iraq
The democratically-elected leaders that the people of those countries voted for kicked us out. Truly shining examples of fifty-first states.
Yeah. I guess we could be very bad imperialists.
"Ah, we decided you should leave."
"Ok."
I don't know how anyone could even suggest the appearance of strong US influence in Afghanistan in the last half decade. Karzai basically did whatever the fuck he wanted, ditto for the legislature, the courts, the military, the police, the populace, etc. Ghani seems a bit more amenable (albeit following from a greater distance now due to no longer being in Afghanistan), but a lot of that could reasonably be put down to a western education and participation in international bodies.
Not all Empire is bad empire, but Imperialism is a specific thing and generally considered a Bad Idea.
I find it striking that there are so few examples of empires who saw themselves as expanding their territories via military conquest solely to dominate and plunder resources (i.e. the "thing" of imperialism). The Mongols, I guess. Maybe the Assyrians.
But most empires throughout history have viewed their expansion as a matter of spreading civilization. America spreading freedom and democracy via airstrikes is not an outlier. The Islamic State right now sees themselves as spreading a superior rule of law; so did the early Muslims and the Caliphates neverending conquests of their borders. Europeans believed they were bringing knowledge and salvation to hopeless savages. When Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon, he portrayed himself as the savior of Mesopotamia from their wayward local ruler (and apparently many Mesopotamians agreed).
The standard Marxist critique of course is that this is all a veneer and underneath it's just mechanical resource exploitation, but I think that's too reductive; it's too universal and powerful of a sentiment to be epiphenomenal. People in powerful countries seem to often genuinely want to spread their ideals and laws. And most of the time some large subset of the people who they are "conquering" are happy to join the empire, or at least prefer it to their local authority/current empire.
Yeah. Marxist critique vastly underestimates non-economic reasons for doing things, which is silly. Economic incentives matter, and some people are willing to pretend things for monetary gain, but people are actually religious fanatics / racists / patriots / ideologues / etc, etc. And hell, honestly, no small amount of all human action is done for incoherent reasons, tradition, social expectation, due to substance abuse, out of short-sighted fear, etc.
Captain Marcus, What is it with you and the 'Reds', and the need to do something, anything, as long as it's not pansy-ass diplomacy? Seriously, it's disturbing on so many levels.
Huh? European colonists frequently saw themselves as being in it for the money. That's why you set up trading posts and resource extraction schemes. And generally think "Who gives a shit about the savages".
The three G's- gold, glory, and God. The latter was the (European) civilizing bit.
The Gold part was the big thing most of the time though.
Captain Marcus, What is it with you and the 'Reds', and the need to do something, anything, as long as it's not pansy-ass diplomacy? Seriously, it's disturbing on so many levels.
Marcus is like this in other threads as well, only against Russia.
Not all Empire is bad empire, but Imperialism is a specific thing and generally considered a Bad Idea.
I find it striking that there are so few examples of empires who saw themselves as expanding their territories via military conquest solely to dominate and plunder resources (i.e. the "thing" of imperialism). The Mongols, I guess. Maybe the Assyrians.
But most empires throughout history have viewed their expansion as a matter of spreading civilization. America spreading freedom and democracy via airstrikes is not an outlier. The Islamic State right now sees themselves as spreading a superior rule of law; so did the early Muslims and the Caliphates neverending conquests of their borders. Europeans believed they were bringing knowledge and salvation to hopeless savages. When Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon, he portrayed himself as the savior of Mesopotamia from their wayward local ruler (and apparently many Mesopotamians agreed).
The standard Marxist critique of course is that this is all a veneer and underneath it's just mechanical resource exploitation, but I think that's too reductive; it's too universal and powerful of a sentiment to be epiphenomenal. People in powerful countries seem to often genuinely want to spread their ideals and laws. And most of the time some large subset of the people who they are "conquering" are happy to join the empire, or at least prefer it to their local authority/current empire.
Europeans didn't believe they were bringing civilization to savages - they were out to make money. The Iberians enslaved the native population of Central and South America to mine gold and silver and work on plantations. They brought in slaves from Africa when the natives started dieing out too fast. The British and French colonies in North America were founded in emulation of the Iberian colonies, to search for precious minerals and start cash crop plantations. They brought civilization to no one, only death or slavery.
Most empires in history are the same. Rome was an empire built on plunder and enslavement of barbarians. The Muslim Caliphate was built on the plunder and enslavement of Graeco-Roman Christians and Persian Zoroastrians. I could go on. They justified it to themselves in one way or another, but that is the economic reality of empire. Even if some Romans went out to "spread civilization" or some Muslims "spread Islam", they were enabled by the economic power extracted from those they conquered, to the benefit of themselves, and many conquered solely for the economic power it brought them. Caesar conquered Gaul to pay his debtors and soldiers in plunder and slaves, not to bring the light of civilization to the Gauls.
What people in history has ever been happy to be conquered by an imperialist power? Maybe they liked one power over another as an alternative (the Greek Orthodox preferred the Ottoman Caliph over a Roman Catholic Emperor, as an example), but they still hated the conqueror's guts and wished and rebelled for independence, to be crushed, slaughtered, robbed, and enslaved again. Over and over for decades or centuries until independence was finally achieved or they were fulled assimilated or wiped out to the point rebellion was no longer possible.
The imperial power has always levied heavier taxes and stricter laws against those they considered to be uncivilized, heretics, or heathens, for the benefit of whoever they considered civilized, if they did not enslave them outright. They spread laws that favored their own people over the conquered, until the descendants of the conquered were assimilated enough that they could be considered a proper citizen of the Empire.
People in power have always been smart and cynical. Able to sway the populace with ideals as to enable their own economic prosperity. Any sort of economic exploitation can be justified by ideals with enough twisting of logic.
Every Communist Party that has ever held political power eventually turned into a machine of exploitation of the masses to enable the economic prosperity of the party leaders, justified by an ideal of universal economic equality (beautifully ironic since you can view this as an affirmation of Marx, his own works turned into another opiate of the masses). Christianity changed from a religion emphasizing the virtue of the poor and the powerless to justifying the Divine Right of Kings and the economic supremacy of the nobility.
That level of cynicism is possible today and people are no more intelligent today than they were thousands of years ago.
Addressing the Persians: The Persians from Cyrus the Great until the conquest by Alexander had a policy of creating relatively independent, locally administered Satrapies, created along ethnic and religious lines. This offered a lot more freedom to conquered people in the Persian Empire than most others. They also constantly rebelled and were often independent in all but name whenever the central Persian authority declined, but the system did last until Alexander crushed it. The Achaemenid Persians were way ahead of the times in terms of tolerance and humanism, no question, but their Satrapies constantly chaffed and rebelled under heavy taxation. Violence kept the conquered peoples in line so the Persians could continue to tax them.
I turned this post into a mini-essay because there is just so much fucking wrong about romanticizing the brutal empires of the past, and be assured they were all brutal to some extent. Empires are dead and they should stay dead.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I left these shores, at Vancouver, a red-hot imperialist. I wanted the American eagle to go screaming into the Pacific. It seemed tiresome and tame for it to content itself with the Rockies. Why not spread its wings over the Philippines, I asked myself? And I thought it would be a real good thing to do.
I said to myself, here are a people who have suffered for three centuries. We can make them as free as ourselves, give them a government and country of their own, put a miniature of the American constitution afloat in the Pacific, start a brand new republic to take its place among the free nations of the world. It seemed to me a great task to which we had addressed ourselves.
But I have thought some more, since then, and I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem.
We have also pledged the power of this country to maintain and protect the abominable system established in the Philippines by the Friars.
It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
His updated lyrics to the Battle Hymn of the Republic, post Spanish-American War:
Mine eyes have seen the orgy of the launching of the Sword;
He is searching out the hoardings where the stranger's wealth is stored;
He hath loosed his fateful lightnings, and with woe and death has scored;
His lust is marching on.
I have seen him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps;
They have builded him an altar in the Eastern dews and damps;
I have read his doomful mission by the dim and flaring lamps—
His night is marching on.
I have read his bandit gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my pretensions, so with you my wrath shall deal;
Let the faithless son of Freedom crush the patriot with his heel;
Lo, Greed is marching on!"
We have legalized the strumpet and are guarding her retreat;*
Greed is seeking out commercial souls before his judgement seat;
O, be swift, ye clods, to answer him! be jubilant my feet!
Our god is marching on!
In a sordid slime harmonious Greed was born in yonder ditch,
With a longing in his bosom—and for others' goods an itch.
As Christ died to make men holy, let men die to make us rich—
Our god is marching on.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
US imperialism is very often described as such, sometimes as a 'good thing', even in US establishment media.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/10/arts/american-empire-not-if-but-what-kind.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/magazine/the-american-empire-the-burden.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/opinion/25brendon.html?_r=0
I mean, people often talk, pretty accurately in my mind, about contemporary Chinese imperialism in Africa. The US engages in similar (or worse) practices in Africa and much of the rest of the world. I'm not sure what you mean by imperialism not existing or how you are using the word.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Marxian terminology on imperialism, especially as formulated in the early 20th century by Rosa Luxemburg and V.I. Lenin. Such analyses formed the basis of all modern world-systems theory, dependency theory, etc.
A useful summary of the principles involved (which I quickly found on google):
https://machete408.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/lenin-wallerstein-and-understanding-imperialism/
edit:
a more broad analysis attempting to reconcile diverse theories on imperialism held by the political left, which I'm linking to as it also summarizes key points:
http://pics3441.upmf-grenoble.fr/articles/inde/Dependency, Imperialism, and the Relations of Production.pdf
The specific analyses of Lenin and Luxemburg are of course outdated, in the same sense that Marx's analysis decades earlier is outdated; but these analyses are crucial (Marx is heavily assigned to sociology graduate students; in academic settings in Europe, Lenin is considered one of the most important social theorists of the 20th century) toward a modern understanding of the world. At least on the political left, there really are no modern descriptions of the world at all that do not rely on these analyses of imperialism.
Asokolov, I promise that you are not the arbitrator or seer of what the political left believes. Get out of your echo chamber for ten seconds.
I did read your links, but ultimately I'd just say that sociologists should leave economics to economists. Marx was absolutely an important thinker, but that sort of Marxist analysis ultimately lacks nuance, is overly ideological, and lacks a strong public policy grounding. It also woefully infantalizes the developing world by completely ignoring the extremely strong positive and negative effects of each nation's own domestic policy. The Khmer Rouge, even ignoring their brutal crimes against humanity, for example, weren't betrayed by capitalist superpowers, they simply had shitty public policy. Not only is low tech subsistence farming inherently a flawed economic model, but really, really wanting something doesn't guarantee its success, well thought out and carefully implemented public policy does. Just because you threaten to murder an accountant doesn't mean he'll become an expert farmer overnight.
And your comment is exactly what I mean about taking out old bones. Concern over countries who rely on resource extraction not receiving equal benefits in trade should not be couched in the same terminology as Britain conquering and directly ruling over India. Different things are different.
If that's the case shouldn't the Quran be considered hate speech? I mean it literally calls for violence and discrimination against others based upon religion (as do many other religious texts).
Any and all suggestions for the inclusion of religions as a protected class vis a vis hate speech tend to contain exceptions excluding religious texts and statements from being hate speech.
Because a huge amount of actual content tends to be hateful towards someone. Exceptions apply, of course.
Personally, I think that religions should get no special treatment compared to any ideological association.
The fact that these texts, read at face-value, contain so much self-evidently hate-promoting material is why it's so important that people must be able to freely criticize them.
ISIS supporters in Gaza have fired rockets at Israel in violation of the ceasefire, prompting a Hamas crackdown. I've long been concerned that ISIS will spread to Palestinian territories. Gaza is still in ruins, and historically groups like ISIS and the Taliban seem adept at taking root in wartorn refugee camps. Hamas has been successful at knocking down more extremist groups in Gaza, but it's not like their rule of the territory is ironclad.
In Syria, ISIS has advanced on Aleppo, the country's largest city and the main (non-crazy) rebel stronghold. The rebels want us to bomb ISIS but we are wary of coordinating with them since some of them are the Nusra front. The US accuses Assad of aiding ISIS's advance by bombing the moderate rebels (who are also fighting ISIS). If Aleppo falls to ISIS that would be a catastrophe on the scale of the fall of Mosul.
Well, newspaper Cumhuriyet recently made some pretty damning reveals of how Turkey's security service MIT are happy to deliver arms left and right, to IS among others... Turkey's up for election very soon, so having this business go public is obviously quite sensitive for Erdogan's AKP.
Erdogan's response? "Wtf? Enjoi ur lifetime sentence!"
This motherfucker is going full-on Putin.
Define win.
ISIS will probably remain as an organization in 5-10 years, and may still have some sort of organized forces / held territory.
That territory isn't likely to be a wide swath of the Middle East or a caliphate that will withstand a thousand years or anything like that.
Realistically they will probably be the new Taliban - marginalized to a place nobody gives enough of a shit about to uproot them.
Outlast the Syrian and Iraqi governments or at least their will to fight and keep and hold enough territory to gain legitimacy as an actual state.
Alternatively establish a caliphate recognized by some significate portion of the Islamic populous?
I seriously doubt they could take all of Syria and Iraq in the first place, though it seems like it's going to be very difficult to push them out of their territory, and who knows how the Iran/Saudi proxy wars will unfold to give them further opportunities.
Taking Baghdad might be a good way to define "victory." Baghdad was the main seat of the historical caliphate, and conquering the city would give ISIS enormous credibility among the zealot community.
Edit: even if ISIS "wins" in a sense like this, it will be interesting to see how they manage their antagonism of the West. If they're too antagonistic, it might severely decrease their shelf-life. For example, if ISIS sponsors a 9/11-like terrorist attack that kills thousands of people in America or Europe, it is not hard to imagine NATO sending ground troops into Raqqa and Mosul. An attack with chemical weapons might even prompt a nuclear response, or at least razing the cities WW2-style. (I'm not condoning such reactions, just saying they'd be fairly likely.)
So, #1 is basically the 'Taliban in Pakistan' outcome? Reasonable chance they'll stick around like a bunch of cockroaches for a decade or so. Legitimacy as an actual state? Not likely.
#2? Not likely. Maybe among the nutters with some under the table support (again, like we see with AQ or Taliban) but not an aboveboard recognition.
In five or ten years there will be another upstart that siphons away their support. The Iraqi and especially Syrian government aren't going to cede enough territory for IS to really get established, and I kind of doubt their ability to actually consolidate and govern. It's a lot harder than taking a bunch of territory and fragmentation / infighting are almost a guarantee.
Kind of moot since IS can't win without something crazy happening like Turkey outright declaring war on Syria/Iraq/Iran, they're on the losing side of a war of attrition.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I've been to Turkey a few times and love the place and the peeps. Everytime I read about Erdogan, I feel miserable that not only is he such a wanker, but that he's a pretty freaking popular wanker.
You don't declare war on everyone and get statehood. Once ISIS gets to enough of a threat to be taken seriously as a regional power, rather than a local one, probably most major nations will opt to take action rather than risk that sort of nonsense impacting regional trade and diplomacy.
Which leftist analyses of global affairs are you referring to that I'm apparently being accused of ignoring??
I wish you could actually reply with a substantive criticism, rather than just flatly asserting that you think something is wrong or stupid (or 'lacks nuance') without any additional explanation.
I would describe Marxism as a critical methodology rather than an ideology. I've definitely never heard anyone refer to someone like Immanuel Wallerstein in the terms you're using, and on the contrary he qualifies as basically an arch-anti-ideologue, criticizing the very divisionary foundation of, for instance, sociology and economics as separate disciplines in western thought. And neither I. Wallerstein nor Andre Gunder Frank consider/ed themselves as 'Marxists', exactly, although they're very often described as such. They are also both often described as economists. Marx, Lenin, Luxemburg were all obviously foremost economists (although Marx is also often regarded as the founder of sociology, and Lenin went pretty deep into important philosophical treatises that no one in the US has read). Economics is a discipline that, at least in the US, does skew to the right -- I would honestly assess this as a reason why the majority of US economists have such a piss-poor track record in their forecasting abilities. But there are obviously Marxist economists, describing themselves as such, even in US academia.
edit: Here is an intellectual self-description by Wallerstein:
http://iwallerstein.com/intellectual-itinerary/
A lot of India was ruled rather indirectly by Britain through princely states, and in fact British imperialism over India was at first as a whole indirect through the East India Company (chartered 'company' imperialism by the European powers bearing many similarities to contemporary corporate neocolonialism -- in fact historically in many circumstances the former and latter blur considerably, such as regarding British Petroleum and its prior incarnations); it wasn't until that scheme went bankrupt that the Queen was declared 'Empress' and formal direct rule by the British state began. The British Raj, anyway, was a narco-regime similar (in these terms) to the current US puppet state in Afghanistan. No one is saying that 21st century imperialism is exactly the same as 19th century imperialism, but there are a lot of parallels. Much of the present western affluence in relative global terms is still based on ownership over material resources, especially in Africa, that was established under formal colonialism. The 1979 revolution in Iran took at least some of those resources back from the west. The US declared its own imperial hegemony over the Persian Gulf monarchies pretty directly through the Carter Doctrine, which occurred only several years after Britain formally 'decolonized' its last possessions in the same region. I mean, when Bush invaded Iraq, the civilian administrator installed, Bremer, was constantly referred to semi-formally as 'Viceroy', probably the most overtly colonialist title possible in context -- and the conquest and occupation of Iraq itself marked a sort of reversion to old-style colonialism as opposed to the usual indirect neocolonialism of the second half of the 20th century. We still have actual settler colonies established by the British Empire, i.e. Israel, engaging in violent forward settler colonialism as we speak. Etc etc.
I'm disappointed that none of the hawks seem to care at all about the DIA report or its implications. In fact the discourse here regarding Islamic State seems to be ignoring any implications of the report entirely.
edit - sorry for double post
Ignoring valuable intelligence and completely not planning for obvious shit has been a hallmark of American policy for decades. 9/11. Pearl Harbor. No Child Left Behind.
As far as US militarism extinguishing itself. Might happen. You are going to have a very looong wait. The Obama years have been the resting years. I expect the next President or at most the President after that to once again start swinging the Military around.
Really? When have we installed colonial governors in far-off lands? I must have missed that bit of news. If you're talking about why the Third World is such a shithole, I'd say it's maybe because the numerous presidents-for-life take all the money and hand it out to their relatives and cronies. It's not our fault democracy didn't take among with the natives.
well the phillipines
panama
most of the north american continent for most of the 1800s
afghanistan
iraq
texas
Because the West likes it when said Presidents take power and cater to Western intrests.
I mean, you are aware of the role the CIA played in various revolutions and counter revolutions to ensure pro western governments.
For most of history, there was a pretty good chance that you were living in The _____ Empire. Particularly in the Middle East! (look at my rant in the OP.) An empire is just a power structure that knits together several distinct cultures—more than a "kingdom" or a "nation-state." The existence of empires seems like an automatic corollary to the existence of powerful centralized governments.
Saying a government is bad simply because it's an "empire" seems to me like saying the federal government is bad by virtue of its supremacy over states, or big businesses are bad because small businesses are better. I'd agree such things are bad in the sense of risk, because they concentrate a lot of power in one place—which means abuses can be widely distributed. But empires aren't automatically more abusive than the local power structures they displace. The Ottoman Empire had a lot of problems, for example, but I'd certainly rather be under the Sultan's influence than some crazy Wahhabist warlord in the Arabian peninsula. Plus, the crazy warlords who resist the Empire's influence often end up starting their own empires.
As for colonialism, it's just empires with non-contiguous territories. This seems more like a technological distinction than a political or ethical one (you need oceangoing ships for colonialism).
I'm not arguing some naturalistic fallacy where empires are okay because they're the way things have been for most of history. I'm just not really sure what the alternative to imperialism looks like. I mean I guess America could get rid of our military bases, scrap our carrier fleet, give up our seat on the UN security council ... what happens to the places now under American hegemonic influence? In the case of the Middle East it sure seems like they'd be swallowed in a new caliphate, which is also an empire.
The democratically-elected leaders that the people of those countries voted for kicked us out. Truly shining examples of fifty-first states.
No, it isn't. It's not our fault that whatever big chief got elected put his cronies in power, it's not our fault when the generals shoot him and put themselves in power, and it's not our fault when the cycle repeats itself. Are we friends with whoever currently is in power? To our detriment, yes- Obama had his picture taken with a guy whose uncle shot everyone in the country who wore glasses. But it's not as if we're alone in that regard; everyone else is friends with them too.
And I can guarantee you're over-estimating the amount of CIA involvement in the various revolutions that went on. The KGB had an entire department devoted to spreading rumors about evil Westerners, and it worked. The various KGB defectors have written books about what really went on, and this one is perhaps the best. It certainly changed my view of the Cold War. Seriously? You're arguing against Korea, when a dictatorship invaded another state which asked us for help in its defense? Not everything we did was evil, as far as the rest of the stuff goes we were trying to keep a totalitarian police state from spreading its tendrils across the world, not conquer it ourselves.
And we didn't. Yes, through our military might, we've kept the peace in our hemisphere and in most of the world, although that is changing thanks to religious zealots/Obama not being stern enough with the Reds. We've stopped genocides and have been there to rebuild after natural disasters. Hegemonic? Yes. Imperialist? No. If you want to criticize imperialists, criticize Russia and Communist China. They're the ones actively seizing land.
Russia dominates Europe, the PRC takes over across the Pacific. They might invade Australia for the coal if they're feeling it.
We took over the Philippines in like 1898 and didn't leave until ww2
Cuba too
These are events in living memory
Not all Empire is bad empire, but Imperialism is a specific thing and generally considered a Bad Idea.
Hegemony=/=Imperialism though fwiw
By that logic, Russia is not responsible for Ukraine. They just give weapons, they aren't responsible for what happens there!
But most empires throughout history have viewed their expansion as a matter of spreading civilization. America spreading freedom and democracy via airstrikes is not an outlier. The Islamic State right now sees themselves as spreading a superior rule of law; so did the early Muslims and the Caliphates neverending conquests of their borders. Europeans believed they were bringing knowledge and salvation to hopeless savages. When Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon, he portrayed himself as the savior of Mesopotamia from their wayward local ruler (and apparently many Mesopotamians agreed).
The standard Marxist critique of course is that this is all a veneer and underneath it's just mechanical resource exploitation, but I think that's too reductive; it's too universal and powerful of a sentiment to be epiphenomenal. People in powerful countries seem to often genuinely want to spread their ideals and laws. And most of the time some large subset of the people who they are "conquering" are happy to join the empire, or at least prefer it to their local authority/current empire.
Huh? European colonists frequently saw themselves as being in it for the money. That's why you set up trading posts and resource extraction schemes. And generally think "Who gives a shit about the savages".
Al-Qaeda makes gains amidst Syria and Yemen chaos Correct me if I'm wrong, but Bin Laden set up Al-Qaeda as a franchise deal, right? Like terror McDonalds. If they're both threatened (militarily and for recruits) by ISIS in Syria and the Houthis in Yemen, why wouldn't they put their heads together and collaborate?
Yeah. I guess we could be very bad imperialists.
"Ah, we decided you should leave."
"Ok."
I don't know how anyone could even suggest the appearance of strong US influence in Afghanistan in the last half decade. Karzai basically did whatever the fuck he wanted, ditto for the legislature, the courts, the military, the police, the populace, etc. Ghani seems a bit more amenable (albeit following from a greater distance now due to no longer being in Afghanistan), but a lot of that could reasonably be put down to a western education and participation in international bodies.
Yeah. Marxist critique vastly underestimates non-economic reasons for doing things, which is silly. Economic incentives matter, and some people are willing to pretend things for monetary gain, but people are actually religious fanatics / racists / patriots / ideologues / etc, etc. And hell, honestly, no small amount of all human action is done for incoherent reasons, tradition, social expectation, due to substance abuse, out of short-sighted fear, etc.
The Gold part was the big thing most of the time though.
Marcus is like this in other threads as well, only against Russia.
Europeans didn't believe they were bringing civilization to savages - they were out to make money. The Iberians enslaved the native population of Central and South America to mine gold and silver and work on plantations. They brought in slaves from Africa when the natives started dieing out too fast. The British and French colonies in North America were founded in emulation of the Iberian colonies, to search for precious minerals and start cash crop plantations. They brought civilization to no one, only death or slavery.
Most empires in history are the same. Rome was an empire built on plunder and enslavement of barbarians. The Muslim Caliphate was built on the plunder and enslavement of Graeco-Roman Christians and Persian Zoroastrians. I could go on. They justified it to themselves in one way or another, but that is the economic reality of empire. Even if some Romans went out to "spread civilization" or some Muslims "spread Islam", they were enabled by the economic power extracted from those they conquered, to the benefit of themselves, and many conquered solely for the economic power it brought them. Caesar conquered Gaul to pay his debtors and soldiers in plunder and slaves, not to bring the light of civilization to the Gauls.
What people in history has ever been happy to be conquered by an imperialist power? Maybe they liked one power over another as an alternative (the Greek Orthodox preferred the Ottoman Caliph over a Roman Catholic Emperor, as an example), but they still hated the conqueror's guts and wished and rebelled for independence, to be crushed, slaughtered, robbed, and enslaved again. Over and over for decades or centuries until independence was finally achieved or they were fulled assimilated or wiped out to the point rebellion was no longer possible.
The imperial power has always levied heavier taxes and stricter laws against those they considered to be uncivilized, heretics, or heathens, for the benefit of whoever they considered civilized, if they did not enslave them outright. They spread laws that favored their own people over the conquered, until the descendants of the conquered were assimilated enough that they could be considered a proper citizen of the Empire.
People in power have always been smart and cynical. Able to sway the populace with ideals as to enable their own economic prosperity. Any sort of economic exploitation can be justified by ideals with enough twisting of logic.
Every Communist Party that has ever held political power eventually turned into a machine of exploitation of the masses to enable the economic prosperity of the party leaders, justified by an ideal of universal economic equality (beautifully ironic since you can view this as an affirmation of Marx, his own works turned into another opiate of the masses). Christianity changed from a religion emphasizing the virtue of the poor and the powerless to justifying the Divine Right of Kings and the economic supremacy of the nobility.
That level of cynicism is possible today and people are no more intelligent today than they were thousands of years ago.
Addressing the Persians: The Persians from Cyrus the Great until the conquest by Alexander had a policy of creating relatively independent, locally administered Satrapies, created along ethnic and religious lines. This offered a lot more freedom to conquered people in the Persian Empire than most others. They also constantly rebelled and were often independent in all but name whenever the central Persian authority declined, but the system did last until Alexander crushed it. The Achaemenid Persians were way ahead of the times in terms of tolerance and humanism, no question, but their Satrapies constantly chaffed and rebelled under heavy taxation. Violence kept the conquered peoples in line so the Persians could continue to tax them.
I turned this post into a mini-essay because there is just so much fucking wrong about romanticizing the brutal empires of the past, and be assured they were all brutal to some extent. Empires are dead and they should stay dead.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".