Globalization and Violence, Vol. 1, Globalizing Empires (2006)

Springer: The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism , 2019

The paper will cover analysis on some most debating factors concerning ‘Imperialism’ such as – ‘what are the key debates on imperialism in the Marxist theory?’ and with that, it will add up some other ideological background to ‘Imperialism’. I will try to cover the diagnosis of the underlying co-relations of ‘colonialism’ and ‘imperialism’.

INTRODUCTION: This theory takes as its point of departure two of the most glaring facts about this world: the tremendous inequality, within and between nations, in almost all aspects of human living conditions, including the power to decide over those living conditions; and the resistance of this inequality to change. The world consists of Center and Periphery nations; and each nation, in turn, has its centers and periphery. Hence, our concern is with the mechanism underlying this discrepancy, particularly between the center in the Center, and the periphery in the Periphery. In other words, how to conceive of, how to explain, and how to counteract inequality as one of the major forms of structural violence.’Any theory of liberation from structural violence presupposes theoretically and practically adequate ideas of the dominance system against which the liberation is directed; and the special type of dominance system to be discussed here is imperialism. P.S. This is not my personal work. Hence, you may duly acknowledge the contributor of this article. This is an important paper for political economy and communication studies.

A review of Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin, The Making of Global Capitalism: The Political Economy of American Empire (Verso, 2012), £20 As the world commemorates the centenary of the First World War (with limited awareness of its meaning) a book by two leading Marxists that explores contemporary imperialism demands our careful assessment. A century ago there were two broad Marxist approaches to imperialism. Firstly, there was Karl Kautsky's theory of " ultra-imperialism " which suggested the potential for the replacement of rivalry by an alliance of the imperialist countries against subordinate parts of the world. The second approach, the classical Marxist perspective of inter-imperialist rivalry developed by Lenin and Bukharin, argued that competitive capital accumulation produced giant firms that operated increasingly internationally and enlisted their home states in their conflicts with other nations' capitals. The bloodshed and horrors of the war and subsequent decades showed that rivalry provided a superior explanation of international capitalist dynamics. By 1971 Bob Rowthorn noted the emergence of an additional perspective. He argued that a new US super-imperialism had developed in which the US dominated other capitalist powers and had become the " organiser of world capitalism " , able to contain such antagonisms as did appear. 1 Panitch's and Gindin's work sits squarely in this camp, with occasional nods towards ultra-imperialism. Based on earlier collaborative work and an impressive amount of research, The Making of Global Capitalism (henceforth TMGC) provides a comprehensive history of US capitalism and the economic statecraft mobilised to open the global economy to US influence over the last century or so. 2 TMGC's focus is captured in its first two sentences: This book is about globalisation and the state. It shows that the spread of capitalist markets, values and social relationships around the world, far from being an inevitable outcome of inherently expansionist economic tendencies, has depended on the agency of states—and of one state in particular: America. 3 What has emerged from the US state's role in the development of globalised capitalism, including the imposition of US-designed rules for the global economy, is " the American informal empire, which succeeded in integrating all the other capitalist powers into an effective system of coordination under its aegis ". 4 This is not Michael Hardt's and Toni Negri's Empire, within whose post-national space the idea of rival national imperialisms is outdated. 5 Nor does it neatly correspond to the transnationalist perspective developed by Marxists like William Robinson, because neither a transnational capitalist class nor a global state based on the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) is emerging. In the first place, TMGC notes that capital's national roots and institutional linkages remain important, and that US multinational corporations, however international, remain American rather than transnational. 6 Meanwhile, the IFIs were an expression of US postwar power and remain sites of negotiation and coordination between separate " national systems of regulation among the advanced capitalist states ". 7 Nevertheless, TMGC shares with these perspectives the view that US hegemony has so successfully contained conflicts within the West that the idea of inter-imperialist rivalry is no longer helpful. Appearance and essence

Ethics & International Affairs, 2011

In 2001, Frederick Cooper wrote that 'globalization talk is influential-and deeply misleading-for assuming coherence and direction instead of probing causes and processes'.(1) Burbank and Cooper heed this warning and focus very clearly and ably on the causes and processes of global empire building in this new book. They join a flurry of recent books linking empire, imperialism, and global or world history. Building on the groundbreaking works in this genre (2), this book differentiates itself by beginning in ancient Rome, rather than the 15th or 16th century, and expressly stating that it does not want to explain 'the expansion of Europe' (p. 5). While this may be strictly true, the traditional 'expansion of Europe' has here been replaced with 'the expansion of Eurasia' and the book does not really touch in great detail on the African empires (with which Cooper is undoubtedly familiar), or the pre-Columbian American empires. However, the book is successful in expanding the traditional story to encompass a wider Eurasian scope, drawing, undoubtedly, on Burbank's expertise in Russian history. The authors' unique contribution is that they 'focus instead on how different empires emerged, competed, and forged governing strategies, political ideas, and human affiliations over a long sweep of time' (p. 2).

Internationalism, imperialism and the formation of the contemporary world, 2017

This volume offers innovative insights into and approaches to the multiple historical intersections between distinct modalities of internationalism and imperialism during the twentieth century, across a range of contexts. Bringing together scholars from diverse theoretical, methodological and geographical backgrounds, the book explores an array of fundamental actors, institutions and processes that have decisively shaped contemporary history and the present. Among other crucial topics, it considers the expansion in the number and scope of activities of international organizations and its impact on formal and informal imperial polities, as well as the propagation of developmentalist ethos and discourses, relating them to major historical processes such as the growing institutionalization of international scrutiny in the interwar years or, later, the emerging global Cold War. “This volume of essays is the most vehement caution yet that historians of the twentieth century cannot ignore the complicating place of imperialism in the pasts of the present, regardless of whether we trace those pasts back by picking up the strands of national or international institutions, practices or thought.” (Glenda Sluga, Professor of International History, University of Sydney, Australia) “Just as empires were global phenomena, so, too, the administrative agencies, international organizations, and oppositional networks engaged by those empires' decolonization were global in vision and reach. This essay collection highlights the intersections involved. The issues addressed retain a powerful resonance, from the consideration of international organisations as sites of internationalist innovation to the public diplomacy of anti-colonialism and the imperial foundations of modernisation theories and development strategies. From first to last, it's a rewarding read.” (Martin Thomas, Professor of Imperial History, University of Exeter, UK) “This elegant edited volume innovates in terms of methodology and historiography thanks to the work of the editors. They set up a very coherent and consistent editorial project and asked a number of well-known outstanding contributors to reflect and write individual chapters that pondered, connected and intertwined the role of internationalism and imperialism in the making of our world. All authors went beyond labels, trends and buzzwords; in their respective chapters they zoomed in and out providing compelling analyses. This sophisticated and nuanced volume will trigger new research. It will be read and greatly appreciated by undergraduate, graduate students and scholars alike.” (Davide Rodogno, International History, Professor and Head of Department, The Graduate Institute Geneva, Switzerland)

Economic and Political Weekly, 2020

Annals of the Fondazione Luigi Einaudi, 2023

2010

Maps Preface Introduction Why Define? Empire Imperialism Colonialism Global and Modern Questions Part I: The Rise of Early Modern Empires, c.1350-1650 Chapter 1: Empire: The Emergence of Early Modern States and Empires in Eurasia and Africa The Emergence of the Early Modern State System A Gunpowder Revolution Sectoral Alliances The Search for Legitimacy Sub-Saharan African Empires? Conclusion Questions Chapter 2: Imperialism and Colonialism: Imperial Interaction and Nascent Colonialism in Early Modern Eurasia and North Africa Models of Early Modern Colonialism Themes in Early Modern Colonialism The Economic Underpinnings of Early Modern Integration Imperial Interaction and Grand Alliances The Portuguese Estado da India Conclusion Questions Chapter 3: Imperialism: Intersecting Empires in the Americas Iberian Motivations for Exploration, Trade, and Conquest The First Iberian Colonies in the Americas American Imperialism The Columbian Exchange Iberian Empires in the New World Questions...

Development and Change, 2007

Every single empire in its official discourse has said that it is not like all the others, that its circumstances are special, that it has a mission to enlighten, civilize, bring order and democracy, and that it uses force only as a last resort. And, sadder still, there always is a chorus of willing intellectuals to say calming words about benign or altruistic empires (Edward Said, 2003) OVERVIEW From redundancy, since the end of direct European rule in the mid-twentieth century, to taboo, the term 'empire' is being resurrected and may even be superseding globalization, the much-used term of the past two decades. This resurgence can be traced in part to Hardt and Negri's best-selling tome, Empire, with its concept of a multitude operating in a 'decentered and deterritorializing' globe (Hardt and Negri, 2000). Yet the events of 9/11 and the subsequent US-led military coalitions into Afghanistan and Iraq, combined with the consolidation of international development around the Millennium Development Goals and global justice movements for broad-based participation in poverty reduction, have brought to the fore a changing dynamic between geopolitics, empire and development. At least two divergent approaches can be distinguished in the growing empire literature. The first 'establishment' discourse on empire invokes a triumphalist return to the nineteenth century view of its grand civilizing mission. A number of recent studies revisiting British imperialism have provided not just apologia but justification for colonial rule. For instance, Cannadine's book makes a parody of Said's major analysis of culture and imperialism in Orientalism (Said, 1978), challenges his construction of the racial other in imperial rule and states that inequality was dealt with in a better way in the encounter between the British and Indians in the colonial period than in contemporary times (Cannadine, 2001; see also Ferguson, 2003). The most aggressive advocates for the US to declare itself an imperial power