Imperialism

A policy of extending the control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries.

The term is used by some to describe the policy of a country in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country calls itself an empire.

Insofar as 'imperialism' might be used to refer to an intellectual position, it would imply the belief that the acquisition and maintenance of empires is a positive good, probably combined with an assumption of cultural or other such superiority inherent to imperial power.
_____

You would think that after the last 500 years of messes like apartheid, slavery, boundary and property chaos imperialism caused that no Western power would ever attempt anything similar.

And yet....there again are Western powers in the Mid East trying to Westernize alien cultures.

Communists say that imperialism will always exist because it's inherent to capitalism. As long as there's capitalism, imperialism will be an acceptable idea.

The Communists engaged in just as much imperialism. Witness the USSR taking half of Europe, and the Chinese invading fellow-Communist Vietnam.

Imperialism is at its heart somewhat simple: Sometimes using force or bribery or something like that to take what you want, or keep prices low, is easier than paying full price.

It can also become a fixation, though: Witness England and France trying to hold on to colonies after WWII.

Are they really trying to Westernise the Middle East, though?

Islam and communism have imperialistic aspirations also.
But they don't pretend to love their enemies,which you do see in the West."It's for your own good!!!"
Capitalism has evangelical roots.See Martin Luther.

There is no imperialist Western power that I am aware of. Imperialism is a consequence of statism, not capitalism. Under capitalism there is a total separation of state and economics making imperialism impossible. Only when the two institutions begin to mix and influence one another (what we call statism) can imperialism occur.

There is no imperialist Western powers that I am aware of. Imperialism is a consequence of statism, not capitalism. Under capitalism there is a total separation of state and economics making imperialism impossible. Only when the two institutions begin to mix and influence one another (what we call statism) can imperialism occur.


What 'ism' do you think is best ?

Under capitalism there is a total separation of state and economics making imperialism impossible

That’s all fine and dandy in the purified air of political theory ... in practice the opposite is true ... money and power are absolutely inseparable ... the corporations and moneychangers wield massive political power and influence over every country that trades internationally

What 'ism' do you think is best ?

There is only one system under which a man can live freely and securely for his own sake rather than for the sake of others. That system is capitalism. Any deviation from this system results in political chaos, cultural decline, a loss of liberties and eventually a "road to serfdom."

That’s all fine and dandy in the purified air of political theory ... in practice the opposite is true ...


No its not.


money and power are absolutely inseparable ...


No they aren't


the corporations and moneychangers wield massive political power


As do the unions and interest groups.


and influence over every country that trades internationally

Which has nothing to do with the philosophy of capitalism.

There is only one system under which a man can live freely and securely for his own sake rather than for the sake of others. That system is capitalism. Any deviation from this system results in political chaos, cultural decline, a loss of liberties and eventually a "road to surfdom."
Ah, to be selfish is to be virtuous, eh?

Ah, to be selfish is to be virtuous, eh?

Selfishness is a character trait which has nothing to do with politics. Some of the most selfish people have been socialists and "do-gooders." Those who demand the income of others by way of goverment force are the most selfish of them all.

serfdom

Islam and communism have imperialistic aspirations also.
But they don't pretend to love their enemies,which you do see in the West."It's for your own good!!!"
.

Yes, they did.
At least, I'm sure about the communists.

It looks like everybody has the same tendency for imperalism.
The west gave it up.

Selfishness is a character trait which has nothing to do with politics. Some of the most selfish people have been socialists and "do-gooders." Those who demand the income of others by way of goverment force are the most selfish of them all.
Living for yourself at the expense of everyone else is the epitome of selfishness. Selfishness is a moral question that should be addressed. I do not want to live in a society where such immorality is praised, nor do I doubt would any moral individual. There are things more important in this world than politics.

Selfishness is a character trait which has nothing to do with politics.

Thanks for the laugh ... BTW do you live on this planet?

How can you deny that power and money are inseparable with a straight face ?

Do you have a single historical example of your capitalist utopia ?

... and your denial that international corporations have nothing to do with the "philosophy of capitalism" just reinforced my first point that your pure "theory" is just that ... theory ... with nothing to do with reality

Judging from your posts... reality is a difficult concept for you to grasp

How oddly accurate...

Yes, they did.
At least, I'm sure about the communists.

Did,past tense.But you're right.Maybe there are lingering dreams now,too,and they'll trot out the old rhetoric after a while.

It looks like everybody has the same tendency for imperalism.
The west gave it up.

I could say "What about Iraq?"but I'm not sure I have a clear case for Imperialism.Some,of course,will agree though...

Imperialism is as old as the hills


Greece did it, so did Egypt, so did Persia, so did Medo-Persia, so did Rome, so did Saladin and the Islamic Hordes

So did India with Bangladesh area, so did Pakistan

so did Japan

So all this nonsense that WESTERN nations are the only imperialist ones is bogus

Ah, to be selfish is to be virtuous, eh?Didnt Ayn Rand write a tome on the virue of selfishness?

Didnt Ayn Rand write a tome on the virue of selfishness?

I doubt Flaming_Liberal considers Rand a worthwhile source of philosophy. (Not that I agree with him, just that you're not going to get very far with him quoting her.)

By and large economic imperialism replaced military imperialism.

The problem is that the corporations that keep this going, are now large enough and unencumbed by enough rules, that they can separate themselves from their original countries.

Ah, to be selfish is to be virtuous, eh?

Yes. FL would make a good modern manager. Today's management's new mantra, lead by Stephen Coveyians, is prescribes: Listen carefully, Try reaching back, Examine your motives. Nothing wrong with this, until your realize that traditions management methods (carrot and stick) are being disregarded.

In essence, people would be better if they stopped being selfish. Of course, almost every successful economic (http://capitalism.org/index.htm) theory begins with the hypothesis that people are fundamentally selfish and will do practically anything to ensure that they get the best deal. A corollary to this hypothesis is that as long as no one gets hurt, selfishness is a good thing. (http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivism/faqs/jraibley_faq-virtue-selfishness.asp)

So there are contrasting viewpoints about what makes people better. Covey seems to ignore any virtues of selfishness as much as Rand's "Objectivism" rejects altruism. The two worlds seem to meet as long as benevolence increases productivity.

But this debate really deserves a seperate thread. More to the point:

I read Bernard Lewis' "What Went Wrong?" I believe it is a "must read" in view of the current war, (and for rationalizing the interpretation for it: that there is nothing unnatural about the need to civilize Islam)

The book is a scholarly approach to what ails those people. It is a remarkable treatment of the many faceted complexities of the Islamic world and it clarifies my long ago observations and conclusions in the Middle East. Actually, one of my first observations was in Europe when attending a Counterinsurgency School with a large number of Middle Eastern military officers.

One day, a Turkish officer took it upon himself to publicly express disapproval directly to a very attractive Westernized Turkish lady who worked in an administrative capacity at the school. He seemed to find considerable fault with her western attire and public behavior in the company of American officers. This gal was just western enough to take none of his guff and she proceeded to unbraid him unmercifully.

We Americans were stunned! Not by the lady but, by the Turk officer feeling he had the right to treat a lady in such a disgraceful way. Their exchange was in Turkish, of course, but the heat of the conversation was unmistakable. It was my first encounter with the Muslim men's motivation to reduce their women to virtual slaves. Later, when in the Middle East, I was appalled by the way Middle Eastern women are treated. How can a people expect to be competitive in today's world when half their population are treated like chattel property? The book treats this, as well as many other Muslim shortcomings, with great conviction.

It must be terribly depressing for the Muslims to know countries like Korea far surpass the most advanced ancient Muslim nation given that Korea has risen from complete devastation to world competitiveness in about 50 years. Japan is the second ranked for in the world for GNP and they were in a very backward state 150 years ago not to even mention having their clocks cleaned about 60 years ago. Way to go Muslims!

Finding blame for their own failure is an important issue in the Muslim mind, OK, I say, talk it over when in Heaven with your numerous virgins after we plant you. I agree with Lewis that the Muslim world will, in time, require complete domination of some other culture by force of arms. ("force of arms" is strictly my opinion. I have a tendency to shoot first then sort out the issues).

Finding blame for their own failure is an important issue in the Muslim mind, OK, I say, talk it over when in Heaven with your numerous virgins after we plant you. I agree with Lewis that the Muslim world will, in time, require complete domination of some other culture by force of arms. ("force of arms" is strictly my opinion. I have a tendency to shoot first then sort out the issues).Great analysis, the whole post.

I have some Iranian friends, some of our discussions have to return to the Muslim/Arabian/Persian mindset just to stay on track.

Westerners just dont think the same way, and the Islamic World is genuinely set in the stone age.

While obviously not every Muslim is a terrorist, there can be no trusting of the Muslim world with the culture of death and sunjugation they bring even in their benign form.

I second that, great post Samson.

The correlation between women having personal freedom and the economic success of a society is quite high.

Your comment about reconciling Covey and Rand reminds me of Nash's Equilibrium Theory. It creates the balance between acting in one's self-interest and taking into consideration the welfare of the group as a whole. Selfishness is necessary - we wouldn't have survived as a species without it. But unregulated by acting responsibly towards society, it can lead to (un)intended destructive destruction.

So there are contrasting viewpoints about what makes people better. Covey seems to ignore any virtues of selfishness as much as Rand's "Objectivism" rejects altruism. The two worlds seem to meet as long as benevolence increases productivity.

Balance is key

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76457

Didnt Ayn Rand write a tome on the virue of selfishness?
I have no respect for Rand.

I doubt Flaming_Liberal considers Rand a worthwhile source of philosophy. (Not that I agree with him, just that you're not going to get very far with him quoting her.)
Yep. I've read her, but she just sucks.

I have no respect for Rand.


Yep. I've read her, but she just sucks.

Actually she was a much lauded and brilliant author and thinker. I can see why you would hate her though, as a liberal you must hate reason and rationality, the traits Rand promoted.

Thanks for the laugh ... BTW do you live on this planet?


Do you want to start acting like a grown-up and spare me the banter?


How can you deny that power and money are inseparable with a straight face ?


A separation of state and economics which I have already proposed.


Do you have a single historical example of your capitalist utopia ?


I am not proposing any kind of utopia, this is a straw man argument. I don't know why I expected any more than that. Utopia is impossible given human nature. What I propose is simply a system for protecting individual rights against group and government force.


... and your denial that international corporations have nothing to do with the "philosophy of capitalism"


Capitalism is the philosophy that men live for their own sake rather than for the sake of others or the tribe or the state, that a man's labor belongs to himself alone, that a man has the right to be free from undue force


What is capitalism?
Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion. Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom.

You are confusing market economics with capitalism. They are not the same thing. A busines may or may not operate according to market economics and it may or may not seek to maximize its profit. Either way, neither of these activities has anything to do with capitalism. We do not live in a capitalist country. We live in a statist mixed economy- yet businesses are still operating to maximize profits. Businesses will act this way in socialist and communist nations like they do in China or Islamic nations like they do in Palestine.

To learn more about capitalism, you may want to read this book when it comes out:

http://www.capmag.com/store/store_detail.asp?ID=86

or take this brief tour:

http://capitalism.org/tour/index.htm


just reinforced my first point that your pure "theory" is just that ... theory ... with nothing to do with reality


I'm not proposing any theory. I think you are just confusing terms. Capitalism is a philosophy that separates state and economics, that does not allow goverment to manage or redistribute wealth. That is it. Its that simple. It recognizes the individual rights of men. The behavior you are talking about is not "capitalism". Capitalism is not a behavior.


Judging from your posts... reality is a difficult concept for you to grasp

Selfishness is a character trait, like greed or envy. Anyone can be selfish. Ideology is a set of political beliefs about how society should be structured. They are not one in the same. This is why we have different names for them. Those who support capitalism are no more or less selfish than those who support socialism. There have been many selfish socialists over the years. Why can't YOU grasp this?

Guns, germs and steel baby.

Those who support capitalism are no more or less selfish than those who support socialism. There have been many selfish socialists over the years. Why can't YOU grasp this?

first ... i never said there were no selfish socialists ... second your the one that said "Selfishness is a character trait which has nothing to do with politics" ... not me !

I agree with Lewis that the Muslim world will, in time, require complete domination of some other culture by force of arms.

This is oddly worded....what did Lewis say, quote it.

I read Bernard Lewis' "What Went Wrong?" I believe it is a "must read" in view of the current war, (and for rationalizing the interpretation for it: that there is nothing unnatural about the need to civilize Islam)

The need to "civilize" so called "inferior" cultures is what started today's mess to begin with. It's also what caused slavery, apartheid and destruction of indigenous cultures.

Anyone notice that the people that 'need' civilizing always seem to have property? Some of the poorest peoples are Africans in the Sahara and eskimos, but they have nothing worth taking as they live in either a desert or on a glacier. Who the hell wants that?

Here's a picture of the Tuareg living in the Sahara. Notice they have practically nothing in the way of material things. Notice also that nobody in the West has tried to "civilize" them either hmmm....

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/spritesjun.suffolk/28%20Tuareg%20Women.jpg

Sad but true Jay,but there's a sadder truth behind that,I remember reading a politician writing on the un developed 3rd world : "Most of these countries do have resources that could be exploited ..." and to paraphrase the rest of the thought 'It's just that we can't interest the powers that be in taking that step'
Resources aren't sufficient,if you have a big quarry full of some valuable mineral far removed from any trade route or developed country it doesn't matter.Stupidity always plays a part...

This is oddly worded....what did Lewis say, quote it.

Here's a better idea: Read it yourself

The need to "civilize" so called "inferior" cultures is what started today's mess to begin with. It's also what caused slavery, apartheid and destruction of indigenous cultures.

Here's a picture of the Tuareg living in the Sahara. Notice they have practically nothing in the way of material things. Notice also that nobody in the West has tried to "civilize" them either hmmm....


No I didn't notice. The picture doesn't depict if they've been innoculated against small pox, diptheria, and a host of other diseases. Nor does it show what US grains they might have received in aid packages arriving during times of famine.

Yes, and their culture, like the many, many others, will probably die.

We modern Imperialists seem to have developed a sentimentality for cultures that our predessessors never really had. The British Empire (of which the American Empire was derived, regardless of the British omission of our receivership), twice the size of Spain's empire, thrice that of France, and five times larger than the Roman Empire, certainly had its shortcomings. But wherever they went they created governments, judicial systems, schools, hospitals, charities, telegraphs and railways (37,000 miles of track in India alone).

Their collective efforts brought the English language, relative prosperity, a Western cultural orientation towards rights and liberty, and at least a modicum of law and order to large swaths of the globe.

It will no doubt benefit America to copy our former massters by coming, in time, to rely on softer, diplomatic power rather than economic or military coersion. This is not a surrender to multilateralish BS, but a reaction to an altered state of affairs. The lesson from the British Empire seems to be that ultimately we will need other ways to sustain our eminance and influence.

By multilateral, you mean this:

Multilateralism is an international relations term that refers to multiple countries working in concert. Most international organizations are multilateral in nature such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization.

Then yes it's where the world is headed, not being dominated by one power at all but by multinational orgs.

American imperialism in Iraq has cost it most of the world's respect and any support it might otherwise have received.

By multilateral, you mean this:

Multilateralism is an international relations term that refers to multiple countries working in concert. Most international organizations are multilateral in nature such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization.

Then yes it's where the world is headed, not being dominated by one power at all but by multinational orgs.

American imperialism in Iraq has cost it most of the world's respect and any support it might otherwise have received.


That is highly debatable. I could easily argue that past appeasement of terrorists lost the U.S. the respect of the rest of the world and made us an easy target.

I could easily argue that past appeasement of terrorists lost the U.S. the respect of the rest of the world and made us an easy target.

Then why don't you show *the US appeased terrorists and *lost public support? Shouldn't be too hard.

_______
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/1746/blossomavatar9qt.jpg

American imperialism in Iraq has cost it most of the world's respect and any support it might otherwise have received.

meh....I think "cost" remains to be seen....and who knows how little respect America might have had without the Iraq War?

Don't forget, Jay, Imperial Japan invaded much of the far east. Is Japan any the worse for it? Imperial Russia, Germany, France, Spain, and as discussed, Great Britian seem to have been able to deal with any "costs" in "world respect" (however you might define these rather nebulous terms)

Then why don't you show *the US appeased terrorists and *lost public support? Shouldn't be too hard.

_______
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/1746/blossomavatar9qt.jpg


Clinton treating the 93 WTC bombing as a crime instead of a terrorist attack.
Clinton lobbing a few bombs in a wag the dog gesture instead of addressing Saddam as the threat which caused the CA to adopt a policy of regime change in Iraq.
Clinton doing nothing after the USS Cole atrocity.
Contrast the above with Waco and Elian.

The entire CA was a period of national security neglect which allowed the infection of terrorism to fester.

And then there is the horror of the incompetent Carter administration.

When a country allows its national and economic security to be attacked by terrorists and does not respond appropriately, it weakens its international position. Think of the difference between how Spain reacted to 3/11 and how the Brits are dealing with 7/7.

Don't forget, Jay, Imperial Japan invaded much of the far east. Is Japan any the worse for it?

Chinese protests? Korean protests? American bases?

Imperial Russia, Germany, France, Spain, and as discussed, Great Britian seem to have been able to deal with any "costs" in "world respect"

Who respects Russia, Spain or Germany? I didn't know anyone thought anything positive about them, maybe you've met someone that has. It won't be anyone that's familiar with the public opinion of Latin Americans, Africans or Asians.

Chinese protests? Korean protests? American bases?



Who respects Russia, Spain or Germany? I didn't know anyone thought anything positive about them, maybe you've met someone that has.

Russians, Spaniards, Germans? They all tend to be relatively patriotic.

You need to watch less TV, Jay. If you are expecting 60 minutes to do an episode about "The Most Respected Country in the World," its not gonna happen. Each country has pros and cons, with the possible exception of my own personal tropical island, inhabited only by several dozen naked Sports Illustrated swimsuit models. While I won't go into great detail (and honestly, do I really need to say more?), Samsonland is paradise.

Of course, I haven't allowed NBC, CBS, or ABC to visit yet.