Imperialism

Excerpts from an essay by Mobeen Chughtai

Is US foreign policy imperial? In order to address this question, one must attempt to understand what imperialism itself is. As defined by the Oxford Dictionary, ‘Imperialism’ means the “rule of an emperor”. But the dictionary further explains it as the “belief in value of colonies and dependencies”.

Imperialism requires the political and economic subjugation of the people on a previously inhabited land. Therefore, it would not be erroneous to say that the people are forced to serve and feed the interests of the ‘homeland’. This results in a position where the homeland becomes a parasitic entity, feeding off the labour and toil of the colonised.

As outlined by Lenin in his book Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, Imperialism is born from the need to expand with the precise motive of expanding markets and increasing the inflow of raw material. Lenin describes the character of imperialism in his book by saying:

“Monopolies, oligarchy, the striving for domination and not for freedom, the exploitation of an increasing number of small or weak nations by a handful of the richest or most powerful nations – all these have given birth to those distinctive characteristics of imperialism, which compel us to define it as parasitic or decaying capitalism. More and more prominently there emerges, as one of the tendencies of imperialism, the creation of the ‘rentier state’, the usurer state, in which the bourgeoisie to an ever-increasing degree lives on the proceeds of capital exports and by ‘clipping coupons’. It would be a mistake to believe that this tendency to decay precludes the rapid growth of capitalism. It does not. In the epoch of imperialism, certain branches of industry, certain strata of the bourgeoisie and certain countries betray, to a greater or lesser degree, now one and now another of these tendencies. On the whole, capitalism is growing far more rapidly than before; but this growth is not only becoming more and more uneven in general, its unevenness also manifests itself, in particular, in the decay of the countries which are richest in capital (Britain)” — (Lenin, V. I., Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, International Publishing Company, 1969).

The question now becomes: how is this relevant to the US?

According to some political commentators and analysts, we are living today in what is referred to as the Pax-Americana. This refers to the post-Soviet Cold War, unipolar global hegemony of the US. What is interesting to note is that after the dissolution of the former Soviet Union and the fall of soviet communism (in no small measure contributed to by the actions of Mikhail Gorbachev), the former allies of the US have assumed the role of near protectees. This has given rise to the phenomenon of neo-colonialism, which is defined as the domination of one country or nation by the other without the actual use of coercive force. This is achieved through economic or political sanctions.

Since the US assumed its role of the sole super-power, it has gone out of its way to protect those nations that it considers its allies. Examples of this are the Gulf War of the early 1990s and again in the early 2000s. Its actions in aiding Israel amass wealth, military power and technology to the extent that it has become incomparably powerful in the Middle East also attest to US intervention in its extreme. But perhaps the most important example of this is the manner in which the US interference in, what are decidedly internal matters of various countries. This is clearly seen, especially now when the US is pressuring Iran into surrendering its nuclear arsenal. This in light of the fact that the US had also insisted that Iraq surrender its phantom arsenal only a few years ago, makes this whole process dubious at best.

-----

JG: The United States is today the most classical example of imperialism as explained by Lenin. It seeks to expands its power, and subjugate people, through either its big corporate behemoths or through the use of raw military power, i.e. Nixon's imperialists wars in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and Bush's imperialist's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama has decided to continue Bush's follies in Iraq for another 19 months, and he seeks to make Afghanistan, "his" war. The imperialist wars of the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan are not about "terrorism" or bringing "democracy" to those countries, it is about obtaining oil resources in Central Asia. Venezuela, with its huge oil reserves, could be next.

Imperial Rome overextended its military adventures, and because of that overextension and its huge internal corruption, it declined and fell. The same thing is likely to happen in the XXI century to imperial U.S.