Suchergebnisse

Scholars of modern imperialism have conventionally defined it in clear contrast against the ostensibly legitimate rule of the sovereign territorial state. From this conventional perspective, the theoretical distinctiveness of imperialism as a phenomenon appears in juxtaposition against normal sovereign state rule and effectively 'begins' at the transgressions of state power beyond some accepted space of normalized sovereign dominion. While the spatial and temporal dimensions of sovereignty have been well explored and the spatial distinctiveness of imperialism has mirrored that of sovereignty, the temporality of imperialism has not been as carefully considered. While the problems of what imperialism 'is' and what it 'does' have been thoroughly examined, 'when' imperialism is has not. This article aims to correct this by offering a critique of the conventional temporality of imperialism and its subjection to a spatial ideology, and instead articulating a critical temporality of imperialism that avoids some of the conventional conception's limitations, especially that of naturalizing state rule and its claims to legitimacy.

"How does control of media resources serve political and economic ends? What is the impact of media concentration and monopoly in the era of technology convergence, with not just traditional and 'new' media but also consumer electronics, telephony and computing industries? Revisiting the classic concept of media imperialism, Oliver Boyd-Barrett presents a thorough retake for the 21st century, arguing for the need to understand media and empires and how structures of power and control continue to regulate our access to and consumption of the media. It's no longer just Disney and Dallas--it's also now Alibaba, Apple, Facebook, Google, Samsung and Huawei. Examining the interplay between communications industries and the hierarchies and networks of political, corporate and plutocratic power in a globalized world, the book explains: the historical context of the relationship between media and imperialism; contestation and collaboration among new media empires; the passion for social justice that inspired the original theories of media and cultural imperialism, and how it has been embraced by a new generation. Digging deeply into the global landscape and emerging media markets to explore how media power works across transnational boundaries, this book gives a clear and sophisticated argument for why media imperialism still matters."--Publisher description

Lenin, Bukharin, Stalin, and Trotsky in Russia, as well as Mao, Zhou Enlai, and Den Xiaoping in China, shaped the history of the two great revolutions of the twentieth century. As leaders of revolutionary communist parties and then later as leaders of revolutionary states, they were confronted with the problems faced by a triumphant revolution in countries of peripheral capitalism and forced to revise the theses inherited from the historical Marxism of the Second International. With the benefit of hindsight, the author will indicate the limitations of their analyses. Lenin and Bukharin considered imperialism to be a new stage of capitalism associated with the development of monopolies. The revolution, made in the name of socialism (and communism), was, in fact, something else: mainly a peasant revolution. In his opinion, Trotsky would certainly not have done better. His attitude towards the rebellion of the Kronstadt sailors and his later equivocations demonstrate that he was no different than the other Bolshevik leaders in government. Adapted from the source document.

This item is part of the Political & Rights Issues & Social Movements (PRISM) digital collection, a collaborative initiative between Florida Atlantic University and University of Central Florida in the Publication of Archival, Library & Museum Materials (PALMM).

This essay approaches the neoliberal tradition of thought through the lens of liberal imperialism. Seeking to bring scholarship on the history of neoliberal ideas together with research on liberal defences of empire, I show that the neoliberal tradition of thought contains a number of formal, explicit, and systematic defences of (European) colonialism. In the first section of the essay, I contextualise neoliberal imperialism by showing that many prominent early neoliberals had close ties to the British Colonial Office. I then offer a close reading of two highly influential instances of the neoliberal defence of empire. The first was articulated between the 1930s and 1940s by Herbert Frankel, who saw colonisation as a form of civilisational improvement that places a heavy ethical and political burden on the coloniser. The second was articulated by Lewis Gann and Peter Duignan between the 1960s and 1970s. In contrast to Frankel's civilisational justification of colonialism, Gann and Duignan articulated a more dispassionate cost-benefit argument, claiming that colonialism's advantages outweigh its disadvantages. The article concludes by reflecting on the implications of this shift from a civilisational to a consequentialist frame both for the neoliberal tradition and for liberal imperialist discourse at large.

Abstract
Economic Imperialism is the claim of some economists that the methodology of neoclassical economics has superior scientific qualities and should be adopted by most or all social sciences. The paper first shows why such a dominant claim could develop among economists but in no other science and then goes on to point out the shortcomings of this claim of methodological superiority. These critical remarks are also relevant for methodological controversies within economics between a mainstream and heterodox economists.

If an important part of the political scientist's mission is to anticipate and explain "the critical problems that generate turbulence" in that part of the world which attracts his attention, then, in the study of administration, bureaucratic "imperialism" must be of compelling interest. If systematic data directly assembled for the purpose are lacking, and if there are some signal problems of theory which have been little investigated, there is still enough evidence from studies of other political problems that it seems worthwhile to set out some trial-run ideas in the hope that they will elicit further discussion.Bureaucractic imperialism seems pre-eminently a matter of inter-agency conflict in which two or more agencies try to assert permanent control over the same jurisdiction, or in which one agency actually seeks to take over another agency as well as the jurisdiction of that agency. We are thus primarily concerned with the politics of allocation and shall, except incidentally, bypass some other interesting aspects of inter-agency politics such as cooperation between agencies sharing missions, competition for favorable "one-time-only" decisions which do not involve jurisdictional reallocation, or the critical problems of the "holding company" administrative organization and its internal politics. For the moment, our concern with the politics of allocation leads to a focus on what would appear to be the likely behaviors of those decisionmakers who have both inclination and opportunity to look after the institutional well-being of agencies.