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).
The article charts and discuss the historical use of the concept of imperialism in the Communist International (Comintern; Third International, 1919–43). By analyzing first, the establishment and framework of the Comintern's understanding and use of imperialism as a political and instrumental tool, the aim of the article is to look beyond the official and sanctioned policy of the Comintern on imperialism between the wars. In doing so, the author examines and discuss internal discussions as they evolved over time at Comintern headquarters in Moscow by analyzing documents filed in the Comintern Archive (RGASPI) in Moscow. Key concepts focus on the Leninist perception of imperialism; the periodization debate, and contextual explanations linked to the frequent policy shifts of the Comintern and its relation to Bolshevization and Stalinization. In conclusion, the article highlights the historical trajectory of imperialism and anti-imperialism as a constituent source of Bolshevik policy making in its interpretation of global society.
Blank pages for "Notes" (155-162) ; "Published . for the use of classes run in connection with the Amalgamated union of building trade workers' educational scheme, and the National council of labour colleges." ; "Foreword" signed: George Hicks. ; "The author of the first draft of this book is Thomas Ashcroft."--p. ii. ; Bibliography: p. 149-150. ; Mode of access: Internet.
This article uses historical and legal analysis to demonstrate how U.S. domination over Puerto Rico's tax and fiscal policies has been the centerpiece of a colonial system and an especially destructive form of economic imperialism. Specifically, this article develops a novel theory of U.S. tax imperialism in Puerto Rico, chronicling the sundry ways in which the United States has used tax laws to exert economic dominance over its less developed island colony. During the colonial period, U.S. officials wrote and revised Puerto Rican tax laws to serve U.S. economic interests. In more recent years, U.S. tax laws have disadvantaged Puerto Ricans, who still lack voting rights and full democratic representation in Congress. A theory of tax imperialism may also have application far beyond the U.S.-Puerto Rican experience. For instance, it may help us understand the relationships between the United States and its other possessions and territories throughout history, and between the United Kingdom and its British Crown dependencies, overseas territories, and newly-independent colonies.
Over the past century, Marxism has been radically transformed in line with circumstances and fashion. Theses that once looked solid have depreciated and fallen by the sideline; concepts that once were deemed crucial have been abandoned; slogans that once sounded clear and meaningful have become fuzzy and ineffectual. But two key words seem to have survived the attrition and withstood the test of time: imperialism and financialism. Talk of imperialism and financialism – and particularly of the nexus between them – remains as catchy as ever. Marxists of different colours – from classical, to neo to post – find the two terms expedient, if not indispensable. Radical anarchists, conservative Stalinists and distinguished academics of various denominations all continue to use and debate them. The views of course differ greatly, but there is a common thread: for most Marxists, imperialism and financialism are prime causes of our worldly ills. Their nexus is said to explain capitalist development and underdevelopment; it underlies capitalist power and contradictions; and it drives capitalist globalization, its regional realignment and local dynamics. It is a fit-all logo for street demonstrators and a generic battle cry for armchair analysts. The secret behind this staying power is flexibility. Over the years, the concepts of imperialism and financialism have changed more or less beyond recognition, as a result of which the link between them nowadays connotes something totally different from what it meant a century ago. The purpose of this article is to outline this chameleon-like transformation, to assess what is left of the nexus and to ask whether this nexus is still worth keeping.
This thesis has examined the contemporary Sino-African relationship in the light of the Chinese political economic structure. In a changing global political economic landscape, it has become necessary to look beyond classic discourses of North-South interaction defined by neo-imperial structures and neoliberal mechanisms. By investigating the Chinese political economic structure and its mechanisms, the specifics of the Sino-African interaction, taking neo- imperialism as a comparative frame, a new framework was created in search of a means to accurately delineate a South-South relationship in a modern, globalized international structure. It was shown that the Sino-African interaction is indeed not of a classic neo-imperial nature, although similarities can be observed. Instead, it is a sinicized, mutually beneficial process of cooperative interaction. Based on these factors and characteristics, the resulting framework has been dubbed Sino-imperialism, and is based on the embeddedness of the Chinese identity, the prevalence of the Chinese State, and the goal of realizing Xi Jinping's Chinese Dream. ; submittedVersion ; M-DS
An exchange of letters between Joe Francis and Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan. The exchange concerns 'Imperialism and Financialism: A Story of a Nexus', an article that Bichler and Nitzan posted in September 2009.
The thesis examines the interplay between political, military, economic, social and cultural influences in the context of the United States' control over Brazil. The main argument is that the ways used by the United States to control Brazil were, and are, a form of imperialism even though there was never any use of direct American military invasion or occupation. The role of the US during World War II, but most importantly their role in the 1964 military coup, demonstrated the American involvement in this crucial moment in Brazilian history. Then a discussion of the development of television follows, which in Brazil after 1964 meant Rede Globo, and its connections to the new economic model implemented by the military government are examined in order to demonstrate Brazil's direct subordination to the interests of American multinational corporations. This apparatus was further extended by the establishment of American advertising agencies such as J. Walter Thompson, which allowed for the homogenization of Brazilian culture and tastes with the model of the American Way of Life in its "Brazilianized" version, as represented by the Cultura Zona Sul with the telenovela as its main tool. This model I called "Consumer Culture Imperialism" because it was through the creation of desires to consume in the same way as Americans initially, and Brazilian elites later, that American control was achieved. The thesis concludes that this model is still very pervasive in Brazil today, together with Globo's virtual monopoly, therefore making the research into this field now more important than ever before
In spite of substantial exertion by the government, school and language purists to refine Dzongkha, one still hears locutions such as: "Taxi thopchi-ga?" (Got a taxi?), "Party minjo - ga?" (Are you not going to party?) or "Sha kg chi" (a kilogram of meat). The interlocutors barely realize that they are employing lexical items that are borrowed from foreign languages to communicate in Dzongkha. Language purists are concerned with this threat of linguistic imperialism, but the relentless pursuit of speaking pure Dzongkha seems to be problematic with many speakers. One of the main factors that trigger this trend is change—social and cultural change. As David Crystal (1987) rightly says, "Language would stand still only if society did." Languages are always in a state of flux, because societies are, and society entails one's customs and practices, beliefs, attitude, way of life and the way people organize themselves as a group. In this paper the author examines the influence of cultural change on Dzongkha language and the inflow of foreign words in Dzongkha language.
At independence in 1960, the colonial rule in Nigeria transformed into neo-colonialism. Nigeria gained political sovereignty through a negotiated settlement that has retained and maintained economic, commercial, and intellectual ties with the ex-colonial administrators and other western nations. Agriculture, which was the economic focus of the colonial administration took a back seat once oil was discovered in commercial quantity in present day Bayelsa state after several failed attempts dating back to 1913. As oil became the main economic attraction in the post-colonial rule, it had various implications for the political economy of Nigeria. Despite attempts to pursue agriculture as a colonial heritage and for the benefit of Nigerians, the discovery of oil in 1956 and the oil boom in the 1970s laid the foundation for Nigeria's dependence on oil as the primary source of its GDP. Using secondary sources and insight from our previous fieldwork in the Niger Delta region, the main argument in this paper is that, imperialism perpetuated the exploitation of agricultural products while its legacy, neo-colonialism has preserved the exploitation of crude oil to the detriments of other economic ventures and the Nigerian masses. Therefore, we posit that the transformation of colonialism into neo-colonialism in Nigeria has resulted in desperation for Nigerians as this arrangement gives power without responsibility and exploitation without redress.
Abstract One of the main controversies within the Marxist theory of imperialism centres on the capacity of the capitalist system to organise itself economically and politically. Ultimately, this argument is linked to the notion of system stability: the end of economic crises, and lasting world peace. The famous polemic between Lenin and Kautsky in the early 20th century about whether capitalism could be peacefully managed by the great powers and private corporations that compete for global wealth persists in much of the current debate. Some authors emphasise economic stability, while others highlight political stability, using terms such as globalisation, transnational capital and Empire, but the central idea remains that of a more disciplined capitalist system. This implies that the Marxist concepts of interstate competition and imperialism have become outdated. This article examines the Marxist literature on imperialism which holds that capitalism has become more organised, to the point of overcoming the rivalries between the great powers. It concludes that the argument that capitalism has reached a degree of organisation which invalidates the concept of imperialism is questionable and does not recognise some fundamental features of the capitalist system.
Approaches to depoliticisation have tended to focus on its use as a domestic strategy. The purpose of depoliticisation, whether discourse-, rule-, or institution-based, is to distance or limit the political character of a particular issue or policy. Where the literature on depoliticisation tends to be lacking is in its international role. This paper seeks to explore how imperialist policies, that is policies intended to dominate one state by another, have been depoliticized by being channeled through technically- managed or apparently economic institutions. The paper situates an account of depoliticisation in terms of the nature of global capitalist society, and seeks to explore how imperial strategy was depoliticized through the Sterling Area. The paper looks at an episode in British-Malayan relations in which the apolitical character of the Sterling Area is brought into question. The purpose of this strategy of depoliticisation, as with its domestic instances, is to remove accountability from state managers, provide them with greater governing autonomy and to limit social instability, while at the same time trying to remove barriers for capital accumulation on a global scale.
The old theories of imperialism attempted to explain the phenomenon of the militarization of the industrial nations and their conflict over colonies that led to World War I. It was the rise of monopoly capitalism, the emergence of finance capital and the control over the state that led inter-capitalist rivalry and finally to War. In the 1960s a new version of imperialism was related to the ideas of the dependency school, while there is a gap during the 1980s and the 1990s. Recently, new theories of imperialism emerged, that discuss globalization and militarization from a different perspective. They undermine inter-capitalist rivalry and focus on American hegemony and capitalist accumulation on a world scale. The work of three representative writers (Harvey, Amin and Panitch) is critically discussed here indicating the limits and some merits of their approach.