Suchergebnisse

"Sonderabdruck aus 'Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik' Band 46 Heft 1 und 2." ; Mode of access: Internet.

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).

pt. I. The economics of imperialism.--pt. II. The politics of imperialism. ; 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.

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

International audience ; The clear thrust of Percy Bysshe Shelley's radical politics has generally been considered as stopping short of questioning Britain's imperial policies, and the poet has frequently been accused of latent, if not overt, imperialism. This paper on Shelley and imperialism attempts to 'clarify' Shelley's thoughts in the context of British imperialism. Shelley, as a second generation Romantic poet, was witness to the birth of Britain's imperialism, and although he did not live long enough to experience the heyday of the British Empire, his time was a period of transition. The philosophy of the Enlightenment had begun its gradual transformation into the rhetoric of imperialism, and as Europe moved into the nineteenth century, the cosmopolitanism of the philosophers was eroding into nationalism. Thus, if Britain's great imperialistic project was still in the future in Shelley's time, the forces that were to underpin it were very much in the air-that curious blend of orientalism, evangelism, utilitarianism and nationalism. Yet the question remains as to whether he subscribed to these movements. It has been argued that he did. In this paper I suggest that, on the contrary, Shelley's radical refutation of tyranny in every form and his commitment to humanity are transparently visible in every line he wrote. I propose to begin with an analysis of 'The Assassins' (1814), then to look at A Philosophical View of Reform, and to conclude with Shelley's deconstruction of imperialism in Prometheus Unbound.

International audience ; The clear thrust of Percy Bysshe Shelley's radical politics has generally been considered as stopping short of questioning Britain's imperial policies, and the poet has frequently been accused of latent, if not overt, imperialism. This paper on Shelley and imperialism attempts to 'clarify' Shelley's thoughts in the context of British imperialism. Shelley, as a second generation Romantic poet, was witness to the birth of Britain's imperialism, and although he did not live long enough to experience the heyday of the British Empire, his time was a period of transition. The philosophy of the Enlightenment had begun its gradual transformation into the rhetoric of imperialism, and as Europe moved into the nineteenth century, the cosmopolitanism of the philosophers was eroding into nationalism. Thus, if Britain's great imperialistic project was still in the future in Shelley's time, the forces that were to underpin it were very much in the air-that curious blend of orientalism, evangelism, utilitarianism and nationalism. Yet the question remains as to whether he subscribed to these movements. It has been argued that he did. In this paper I suggest that, on the contrary, Shelley's radical refutation of tyranny in every form and his commitment to humanity are transparently visible in every line he wrote. I propose to begin with an analysis of 'The Assassins' (1814), then to look at A Philosophical View of Reform, and to conclude with Shelley's deconstruction of imperialism in Prometheus Unbound.

This thesis analyzes how Multatuli shows anti-imperialism through the characters of Max Havelaar and Stern in Max Havelaar. The aim of the thesis is to prove that Max Havelaar and Stern embodies anti-imperialism from their author, Multatuli through their actions, ideas, and commentaries. The analysis of the characters uses theory of imperialism and anti-imperialism. The analysis of the characters is then connected to the real-world perspective of social, culture, and economy that happened around 1850s, by using the theory of new historicism. The results of the analysis show that Max Havelaar and Stern proved their anti-imperialism by fighting against economic, cultural, and political imperialism.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

The Howard Government's military intervention in East Timor in 1999 was an act of imperialism. It was not forced on a reluctant government by popular pressure, nor were its aims humanitarian. Rather, the intervention used military power to secure longstanding strategic interests of the Australian state. From 1974, successive Australian governments supported Indonesia's occupation of East Timor in order to foreclose the possibility of rival powers gaining influence in the Indonesian archipelago, which might allow them to threaten Australian interests. But, by September 1999, the Indonesian occupation had become untenable. Australia inserted military forces into East Timor to ensure that the transition to independence would be relatively orderly, avoiding a destabilising power vacuum. The intervention also boosted Australia's ability to defend its economic and strategic interests in the new nation. The success and domestic popularity of the intervention allowed the Howard Government to increase military spending and act more aggressively to defend Australia's imperial interests in the Southwest Pacific