Imperialism, should we fear it?

brianthebard

"We will not repeat here what has already been said in the assembly. We will simply state that imperialism can be defined as a worldwide expression of the search for profits and the ever-increasing accumulation of surplus value by monopoly financial capital, centered in two parts of the world; first in Europe, and then in North America. And if we wish to place the fact of imperialism within the general trajectory of the evolution of the transcendental factor which has changed the face of the world, namely capital and the process of its accumulation, we can say that imperialism is piracy transplanted from the seas to dry land piracy reorganized, consolidated and adapted to the aim of exploiting the natural and human resources of our peoples."- Amilcar Cabral, The Weapon of Theory, Address delivered to the first Tricontinental Conference of the Peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America held in Havana in January, 1966.

What do you make of the above statement? is it accurate? To me it seems both accurate and terrible. It comes to the core of what Imperialism is, and what it aims to do. We see imperialism at work every day, but are unlikely to criticise it, or only summarily. We should put it under closer scrutiny.

Red Hand

Yeah, I agree with the statement, but what can you do? Most people in civilisation have been expoited peasants, and whatever system replaces imperialism, will just be corrupted into another version of it.

It's the human way.

brianthebard

How do you figure? There was a pre imperialist period in history, so this suggests there can and will be a post imperialist period. In the nineteenth century it was believed that the British empire would continue indefinitely and would become the dominant global power, eventually leading to monogovernment from London.

Rossibaby

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Yeah, I agree with the statement, but what can you do? Most people in civilisation have been expoited peasants, and whatever system replaces imperialism, will just be corrupted into another version of it.

It's the human way.

no it is not the human way, the idea that human beings are inherently greedy is hardly a scientific fact.in fact i would argue the opposite,human beings are by nature generous.look at the foundations of man,the origional human beings and the origional tribes.human instinct at its most basic.men hunted,brought back to their tribe what they got and shared it equally,this is mans nature not a nature brought about by being exposed to capitialist prinipcals from birth.mans thoughts are a direct emanation of his material state.

on imperialism, it is a basic concept of capitalism and will exist aslogn as capitalism does.it is essential to propping up the exploitive market that capitalism produces and while it exists so will poverty in equal measure.

Frankie Lee

I agree rossibaby

asdasd

the idea that human beings are inherently greedy is hardly a scientific fact.

yes it is.

men hunted,brought back to their tribe what they got and shared it equally,

Hunter gatherers have more casualities than Europe in the WWII. They engage in territorial aggression etc.

I love the quote from the 60;s. Europe as an imperial power indeed. That would be news to the Eastern Europeans crushed under an actual imperial power, one loved by the anti-Imperialists of the Stalinist left.

Rossibaby

asdasd wrote: »

yes it is.



Hunter gatherers have more casualities than Europe in the WWII. They engage in territorial aggression etc.

I love the quote from the 60;s. Europe as an imperial power indeed. That would be news to the Eastern Europeans crushed under an actual imperial power, one loved by the anti-Imperialists of the Stalinist left.

no they are no greedy through DNA,that is idiocy and stinks of nothing more.a man who grows up in a rich area is more likely not to commit crime,a man in a poor area is more likely to commit crime,a man in capitalist society is more likely to be greedy as things like self-importance and success is taught from a young age,even at school its battered into you to get the best job you can for the most wealth,not to make you a more rounded or educated person.i know of people who couldnt care less about money and material wealth,are hey inhuman then?gimme a break,'genetically greedy' for oneself dont make me laugh.capitalism has created an ideology like that and it extends to ones family to,one would try its best for ones family.what if this society was uprooted and family was replaced by community,wait wait that sounds like communism

asdasd

Rossibaby wrote: »

no they are no greedy through DNA,that is idiocy and stinks of nothing more.a man who grows up in a rich area is more likely not to commit crime,a man in a poor area is more likely to commit crime,a man in capitalist society is more likely to be greedy as things like self-importance and success is taught from a young age,even at school its battered into you to get the best job you can for the most wealth,not to make you a more rounded or educated person.i know of people who couldnt care less about money and material wealth,are hey inhuman then?gimme a break,'genetically greedy' for oneself dont make me laugh.capitalism has created an ideology like that and it extends to ones family to,one would try its best for ones family.what if this society was uprooted and family was replaced by community,wait wait that sounds like communism

That is the worst paragraph I have ever read. Badly written, incoherently argued, misspelled throughout.

Sorry mate. There is an abundance of evidence from actual scientists, particularly in the evolutionary psychology field that human beings are status seeking, and incentive driven. Besides that we have ( unfortunately) Marxism to thank for proving the issue. I say, unfortunately, because millions of people had to die. One example: When Mao was in charge of China in the early sixties he imposed the iron-rice bowl ideology - one which fully conformed with Marxist economics - the small farms were nationalised, and families farms were broken up. All incentives to produce food were removed, so the farmers did not produce food. And millions starved. Mao was sidelined and Deng Xiaoping came to power. He introduced market reforms. Farmers could farm their own plots ( as well as the nationalised produce) and work as family units. Incentives to produce were restored. Result: the yield increased. Nobody starved.

The Mao came back to power, started the cultural revolution, returned to the old policies and millions starved again.

On the subject of communism and capitalism - capitalism is what happens when you don't do anything to stop people being human - the government in China removed itself from the economy in 1978 ( or rather, from total control of it ) and Chinese serfs, workers and peasants began to do what people do when they are free; what we have been doing for centuries - traded, set up businesses, specialised etc. All the things that make us civilized and human. And made them much richer than under communism.

( And of course this also refutes the "capitalism makes people greedy" claim, since they all grew up under the cultural revolution which should - according to Marxist pyschology - have meant their nature was communist and "non-greedy" so they should have not been able to be entrepreneurial when the government set them free(ish) of the command economy )

Marxism = cult.

i know of people who couldn't care less about money and material wealth,are hey inhuman then

That's an anecdote not a statistic but, yes, they are not very useful. Watch Dragons den. People on the show set out to be "greedy" by your definition, resourceful by the definition of everyone else. it is people like that on whom the further increases in human knowledge and manufactures depends ( and contrary to Marxist "theory" capital is not a stratified class at all , people enter it al the time). One entrepreneur is worth a billion Marxism academics, thats for sure.

ChocolateSauce

brianthebard wrote: »

In the nineteenth century it was believed that the British empire would continue indefinitely and would become the dominant global power, eventually leading to monogovernment from London.

The opposite is true. By 1897 (widey regarded as the zenith of Empire) most British accepted that their empire would eventually cease to be. They saw the empire as bringing civilisation to the world, and that when the colonies were civilised enough to govern themselves, they would gain independence.

As for your original paragraph, I wouldn't say that definition fits into my view of imperialism. I don't fear it at all, not least of which because we have our European family to shield us from the influence of Russia, China and the US.

brianthebard

What I said is not untrue, you are merely referring to a different period of time.

Red Hand

brianthebard wrote: »

How do you figure? There was a pre imperialist period in history, so this suggests there can and will be a post imperialist period. In the nineteenth century it was believed that the British empire would continue indefinitely and would become the dominant global power, eventually leading to monogovernment from London.

In my opinion, imperialism has been around from the beginning of history (history meaning whenever people started to write)-ever since the first farms were cultivated and the first towns such as Ur grew. Once hunter/gatherers are tied to the land, driven charismatic leaders can monopolise the situation and reap the benefits.

Yes, it would be great if everbody lived within their means and all resources and food and shelter were dispersed equally amongst all, but I would go as far to say that will never happen with the way evolution has moulded us. The only way to get true equality and true dispersion of food/resource etc is to have a non-human intelligence (like a giant supercomputor) in charge of doling out each person's needs.:) Or extreme genetic engineering whereby the kinks in the human mind are ironed out. But we probably wouldn't be human then.:)

Rossibaby wrote: »

no it is not the human way, the idea that human beings are inherently greedy is hardly a scientific fact.in fact i would argue the opposite,human beings are by nature generous.look at the foundations of man,the origional human beings and the origional tribes.human instinct at its most basic.men hunted,brought back to their tribe what they got and shared it equally,this is mans nature not a nature brought about by being exposed to capitialist prinipcals from birth.mans thoughts are a direct emanation of his material state.

Some humans are greedy, some are generous. Jeez, even one person can display both greedy and generous traits at the same time. The idea of "the noble savage", one who is generous and simple and lives according to his means as he just LOVES having everybody in his tribe equal, is romantic indeed, but is not true. People who are hunter/gatherers have no choice but to live within their means as their place in the environment can be fragile at times, and if that means extending breast-feeding so that females won't immediately become pregnant, or killing newborns so that their population won't strain their environment, then that's what they will do.

on imperialism, it is a basic concept of capitalism and will exist aslogn as capitalism does.it is essential to propping up the exploitive market that capitalism produces and while it exists so will poverty in equal measure.

I agree.

brianthebard

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

In my opinion, imperialism has been around from the beginning of history (history meaning whenever people started to write)-ever since the first farms were cultivated and the first towns such as Ur grew. Once hunter/gatherers are tied to the land, driven charismatic leaders can monopolise the situation and reap the benefits.

your statement is conflicted, you refer to the beginning of history and then your example is pre-historical. Also Imperialism does not have need charismatic leaders to happen. What do you understand to be Imperialism?

Yes, it would be great if everbody lived within their means and all resources and food and shelter were dispersed equally amongst all, but I would go as far to say that will never happen with the way evolution has moulded us. The only way to get true equality and true dispersion of food/resource etc is to have a non-human intelligence (like a giant supercomputor) in charge of doling out each person's needs.:) Or extreme genetic engineering whereby the kinks in the human mind are ironed out. But we probably wouldn't be human then.:)

Don't know what this has to do with the topic, I'm not arguing for a socialist utopia (in this thread at least) just considering what Imperialism means and whether it is a force we should accept or reject. I don't think Imperialism is definitely something that will happen. Post colonial nations for instance, do not engage in imperialism from what I've seen (The US is in my opinion a colonial nation and I would be glad to go into further detail if necessary).

So at the very least this tells us that nations subjected to imperialism can learn from their oppressors mistakes and not repeat them.

Red Hand

brianthebard wrote: »

your statement is conflicted, you refer to the beginning of history and then your example is pre-historical. Also Imperialism does not have need charismatic leaders to happen. What do you understand to be Imperialism?

Well, with the coming of farming, writing soon followed, no? OK, it is a conflicted statement. I guess I meant that soon after people started farming, you've got imperialism.

Imperialism, in my view, is just an offshoot of capitalism, except where capitalism has an elite controlling a middle class and controlling the masses/means of production/resources of just one system/nation, imperialism has an elite of one tribe/nation controlling the middle men and masses/means of production etc of another nation (along with controlling the middle class and masses of the ruling elite's nation). In time this system collapses (due to famine/war/revolt) but it is repeated again and again. Ur controls many Mid Eastern cities, that system breaks down, a new order is established with another city/nation controlling others, rinse and repeat.

Don't know what this has to do with the topic, I'm not arguing for a socialist utopia (in this thread at least) just considering what Imperialism means and whether it is a force we should accept or reject. I don't think Imperialism is definitely something that will happen.

It's always happening in civilisation.

Post colonial nations for instance, do not engage in imperialism from what I've seen (The US is in my opinion a colonial nation and I would be glad to go into further detail if necessary).

The US was a colonised country under the control of an Imperialist. It is now an Imperialist itself. Post colonial nations will, if given the chance, engage in imperialism.

So at the very least this tells us that nations subjected to imperialism can learn from their oppressors mistakes and not repeat them.

The US, as soon as it freed itself from it's oppressor, built Washington DC which is a city that looks every part the Imperial Capital.

brianthebard

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Well, with the coming of farming, writing soon followed, no? OK, it is a conflicted statement. I guess I meant that soon after people started farming, you've got imperialism.

No. This statement holds no water. Farming happened in the Middle East and then imperialism happened is what you are saying. Fine, except farming happening in Ireland what 7,8000 years ago? When did Irish Imperialism happen? Did Christianity and writing create Imperialism? I don't think so.

Imperialism, in my view, is just an offshoot of capitalism, except where capitalism has an elite controlling a middle class and controlling the masses/means of production/resources of just one system/nation, imperialism has an elite of one tribe/nation controlling the middle men and masses/means of production etc of another nation (along with controlling the middle class and masses of the ruling elite's nation). In time this system collapses (due to famine/war/revolt) but it is repeated again and again. Ur controls many Mid Eastern cities, that system breaks down, a new order is established with another city/nation controlling others, rinse and repeat.

Fine you have described capitalism. But Imperialism can happen in feudal societies, or in farming societies according to you, which are pre capitalist. Again this seems conflicted.

It's always happening in civilisation.

Highly subjective. Presupposes certain people are civilised and others aren't. Examples of Imperialism in Native American society? Irish history? When was Egypt Imperialist and when was it not?

The US was a colonised country under the control of an Imperialist. It is now an Imperialist itself. Post colonial nations will, if given the chance, engage in imperialism.

The US, as soon as it freed itself from it's oppressor, built Washington DC which is a city that looks every part the Imperial Capital.

No the US was a colony, the colonisers wiped out the majority of natives, and oppressed the rest, cleaning them from history as much as possible. It is not post colonial therefore, because the revolution that happened was not led by the native people, but rather by colonisers themselves, who sought at first a commonwealth, not an independent state. After the break with Britain they set about colonising the rest of the continent, as much as was possible, and then the Pacific. The US was never oppressed, but they did oppress.

Red Hand

brianthebard wrote: »

No. This statement holds no water. Farming happened in the Middle East and then imperialism happened is what you are saying. Fine, except farming happening in Ireland what 7,8000 years ago? When did Irish Imperialism happen? Did Christianity and writing create Imperialism? I don't think so.

Northen Europe entered a transition phase between hunter gathering and true farming-pastoralism. It took longer for us to even have towns, much of this land was unsuitable for true farming, forests, bogs etc which meant that there weren't enough people on this island for us to subject another people to imperialism. That's if you don't consider the various power struggles between the various tuatha and provinces as being a crude imperialism.

Fine you have described capitalism. But Imperialism can happen in feudal societies, or in farming societies according to you, which are pre capitalist. Again this seems conflicted.

An elite controls the land in feudalism, which is controlling the means of production, no?

Highly subjective. Presupposes certain people are civilised and others aren't. Examples of Imperialism in Native American society?

Inca, Aztec and Mayan.

Irish history?

Not every tribe goes through an Imperialist phase...some are subjected to Imperialism. But given a power vacum, an opening and enough people (which is related to true farming) we might have. (That's if you don't see the conflicts between the various Tuatha and provinces as a crude imperialism)

When was Egypt Imperialist and when was it not?

I would say as soon as it imposed it's will on a neighbouring tribe.

No the US was a colony, the colonisers wiped out the majority of natives, and oppressed the rest, cleaning them from history as much as possible. It is not post colonial therefore, because the revolution that happened was not led by the native people, but rather by colonisers themselves, who sought at first a commonwealth, not an independent state. After the break with Britain they set about colonising the rest of the continent, as much as was possible, and then the Pacific. The US was never oppressed, but they did oppress.

brianthebard

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Northen Europe entered a transition phase between hunter gathering and true farming-pastoralism. It took longer for us to even have towns, much of this land was unsuitable for true farming, forests, bogs etc which meant that there weren't enough people on this island for us to subject another people to imperialism. That's if you don't consider the various power struggles between the various tuatha and provinces as being a crude imperialism.

Well we are getting towards the right track at least, a nation must first develop a critical mass of population before it can begin on the road to imperialism. Again it is too vague though-the Vikings were not imperialists, although they did reach a stage of overpopulation and a period of invasion. So again we see that it is not a given that people should be imperialist. That transition phase of yours is flawed, hunter-gather techniques were important into the nineteenth century and perhaps beyond to many in Europe.

An elite controls the land in feudalism, which is controlling the means of production, no?

Which is not necessarily imperialism. I will ask you again what your understanding of Imperialism is again, because you are putting forward a notion far to broad and vague to be truly considered imperialism.

Inca, Aztec and Mayan.
Not every tribe goes through an Imperialist phase...some are subjected to Imperialism. But given a power vacum, an opening and enough people (which is related to true farming) we might have. (That's if you don't see the conflicts between the various Tuatha and provinces as a crude imperialism)

Well observed, some native Americans were empires and some were not. Again this proves that not all people are inherently drawn to imperialism. I don't count that as crude imperialism, at all.

I would say as soon as it imposed it's will on a neighbouring tribe.

And after they stopped doing that, what did they become? Why did they not cycle back into imperialism as you suggested would be the case?

Red Hand

brianthebard wrote: »

Well we are getting towards the right track at least, a nation must first develop a critical mass of population before it can begin on the road to imperialism. Again it is too vague though-the Vikings were not imperialists, although they did reach a stage of overpopulation and a period of invasion.

Their elite creamed off profits from slavery, and raiding, though? Dublin had the largest slave market in Europe at one time due to the Viking elite and their control of Dublin. Didn't Vikings move across from Sweden into Russia, following rivers, to where Moscow is now, the Rus tribe of Vikings, eventally giving Russia it's name? Likewise, the Northmen that settled in France giving their name to Normandy and the eventual Normans? Their home countries may not have benefited from this process, but the Viking elite sure did handsomely profit from it.

So again we see that it is not a given that people should be imperialist. That transition phase of yours is flawed, hunter-gather techniques were important into the nineteenth century and perhaps beyond to many in Europe.

They were just supplemental techniques, though. And more so, only engaged in by a minority and at that limited to farming related pests. Once farming has arrived, you can never go back to full hunter/gathering (without getting rid of most people.)

Which is not necessarily imperialism. I will ask you again what your understanding of Imperialism is again, because you are putting forward a notion far to broad and vague to be truly considered imperialism.

Maybe I am. I guess my definition is where the elite of one tribe controls the means of production/natural resource/human resourse of both their own tribe and another's (or more than one other tribe).

Well observed, some native Americans were empires and some were not. Again this proves that not all people are inherently drawn to imperialism.

But you'll agree that there is a tipping point? Once you go beyond hunter/gatherer and pastoralist and hit true farming, with the construction of towns and a burgeoning population, you are going to get imperialism?

And after they stopped doing that, what did they become? Why did they not cycle back into imperialism as you suggested would be the case?

Because if you push out enough, conquering other tribes and aren't careful you may hit against another imperial power like the Hittites/Babylonians etc. War and revolt may happen (famine too) due to this. All this while, other tribes nearby are growing in number, and maybe due to war/famine the former imperialist Egypt remains static in number. And so you get Macedonians, Romans, Ottomans becoming the imperialists over the Egyptians.

The reason that most countries are not imperialists right now, is that there are a few big imperialists controlling things, namely the elite of many European and North American countries. If their societies ever collapse due to war/famine/plague, then there will be a power vacuum allowing others to fill.

brianthebard

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Their elite creamed off profits from slavery, and raiding, though? Dublin had the largest slave market in Europe at one time due to the Viking elite and their control of Dublin. Didn't Vikings move across from Sweden into Russia, following rivers, to where Moscow is now, the Rus tribe of Vikings, eventally giving Russia it's name? Likewise, the Northmen that settled in France giving their name to Normandy and the eventual Normans? Their home countries may not have benefited from this process, but the Viking elite sure did handsomely profit from it.

This is not imperialism though. The Vikings did not rule Ireland, and any Viking people in Ireland who had control did not do it in the name of their nation but for their own good. African tribes traded slaves with the British but I doubt you would call them imperialist.

Maybe I am. I guess my definition is where the elite of one tribe controls the means of production/natural resource/human resourse of both their own tribe and another's (or more than one other tribe).

But imperialism is not tribal (a word that is extremely unhelpful in historical terms btw)

But you'll agree that there is a tipping point? Once you go beyond hunter/gatherer and pastoralist and hit true farming, with the construction of towns and a burgeoning population, you are going to get imperialism?

There may be a tipping point, but it is not the one you are claiming, it does not automatically happen and is not predicated simply on the creation of towns.

The reason that most countries are not imperialists right now, is that there are a few big imperialists controlling things, namely the elite of many European and North American countries. If their societies ever collapse due to war/famine/plague, then there will be a power vacuum allowing others to fill.

And so, should we fear it?

Red Hand

brianthebard wrote: »

This is not imperialism though. The Vikings did not rule Ireland, and any Viking people in Ireland who had control did not do it in the name of their nation but for their own good. African tribes traded slaves with the British but I doubt you would call them imperialist.


But imperialism is not tribal (a word that is extremely unhelpful in historical terms btw)

There may be a tipping point, but it is not the one you are claiming, it does not automatically happen and is not predicated simply on the creation of towns.

OK, I concede that my examples are rubbish, but I do think that imperialism is a natural progression as a society and it's population grows.

And so, should we fear it?

Who is "we"?:) As Irish people, Europeans or as a species?

It depends. We seem to be doing well out of it at the moment as we are part of an imperialist bloc. But the one thing with empires is that they always collapse, so one day we may find ourselves as Europeans/Irish as being downtrodden peasants (again).:)

Getting ahead at the expense of others is deep trait in many of us and there will always be exploitation of somebody in civilisation.

brianthebard

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

OK, I concede that my examples are rubbish, but I do think that imperialism is a natural progression as a society and it's population grows.

But you haven't explained how or why. Biology and genetics is a poor excuse imo.

Who is "we"?:) As Irish people, Europeans or as a species?

It depends. We seem to be doing well out of it at the moment as we are part of an imperialist bloc. But the one thing with empires is that they always collapse, so one day we may find ourselves as Europeans/Irish as being downtrodden peasants (again).:)

Getting ahead at the expense of others is deep trait in many of us and there will always be exploitation of somebody in civilisation.

Well how about all three, Irish, Europeans, and species? As Irish people we are part of the EU and therefore engaged in neo-colonialist activities, but we are also under the thumb of the EU and the US to a large extent. As Europeans, we are faced still with the fallout of WWII and the end of European imperialism, and where to go from there. As a species, well we've had the cold war, and there is still a lot of aggression to and by the US, is there a danger to the species there?
Its not guaranteed that empire will continue either, Fukuyama's end of history theory suggests that European/Western liberal democracy will become the only ideology, and with that imperialism should cease.

ChocolateSauce

brianthebard wrote: »

What I said is not untrue, you are merely referring to a different period of time.

Yes indeed, I meant New Imperialism. Modern economic imperialism is a different matter....one I haven't truly given enough thought to to pronounce on it. Economics isn't one of my strong points.