moon

Hi Caverdude,

I disagree that with you that the U.S. has not used force to expand its empire. In fact, this is exactly what it has done around the world. Nobody wants the type of system that has spread around the world under the name of "globalization," or more correctly, imperialism--it has to be forced on them.

The thing about the U.S. empire is that it has learned from past empires. It is not interested in acquiring land or annexing territory, but in maintaining control over resources and markets. For one thing, if you annex a territory, you have to grant the citizens of that territory some rights, which the U.S. does not want to do. Secondly, it costs a lot to maintain an occupation force. So, what the U.S. does is to prop up dictatorships all around the world that service what are called "the national interest," i.e. the interests of U.S. capital. This is done through a variety of mechanisms: bribing or extorting a ruling comprador class (most of Latin America), coups to install friendly dictators (Guatemala '54, Iran '53, Iraq '58, Congo '61, Indonesia '65, Chile '73), or, in extreme circumstances, outright invasion (Panama, Vietnam, Cambodia).

This is all done to maintain what are called "free markets," which is the freedom of U.S. capital to exploit the natural resources and people.

It is good to contrast what the U.S. did with what the USSR did. After WWII, the USSR imposed its style of government on the states it liberated from the Nazis. What did you expect them to do? It did not expand from there, however, and did not seek to install puppet governments around the world. Indeed, at times it even aided national liberation movements, and protected besieged states like Cuba from attack.

On the other hand, the U.S. after WWII immediately started re-organizing the old colonial empires of Europe under its own empire, essentially taking over the old empires of Britain and France. This process is known in the U.S. as "de-colonization." For a while it looked like the European capitalist states were tottering, and would fall to workers revolutions (communists). Thus, the U.S. launched a huge program to prop up the capitalists in Europe, sending massive amounts of aid to these states to stabilize the capitalist regimes and crush the communist movements. This was the Marshal Plan. In addition, the U.S. re-organized the Nazi intelligence apparatus into Death Squads to work in Latin America and East Europe to fight the the anti-Fascist goups, and assorted naer-do-wells like priests, labor leaders and human rights workers, all of which fell under the category of "communists."

Zar

Caverdude,

I just can't follow the idea that the U.S. is somehow different from other empires in any significant way (except, as I said, in terms of its kill power and potential reach), or that whatever differences do exist matter in the least to those who are ruled. It seems to me that the U.S. follows the British model of empire by installing local regimes to run its affairs rather than literally taking and occupying the lands in full. And the "human capital" is part of the booty, which would preculde simply exterminating them all. In the case of the U.S. empire (which is really just the "strong arm" of a loose international corporate empire), little slave children are as much a natural resource as a mine or a forest.

In any case, there is an intense subjugation by the U.S.'s agents in the foreign land. Personally, I don't think it matters one iota that this is how it is arranged -- the result is the same, and in fact makes subjugation somewhat more efficient when a corrupt local government is willing to do the job. Direct occupation is always much more costly and difficult, and people are people, so you can almost always find a greedy, cruel son-of-a-bitch who would much rather sleep with a powerful enemy than defend his people from its ravages.

Koyaanisqatsi

Absolutely true, Zar, but what's dying here is the hope of post facto redress, a concept largely lost to the rest of the world.

That's the only unique quality to America; the notion that rights are to be garnered from the State(Nation).

We Americans are idiots and actually think we have rights, but anybody with half a brain knows the truth; our rights only exist as points of law to argue after the fact.

However, unlike most nations, those post facto rights can actually be retrieved through our court system (depending upon, luckily, human error one way or another), so comparatively speaking, at leas the American jurisprudence is superior to all others currently existing.

Now, of course, that's a huge penalty to pay, considering all of the horrific side effects swallowing an American pill will unquestionably cause, but, again, comparatively speaking, if I'm guilty (and I'm brown), I'd much rather have a Panamanian jury than a Texan, right? Of course right.

Right? Can't everyone on the planet understand that trade off with unqualified love and affection? Hunh?

Zar

The reclamation of rights through jurisprudence is neither unique to America nor a result of its imperialism. I can live in a number of countries throughout the globe and experience something similar, and probably have even more freedoms in some, especially after Patriot Act I and the forthcoming Patriot Act II. I seem to be able to admire America's tradition of the "rule of law", insofar as it still meaningfully exists, while also rejecting imperialism without contradicting myself. Communists may beg to differ, of course, since they see Western liberalism as a bulwark of bourgeois capitalist exploitation. But that is another matter.

Rusting Car Bumper

I find the claim that the U.S is imperialistic to be laughable....

...at least thats what I think today...

DC

emphryio

The Parenti link is an excellent one.

What did you think of it Digital Chicken?

Atticus_Finch

The Cambridge International Dictionary of English defines "Imperialism" as "a system in which a country rules other countries, sometimes having used force to obtain power over them." Under such a definition I would agree that the United States often attempts to rule over other countries sometimes using force and often using economic coercion.

But is that really the important question? Every country with any military or economic power tries to influence and "rule" other countries for its benefit. The appropriate question is whether U.S. "imperialism" promotes the greater good of the world as a whole. I suggest that it does.

No country in the history of the world has provided greater personal and economic freedom to its citizens than the U.S. The U.S. has a strong history of promoting freedom and democracy around the world. Certainly we have strayed from that course from time to time either for improper motives or in the interest of self-preservation. But overall I would willingly compare our record to any other nation.

Regards,

Finch

DaDaimon

What is bad about imperialism?

cjack

Obviously, there are plenty of people who would disagree with the notion that the U.S. promotes "the greater good," but I think your post raises a more important question:

Given the same amount of economic, military, and political power, what nation would NOT try to influence other nations in their own self-interest?

The difference between the U.S. and other "empires" is that we have an election every 4 years to pick a new "emperor."

How well could a presidential candidate hope to do if he (or she) promised to stop promoting U.S. interests throughout the world?

Atticus_Finch

We at least know what happened when the guy elected decided to stop promoting U.S. interests throughout the world once he was in office. His name was Jimmy Carter.

Regards,

Finch