That wouldn’t really address my objection. My point is that some imperialism can be entirely internal to the artificial boundaries of nation-states as defined by the global ruling class. In fact I would say this is nearly universal, especially within more geographically large and diverse nations.
Like is the US’s exploitation of Mexican citizens within its borders categorically different than the exploitation of Mexican citizens outside of its borders? Sure, the details differ. But I think the overall dynamic is essentially the same.
That wouldn’t really address my objection. My point is that some imperialism can be entirely internal to the artificial boundaries of nation-states as defined by the global ruling class.
I don’t understand why you would want to label that as imperialism rather than plain old class domination, carried out through various oppressive power structures.
Edit: To clarify: the subjugation of non-capitalist societies and incorporation of their land etc. was undoubtedly an act of imperialism. But I find the definition of imperialism most useful to describe the expansionist nature of capitalits societies, appropriating land, resources, labour as well as markets by some degree of violence outside the locus of their respective state (with its monopoly on violence). Once incorporated into the state, the violence remains but its goal is no longer appropriation/expansion but continued domination of those already subjugated.
Well, this is a phenomenon that’s discussed in the existing egalitarian literature, and the terminology is usually different, so it’s a bit confusing to use the word “imperialism” imo, because it’s not the done thing, even it would be a valid choice.
States generally are formed when a belligerent group enters a region, enslaving the population and installing itself as rulers. In such a case, the ruling ideology develops to affirm both classes as of the same nation. Under imperialism, a ruler sends conquerors and colonizers to an established nation. If the nation has its own internal class division, then its rulers are forced to accept vassalage to the imperialist power. The imperialist power installs an ideology of its own national supremacy, by which the two nations are maintained as separate in identity and stature.
Fair, there are some slight differences. I just am annoyed by the auth-left obsession with nationalism. To the extent that they seem to care more for national sovereignty than real autonomy and liberation. And this focus on imperialism as the ultimate evil above similar forms of nationalist oppression is part of that dynamic.
Simpy, states and imperialism are the overarching power structures of our world.
We cannot discuss our present conditions effectively except through a willingness to consider the prominence of such systems.
Authoritarians constantly emphasize imperialism because they believe change occurs beginning at the top, and as such, they place limited importance on local organization. However other leftists also should emphasize criticisms of imperialism, whereas many imagine change proceeding in a frame that is strictly national, without any transformation of the overarching state and imperialist order.
That wouldn’t really address my objection. My point is that some imperialism can be entirely internal to the artificial boundaries of nation-states as defined by the global ruling class. In fact I would say this is nearly universal, especially within more geographically large and diverse nations.
Like is the US’s exploitation of Mexican citizens within its borders categorically different than the exploitation of Mexican citizens outside of its borders? Sure, the details differ. But I think the overall dynamic is essentially the same.
I don’t understand why you would want to label that as imperialism rather than plain old class domination, carried out through various oppressive power structures.
Edit: To clarify: the subjugation of non-capitalist societies and incorporation of their land etc. was undoubtedly an act of imperialism. But I find the definition of imperialism most useful to describe the expansionist nature of capitalits societies, appropriating land, resources, labour as well as markets by some degree of violence outside the locus of their respective state (with its monopoly on violence). Once incorporated into the state, the violence remains but its goal is no longer appropriation/expansion but continued domination of those already subjugated.
Well, this is a phenomenon that’s discussed in the existing egalitarian literature, and the terminology is usually different, so it’s a bit confusing to use the word “imperialism” imo, because it’s not the done thing, even it would be a valid choice.
States generally are formed when a belligerent group enters a region, enslaving the population and installing itself as rulers. In such a case, the ruling ideology develops to affirm both classes as of the same nation. Under imperialism, a ruler sends conquerors and colonizers to an established nation. If the nation has its own internal class division, then its rulers are forced to accept vassalage to the imperialist power. The imperialist power installs an ideology of its own national supremacy, by which the two nations are maintained as separate in identity and stature.
Fair, there are some slight differences. I just am annoyed by the auth-left obsession with nationalism. To the extent that they seem to care more for national sovereignty than real autonomy and liberation. And this focus on imperialism as the ultimate evil above similar forms of nationalist oppression is part of that dynamic.
Simpy, states and imperialism are the overarching power structures of our world.
We cannot discuss our present conditions effectively except through a willingness to consider the prominence of such systems.
Authoritarians constantly emphasize imperialism because they believe change occurs beginning at the top, and as such, they place limited importance on local organization. However other leftists also should emphasize criticisms of imperialism, whereas many imagine change proceeding in a frame that is strictly national, without any transformation of the overarching state and imperialist order.