Are You Comfortable With the Idea of Imperialism?

[Exarch]

Imperialism or neo-imperialism, whichever floats your boat;

Are you comfortable with imperialism?

Would you support your country/favoured nation/state if it had a (non official) policy of imperialism? to what extent?

why or why not?

EDIT: pls, no mudpit type discussions, i want to discuss objetively whether or not one (you) is comfortable with imperialism, and their motives for it, and how far they're willing for their gov. to act in order to carry out imperialist policies.

[dogukan]

No
But since I also consider arguing about "national" interests kind of backwardness, I don't sound that much anti-imperialist. It is kind of a sub-conciouss protest of mine to the socialist tradition in my country with its argument of imperialism BS and nothing else. Self-sufficient, this is imperialist, this is tools of imperialism, America, Israel British...blablalblalbalbal

As a socialist I am anti-imperialist, but I do not want people to be stuck with "national" interests.

[Exarch]

political realists-which seem are to be popular right now-would argue that imperialism is a natural part of 'life' and thus, aren't averse to policies that resemble 'imperialism

[dogukan]

political realists-which seem are to be popular right now-would argue that imperialism is a natural part of 'life' and thus, aren't averse to policies that resemble 'imperialism

Well of course. Imperialism is a reality of the world, and had been since the beginning of human history.
And a realist would understand why a state would would follow imperialist policies. I don't understand why Americans can't get this. It makes a lot of sense for USA to go in to Iraq. There are just so many ads on the long run, and yet Americans still claim they went there for the good of people.
Nowadays imperialism became a bad world so people are trying to change its "wording".
It used to be the most common thing a century ago and earlier than that.

Anyways, it making sense and being natural does not mean we are not going to oppose it

No idea what you are talking about since Socialism and Imperialism are not conflicting eachothers in ideology.

Well then you really have "no idea"

hint: Socialism=no class
No class=No global interests

Anti-imperialism, anti-racism/nationalism, anti-sexism...stuff like these are natural products of socialism. Of course the priority being anti-capitalism.

As for pre-revolutionized world
http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...-det/index.htm

[Ayleid]

Imperialism or neo-imperialism, whichever floats your boat?

Are you comfortable with imperialism?

Are we talking about Imperialism brought by as a result of the state, or of individuals pursuing imperialist objectives, due to a nationalistic ideology, for their state? I know you touch upon this below, but that is really a separate question altogether, but the reason I ask is; the state is representative of the country, whereas one individual and his backing are not. In the former, I am not comfortable with people who are chosen to represent me making imperialistic policy, purely as I feel it would reflect badly on my state. That and I disagree with how it is executed. Whereas in the latter, 'man on the spot' imperialism, the individual is not representative of my country, even if he shares my nationality- he was not elected through a system of representative democracy. If the state he colonises decides they wish to follow his decision via a democratic referendum then I have no problem with it.

Would you support your country/favoured nation/state if it had a (non official) policy of imperialism? To what extent?

Why or why not?

I believe I answered this in the above post. But let me clarify, let's say for a moment it was a possibility that the United Kingdom of Great Britain could implement said imperialist policy; it might be beneficial in the long run, but how would we justify, let alone fund an armed force capable of undertaking, such an endeavour? I know that is slightly beside the point, but it is all intertwined, due to the fact that I believe, as a rational person, that re-creating a system in which we, the UK, could pursue imperialist policies is antiquated, thankfully, due to an increase in awareness and education amongst the general populace. That Black people are in no way subordinate today is a beneficial change and is a good indicator that there would be full scale protest if the government was seen to be endorsing, let alone funding, imperialist interests. Attitudes have changed. I wouldn't support my Government having a policy of imperialism, unless the state becoming subordinate did so democratically or if they had committed heinous crimes against humanity- in which case the occupation would be a period of transition from a previous regime to a new one. Overall, to conclude this argument before it even starts, due to catch all politics our government the UK cannot enact imperialism as it is seen as our equivalent of the Holocaust; anyone who is seen to be a blind supporter of it is usually regarded as an extremist, fringe member of society. Therefore, the atrocities we have caused shouldn't occur again. So not only would I oppose a Governmental policy of imperialism, but I'm pretty sure my sentiments are echoed throughout the UK for reasons already mentioned.

[Azog 150]

In an ideal world I would be opposed.

But this isn't an ideal world and a nation has to look after itself and its interests- even at the expense of others. That's not to say I advocate all imperialistic actions. Only ones with real gain that don't involve too much ing over of the local population.

Iraq is an example. If Iraq had gone to plan and those leading it had had even the slightest bit of forethought for what would happen after Saddam was gone, then its an action I would have supported. The tyrant Saddam would have been toppled, Iran would have found itself further isolated, the US and Britain would have benefited from a more secure oil supply and business contracts and we would have a new democratic Middle Eastern ally. Great in theory.

As such that's not how things turned out. Iraq plunged into anarchy, over 130,000 people died in the ensuing violence, an inefficient, unstable and questionable democracy has been set up, £10 billion spent by Britain ($600 Billion- $3 Trillion spent in the USA's case), the country may yet plunge back into chaos, very few economic gains have been made and, to top it all off, Iraq has now entered Iran's sphere of influence. That's the sort of short-sighted imperialism I greatly oppose....

Basically, if economic and/or strategic gains can be made with minimal loss of life then I'm all for it- especially if its at the expense of tyrannical regimes.

[Exarch]

these are some interesting responses here, guys

it appears that whilst some appreciate the fruits of imperialism-the acquisition of strategic real estate or materiel-some would also disapprove or prefer to remain ignorant of the methods used to acquire those selfsame resources eg torture, indiscriminate collateral damage etc etc

[Boyar Son]

Nope. WW1 and WW2 were the largest conflicts ever seen and ruined entire countries and killed millions across the globe.

Imagine WW3 happening during the cold war. There might not even be a chance for it with WMD's flying around and obliterating cities and people in a few minutes or seconds. Each war with newer technology progressively leads to more deaths, all these death not being prevented because of old style tactics and strategy left over from the last war.

With all of the most developed nations might, the world will be scorched.

[hellheaven1987]

Nope. WW1 and WW2 were the largest conflicts ever seen and ruined entire countries and killed millions across the globe.

Imagine WW3 happening during the cold war. There might not even be a chance for it with WMD's flying around and obliterating cities and people in a few minutes or seconds. Each war with newer technology progressively leads to more deaths, all these death not being prevented because of old style tactics and strategy left over from the last war.

With all of the most developed nations might, the world will be scorched.

Without Imperialism men can still find other reasons to fire WMD against eachothers - like to spread Socialism by arms.

As a socialist I am anti-imperialist, but I do not want people to be stuck with "national" interests.

No idea what you are talking about since Socialism and Imperialism are not conflicting eachothers in ideology.

Either way, to answer OP - I am fine with National Imperialism, but I would not support it; after all, I only accept my own ambition, not my government's (not to mention I dislike government in any type).

[Boyar Son]

Without Imperialism men can still find other reasons to fire WMD against eachothers - like to spread Socialism by arms.

Imperialism.

[Exarch]

Without Imperialism men can still find other reasons to fire WMD against eachothers - like to spread Socialism by arms.

or to spread democracy by arms

[hellheaven1987]

or to spread democracy by arms

Or spread religion by arms, look at what Crusaders and Arabs had done; some wars are started for even simple reasons such as overpopulation.

[Viking Prince]

I would guess the first problem is to define the term(s) for Imperialism.

Is it imperialistic for the USA to have a system of reservations for native tribes? Some of these tribes issue passports that are recognized on the world stage.

Is it imperialistic to have military basing rights within other countries? Are there differences between USA bases in Germany and Japan as a result of WWII and perhaps the Phillapine and Cuban bases as a result of an even earlier war? What about military alliance bases?

Is it imperialistic to participate in foreign wars. Currently Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind. If so, does this make Canada imperialsitic?

What about some nonmilitary aspects to foreign policy such as bilateral trade agreements. Are these imperialistic compared to say more global agreements such as WTO?

I guess my point is that tossing about terms such as imperialism in the 21st century will mean a great deal less than when we were living in the 19th century and Cecil Rhodes set out to control the resources of Africa.

[Dr. Croccer]

Yes, but only for good reasons.

[hellheaven1987]

Yes, but only for good reasons.

What is good reason?? Possession of fake WMDs??

[Dr. Croccer]

What is good reason?? Possession of fake WMDs??

No, but the ending of an aggressive regime threatening the interests of others in a region is.

Fake WMDs is just a excuse.

[Jingles]

No I'm not comfortable with it. But then... When you say imperialism, I'm not sure you're thinking what I'm thinking.

[ivan_the_terrible]

I don't love it, but it doesn't bother me too much. As long as I'm not on the receiving end, of course.

[Jaketh]

hell yes, i would love for the USA to show its dominance

[Vizsla]

I feel it is wrong for people to tell other people how to live. This includes telling them how to run their countries.
I feel it is right for my country to defend itself, its interests and my freedom. This includes managing the efficient flow of needed resources from other people’s countries, and killing people who are trying to kill me.

So my position is essentially hypocritical in that I’m cool with imperialistic policies as long as you don’t call them imperialistic.
As long as we accept we’re doing morally dubious things for morally dubious reasons – I’m happy. The instant we start saying we’re special and we have a right to do morally dubious things – then I’m unhappy.