Do we live in an age of empire?

The study of imperialism has evolved tremendously in the last century: it has become a study which has increasingly moved away from analyzing old legendary empires such as the Roman Empire, and now focus on nations such as Modern Japan, China, Europe and above all the USA. Indeed, theorists of the Marxist and Realist realm of thought have been obsessed with the idea of the USA as the leading Empire in the 20th and 21st century . The question to be analyzed in this essay is whether we live in an age of empire? This question will be discussed by looking at various theories of international relations. The first part of this essay will attempt to argue that Imperialism prevails, and the second part will attempt to counter argue with thinkers such as Robert Cox and Stephen Gill. It will become apparent that the answer to this question depends on whether one believes the primary actors within the international system are states or institutions.

Firstly, even before the discussion can be initiated, it is important to explain what is meant by the term imperialism in this essay. “Imperialism can be defined very broadly or very narrowly” , where the narrow definitions commit themselves to political ideologies. Because this essay will touch various different regimes this essay will use a rather simplistic yet explanatory definition by Johan Galtung. Galtung in his journal A structural Theory of Imperialism defines the concept in terms of center periphery relations: where the “center nation has power over the periphery nation, so as to bring about a condition of disharmony of interest between them.” In order to completely understand the definition it is important to bear in mind that there are two types of imperialism- formal and informal. These two types differentiate imperialism of the past and what one considers imperialism of the modern age to be. Hereby formal imperialism refers to the center nation influencing power on its colonies and informal imperialism refers to the center nation influencing a region (or a particular country) in the military, social and commercial sense . This essay will be concentrating on informal imperialism since with the change in world order there are not many colonies in the traditional sense.

Marxists and realists argue for different reasons that imperialism is an inevitable process. In short, Marxists argue that imperialism occurs alongside or as a result of capitalism, while on the other hand realists dispute that the wish to dominate is enshrined in human nature and is an impulse to states. Even though these views are radically different, they hold that the state is a primary actor and that we live in an age of imperialism.

Imperialism in the Marxist sphere is generally described by the famous subtitle of Lenin’s work: “the highest stage of capitalism” . In brief, this phrase refers to a specific point in the capitalist development where a nation has reached its peak in what it can generate within its state territory. At this peak the state is obliged by capitalist momentum to expand to other nations to continue its capitalist path in yielding further profit. Karl Kautsky explains this in his book Marxism, Revolution & Democracy: Imperialism as “the drive of every industrial capitalist nation to subject and attach to itself an ever growing agrarian territory regardless of what nations inhabit it” . Not only is imperialism the next step once a capitalist state reaches the peak in home productions but any predominant nation in commerce and industry feels forced to continue to “seek markets, and, where possible, to control the to its own advantage” . As a matter of fact, Rosa Luxembourg thinks that there is an unavoidable logical cycle in capitalism: Industry, Markets, Control, navy bases . This cycle, in the Marxist view point inescapably leads to either formal or informal imperialism. Moreover, Lenin believed that the capitalist state would attach itself to less economically developed countries (LEDC’s) instead of more economically developed countries (MEDC’s) because labor and capital are inexpensive and hence more profit can be generated. However modern Marxists are of the opinion that a capitalist state is as likely to expand into MEDC’s because they are more reliable investments. Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy who have studied modern capitalist imperialism, portray foreign investment and humanitarianism as imperialism. They maintain that "foreign investment must be looked upon as a method of pumping surplus out of underdeveloped areas, not as a channel through which surplus is directed into them."' In other words, foreign investment and humanitarianism is an underhanded imperialistic way of profiting.

Unlike from Marxism, the realist theory propagates the idea of power politics; which perceives state security, survival and national interests as the most important factors to the state. Even though realists have a different view from Marxists about imperialism, they are the same in that they believe in the inevitability of imperialism today. Indeed scholars like Hans Morgenthau are of the opinion that the concept is inevitable because it is the result of human nature. Morgenthau affirms that “the drives to live, to propagate, and to dominate are common to all men” . Morgenthau also claims that these human natural impulses are related to imperialism: “the tendency to dominate… is an element of all human associations… as such it foreshadows the conflict between the policies of the status quo and the policies of imperialism” . This analysis is shared by Reinhold Niebuhr who believes that men are driven by the will to power because we are “tainted by original sin, driven by pride and insecurity” . Niebuhr explains that because the human nature incentivizes people to be power driven and power searching the world politics as a whole works with the same frame of mind. Furthermore, Realists like Waltz believe that the reoccurrence of imperialism in history, from the times of Thucydides to the 15th and 16th century suggests “that there is an inner logic of domination in world affairs which proves power, like nature, abhors a vacuum” . Or in other words “weakness invites control” . In fact Robert Gilpin and Landes write about the disparity of power: when a nation finds itself in a vulnerable position, other nations will attempt to expand and take advantage of the weaker nation because there is a vacuum of power. Additionally, Rajan Menon and John Oneal come to the conclusion in their work titled Polity that “imperialism is due not to the order within states but the disorder among them.” What one can understand from their conclusion is that when a state finds itself in leadership, war, economic or other state of turmoil, there is a consequent vacuum of power within this disorder which leads to other power seeking nations attempting to dominate.

Both the Marxist and realist realm believe that the state is the primary actor in the world system. One of the biggest differences however is that Marxists generally think that the bourgeoisie’s opinion is what leads this state to act imperially and realists in majority believe that national interest is what drives them to act imperially. However, both are of the opinion that there is a constant move towards imperialism in this modern age- the Marxists believing in short that this occurs because of capitalist tendencies, while on the other hand realists believe it’s the natural tendencies of the stronger states to dominate and seek more power.

There are strong arguments from different political theories for there being imperialism in the modern world of today. However, the arguments dissolve when one takes the unusual position of thinkers such as Robert Cox, who are of the opinion that the primary actors in the international system have shifted from the state into economic institutions because of globalization. Their primary argument in its simplest suggests that as states have lost their complete sovereignty to the wide economic sphere and institutions, there cannot be imperialism: because imperialism requires that the state is the primary actor, for there to be center periphery relations. There are various critiques to this unconventional theory and they will also be touched upon.

Globalization has impacted greatly in the change of world order and has to a great extent challenged the “old Westphalian assumption that a state is a state is a state.” Indeed, to the prophets of globalization, “the Nation state ceases to be a political institution capable of exerting influences on the activities of capital” . In fact, Stephen Gill gives reference to various economic case studies to express that there cannot be an empire. Firstly, Stephen Gill writes about how the “US economy is losing its lead in Productivity” and this is a problem specially now since the US is relying on foreign finance from China and elsewhere to sustain a “level of military and civilian consumption that US production would otherwise not allow” . This leaves the nation in a vulnerable position, where its fate is in the hands of other nations. In other words the US success in the world stage could be blocked by other nations. Robert Cox questions how such an exposed state could be an imperial power? Secondly, Stephen Gill also brings an interesting point into the debate about the interlinked economy in the globalized world order. Gill claims that “more and more, national debts are foreign debts, so that states have to be more attentive to external bond markets and to externally-influenced interest rates in determining their own economic policies.” So in practical terms, each country involved in the global economy is directly affected by what happens in another nation regardless of how calculated and cautious they are in their own economics. This dissolves the realist idea that the state is the main actor in the system because a state has lost its power in controlling its economy and markets. This begs the question: if states have lost their economic control, then how can a nation in this modern globalized world be an Empire?
There are various critiques to this alternative theory on the world order besides the obvious Marxist and Realist critiques. In fact, Robert Giplin counter argues Stephen Gill and the ideas of Robert Cox by suggesting that the “role of the nation state in economics as well as in political life is increasing” instead of decreasing. Giplin explains that this happens because “multinational corporation(s) (are) actually a stimulant to the further extension of the state power in the economic realm” . Hence Giplin is of the opinion that nations are, as a matter of fact, gaining further autonomy. Moreover other critics sympathize that nations loose a reasonable amount of economic sovereignty with globalization. However, they criticize the argument by stating that it completely disregards the military. They believe that a nation can become an empire with military power. Such critics make reference to the US and the fact that they have military bases in 13 countries outside North America in key strategic geographic locations which in turn applies political pressure on neighboring countries. The last major criticism is that the work of Stephen Gill can seem contradictory. Gill writes that empires cannot evolve in this modern world. However, he must accept informal imperialism to some extent since in his work titled ‘Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations’ he recognizes that there are three macro-regional economic spheres in USA, Europe and in East Asia that dominate the economic world and have power over micro-regions.
This avant-garde view on the world order bears some interesting and valid points when one considers the economic sphere today- but it is flawed in that it is contradictory. Perhaps it is contradictory since it is perhaps a less explored view of the world order. However, what is interesting is that it turns away from the traditional thought that the state is all powerful, and turns to challenging persons to think of a more ‘Borderless’ world where institutions such as the United Nations or World Trade Organization are primary actors. In theory, if institutions are the primary actors, then imperialism is impossible since it requires states to be the primary actors.