Anti-imperialism, strictly speaking, is a term that may be applied to a movement opposed to any form of colonialism or imperialism. Anti-imperialism includes opposition to wars of conquest, particularly of non-contiguous territory or people with a different language or culture; it also includes people opposing the expansion of a country beyond earlier borders.[1]
Contents |
The term "Imperialism" was originally introduced into English in its present sense in the late 1870s by opponents of the allegedly aggressive and ostentatious imperial policies of British prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli.[2] It was shortly appropriated by supporters of "imperialism" such as Joseph Chamberlain. For some, imperialism designated a policy of idealism and philanthropy; others alleged that it was characterized by political self-interest, and a growing number associated it with capitalist greed. John A. Hobson and Lenin added a more theoretical macroeconomic connotation to the term. Many theoreticians on the left have followed either or both in emphasizing the structural or systemic character of "imperialism." Such writers have expanded the time period associated with the term so that it now designates neither a policy, nor a short space of decades in the late 19th century, but a global system extending over a period of centuries, often going back to Christopher Columbus and, in some facts, to the Crusades. As the application of the term has expanded, its meaning has shifted along five distinct but often parallel axes: the moral, the economic, the systemic, the cultural, and the temporal. Those changes reflect - among other shifts in sensibility - a growing unease, even squeamishness, with the fact of power, specifically, Western power.[3][4]
The relationship among capitalism, aristocracy, and imperialism has long been debated among historians and political theorists. Much of the debate was pioneered by such theorists as Hobson, Joseph Schumpeter, Thorstein Veblen, and Norman Angell.[5] While these writers were at their most prolific before World War I, they remained active in the interwar years. Their combined work informed the study of imperialism's impact on Europe, as well as contributed to reflections on the rise of the military-political complex in the United States from the 1950s. Hobson argued that domestic social reforms could cure the international disease of imperialism by removing its economic foundation. Hobson theorized that state intervention through taxation could boost broader consumption, create wealth, and encourage a peaceful multilateral world order. Conversely, should the state not intervene, rentiers (people who earn income from property or securities) would generate socially negative wealth that fostered imperialism and protectionism.[6][7]
As a self-conscious political movement, anti-imperialism originated in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in opposition to the growing European colonial empires and the US control of the Philippines after 1898.[8] However, it reached its highest level of popular support in the colonies themselves, where it formed the basis for a wide variety of national liberation movements during the mid-20th century and later. These movements, and their anti-imperialist ideas, were instrumental in the decolonization process of the 1950s and 1960s, which saw most European colonies in Asia and Africa achieving their independence.[9]
An early use of the term "anti-imperialist" occurred after the United States entered the Spanish-American War in 1898.[10] Most activists supported the war itself but opposed the annexation of new territory, especially the Philippines.[11] The Anti-Imperialist League was founded on June 15, 1898 in Boston, in opposition of the acquisition of the Philippines, which happened anyway.The anti-imperialists opposed the expansion because they believed imperialism violated the credo of republicanism, especially the need for "consent of the governed." Fred Harrington states, "the anti-imperialist's did not oppose expansion because of commercial, religious, constitutional, or humanitarian reasons but instead because they thought that an imperialist policy ran counter to the political doctrines of the Declaration of Independence, Washington's Farewell Address, and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address".[12][13][14]
The Dervish State (Somali: Daraawiish, Arabic: دولة الدراويش) was an early 20th century Somali Sunni Muslim state that was established by Muhammad Abdullah Hassan, a religious leader who gathered Somali soldiers from across the Horn of Africa and united them into a loyal army known as the Dervishes. This Dervish army enabled Hassan to carve out a powerful state through conquest of lands claimed by the Somali Sultans, the Ethiopians and the European powers. The Dervish State acquired renown in the Islamic and Western worlds due to its resistance against the European empires of Britain and Italy. The Dervish forces successfully repulsed the British Empire in four military expeditions, and forced it to retreat to the coastal region.[15] . It is at that time the only African state that fought against the colonizing Europeans. It became the symbol of the African struggle against Europe.[16]
| “ | We must bear in mind that imperialism is a world system, the last stage of capitalism — and it must be defeated in a world confrontation. The strategic end of this struggle should be the destruction of imperialism. Our share, the responsibility of the exploited and underdeveloped of the world is to eliminate the foundations of imperialism: our oppressed nations, from where they extract capitals, raw materials, technicians and cheap labor, and to which they export new capitals — instruments of domination — arms and all kinds of articles; thus submerging us in an absolute dependance | ” |
|
— Che Guevara, Message to the Tricontinental, 1967 [17]
|
In Das Kapital, Karl Marx considered imperialism to be part of the prehistory of the capitalist mode of production. Conversely, Lenin defined imperialism as "the highest stage of capitalism", the era in which monopoly finance capital becomes dominant, forcing nations and corporations to compete for control over resources and markets all over the world. Lenin's theory of imperialism has since been adopted by a majority of Marxists.
The Marxist and Leninist views of imperialism, and related theories such as dependency theory, mostly look at the economic rather than military or political (though these are related) dominance of certain countries over others. Imperialism thus consists not necessarily in the direct control of one country by another, but in the economic exploitation of one region by another, or of a group by another. This usage differs from a popular conception of 'imperialism', as directly controlled colonial or neocolonial empires.
Lenin held that imperialism was a stage of capitalist development, with five simultaneous features:[18]
War is generally seen as a method of furthering imperialist interests, which is why Marxists generally see antimilitarism and opposition to 'capitalist wars' as an integral part of anti-imperialism. The relationship of Marxists and other radical left-wing groups with anti-war movements often involves them trying to convince other activists to turn pacifism into anti-imperialism - that is, to move from a general opposition to war towards a condemnation of the economic system that is seen as driving wars (or from pacifism to specific anti-imperialist antimilitarism). [1]
The Soviet Union also claimed to be the foremost enemy of imperialism and supported many independence movements throughout the Third World. However, at the same time, it can also be argued that it was imperialist, as it asserted its dominance over the countries of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. This has led many to accuse the Soviet Union of hypocrisy, and it is often used as an argument for the idea that the Soviet Union did not, in fact, follow Marxist principles, or alternatively, for example by anarchists, as an argument for the failure of Marxism as a solution to imperialism. Notably, Mao Zedong developed the theory that the Soviet Union was a "social-imperialist" nation, a socialist nation that had imperialist tendencies. However, Mao presided over the imperialist occupation of Tibet. This is an important aspect of Maoist analysis of the Soviet Union's history.[19]
The term "anti-imperialism" is today most commonly used by Marxists and those with closely similar ideas (anti-capitalism, a class analysis of society). Others who might be accurately described as anti-imperialists, and who would probably accept the description, nevertheless tend to use different terminology.[20]
Feminist theories of international relations often fall under the category of anti-imperialism. They may draw a connection between sexism or patriarchy and war and hegemony in any of several ways, for example: a link between the idea of masculinity and the drive towards war; a theory of the way the self and the other are constructed which ties allegedly sexist modern Western notions of male and female to allegedly racist, colonialist modern Western notions of the nation-state and the alien; a location of the cause of the alleged failure of government officials to attempt seriously to resolve conflicts peacefully or consider others' perspectives in an ideology which derides the supposedly feminine qualities of love, empathy, and surrender. J. Ann Tickner and Cynthia Enloe are well-known writers in this field. bell hooks also discusses this philosophy, especially in its relation to the lives and stereotypes of black males.
There is a fairly strict division between "right-wing" anti-imperialism within powerful countries and that within their weaker clients or opponents, resulting from the fact that most right-leaning opponents of imperialism remain ideologically attached to their own nation or people.
Modern lines of thought within allegedly imperialist powers that are arguably both "right-wing" and "anti-imperialist" tend to divide into two general strains, Libertarianism and Paleoconservatism. The latter, prominently represented by Andrew Bacevich and Patrick Buchanan, is differentiated from the former, prominently represented by Justin Raimondo and Ron Paul, by an association with social conservatism. Both are more influential within the United States than outside it, and both tend to see imperialism as in neither the best interests nor the real traditions of their country, giving them an ideological continuity with isolationism.
Right-wing nationalists and religious fundamentalist movements that have emerged in reaction to alleged imperialism might also fall within this category; for example, Khomeinism historically derived much of its popularity from its appeal to widespread anger at American intervention or influence in Iran and the Middle East.
The Indian Jamaat-e-Islami Hind launched a 10-day Nation-wide campaign titled Anti-Imperialism Campaign in December 2009.[21]
Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt assert that traditional anti-imperialism is no longer relevant. In the book Empire,[22] Negri and Hardt argue that imperialism is no longer the practice or domain of any one nation or state. Rather, they claim, the "Empire" is a conglomeration of all states, nations, corporations, media, popular and intellectual culture and so forth, and thus, traditional anti-imperialist methods and strategies can no longer be applied against them.
French philosopher and author Bernard-Henri Lévy also argues in his book Left in Dark Times [23] that modern anti-imperialism is nothing more than thinly disguised anti-Americanism and has been too commonly evoked by Third World dictators and extremist movements to distract their audiences from their own crimes and abuses of power.
The Anti-Imperialists, A Web based guide to American Anti-Imperialism
|
||||||||||||||||