Globalization or Imperialism?

A theory of “super-imperialism” says that imperialistic U.S. policies are driven not simply by the interests of American businesses, but by the interests of the economic elites of a global alliance of developed countries Capitalism in Europe, the U.S., and Japan has become too entangled, in this view, to permit military or geopolitical conflict between these countries, and the central conflict in modern imperialism is between the global core and the global periphery rather than between imperialist powers. Lenin argued this view was wishful thinking.

Caricature showing Uncle Sam lecturing four children labelled Philippines, Hawaii, Porto Rico  and Cuba in front of children holding books labelled with various U.S. states. The caption reads: “School Begins. Uncle Sam (to his new class in Civilization): Now, children, you’ve got to learn these lessons whether you want to or not! But just take a look at the class ahead of you, and remember that, in a little while, you will feel as glad to be here as they are!”

"School Begins"

Globalization is a monopoly game that was invented by the rich to colonize poor nations of the world and harvest their natural resources using the slave labor of their locals. And who do you think pays for this? Why, of course, the ordinary citizens of the world pay for it with our taxes that are used to fund the IMF. And no one asks our permission. In fact, our elected officials do the best they can to hide it from us. We are the ones whose tax money is given without our permission to support the vile actions of Wall Street and the murderous corporations that they support. How are these funds passed through our Congress? Requests for this money are attached as barnacles to other bills, hidden in pages of other global pork for Wall Street, that’s how. For example, in June of last year, funding for the IMF was slipped into a $106 billion war supplemental bill–no doubt to line the pockets of multibillion dollar war contractors. The House rebuked President Obama for trying to ignore restrictions to international aid payments, voting overwhelmingly for an amendment forcing the administration to abide by its constraints. House members approved an amendment by a 429-2 vote to have the Obama administration pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require a Treasury Department report on World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) activities.

“There is a vital distinction between being powerful–even most powerful in the world–and being an empire. Economic expansion does not equal imperialism, and there is no such thing as “cultural imperialism“. If America is an empire, then why was it unable to mobilize its subjects to support the war against Saddam Hussein? America is not an empire, and its power stems from voluntary associations and alliances. American hegemony is relatively well accepted because people all over the world know that U.S. forces will eventually withdraw from the occupied territories. The effect of declaring that the United States is an empire would not only be factually wrong, but strategically catastrophic. Contrary to the exploitative purposes of the British, the American intentions of spreading democracy and individual rights are incompatible with the notion of an empire. The genius of American power is, the United States has always made money for its partners. America has not turned countries in which it intervened into deserts; it enriched them. Even the Russians knew they could surrender after the Cold War without being subjected to occupation.”

Comment: What is the right decision? Should we follow the line of Globalization or the route to Imperialism? At this juncture in time neither is correct. Both have sent the world into a frenzy concerning Economics and world sufficiency. Hotdogfish!