New Imperialism: Toward a Holistic Approach

Abstract

A prominent theme in scholarly analyses of contemporary international affairs concerns the extent to which the unrivalled power and activities of the United States can be said to constitute a form of imperialism. Typically, the contours of this debate center on the ostensible differences between “old” and “new” varieties of imperialist practice. Yet the concept of “new imperialism” remains one on which little consensus exists. Wide differences of opinion on its origins, dynamics, and characteristics are evident, as is an analytical bifurcation between distinct “economic” and “geopolitical” explanations. This absence of conceptual unity leads to accounts of new imperialist strategy that are partial, limited, and incomplete. If the theoretical value of new imperialism is to be realized, a more holistic approach is needed. To this end, some of the key differences between the contexts of new and old imperialism are explored.

Towards an open Marxist theory of imperialism

“…8. There is a lack of clarity in the literature over where the novelty of 'new imperialism' actually lies: is it a description of a qualitatively different imperialism as it exists today, a new approach to the study of imperialism, or both (Kettell 2011(Kettell , 2012)? Harvey (2007: 57) also acknowledges this ambiguity and remarks that different obligations rest on either interpretation: if the former, then new concepts and ideas have to be marshalled to explain it in addition to a re-evaluation of older theories of imperialism.…”

Some thoughts on power: International context

“…These schools had the ambition to offer a new image in relation to power in transnational contexts, that is, a new concept vis-à-vis the old concepts of imperialism. Consequently, new concepts of imperialism have emerged (Steven Kettel and Alex Sutton 2013) What we evoke here is the fact that even Adam Smith emphasized in his famous reflections that the primary object of the political economy of certain countries is to increase wealth, as well as the "power" of that particular country. For us, the most important question is, of course, how the pairings of freedom and power emerge in the world order, which, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, was often referred to as the "new" world order.…”

Depoliticisation and the politics of imperialism

“…In the parlance of political economists, economic historians and public policy researchers, it can be considered a form of international economic policy (Schenk 1994;Krozewski 2001;Hinds 2001;Strange;Burnham 2000;2006;Sutton 2015). This international economic policy is formulated in the exact same nexus as all other policy and as much for domestic reasons as internationalwhatever that distinction may mean (Burnham 1998, 191;Kettell & Sutton 2013).…”

“…This approach 'sees relations between national states in terms of the social relationships which constitutes states as moments of the global composition of class relations' (Burnham 1998, 194-5). As such, the paper adopts the view that imperialism is not an essential or pre-determined characteristic or stage of capitalism, a unitary entity or institution, or even of a type of state, but is a strategy available, under particular circumstances, to state managers in order to manage those contradictions inherent to capitalist society (Sutton 2013).…”