Syria vote: impasse of British imperialism

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
jk1921
Syria vote: impasse of British imperialism
Printer-friendly version

The discussion that follows was prompted by the article: Syria vote: impasse of British imperialism. The discussion was initiated by jk1921.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!

jk1921
Good piece. I think though

Good piece. I think though that there is a continuing danger of exagerating the "weakeness" of US imperialism. We have to keep in mind that this weakness is relative to the position it once held vis a vis its bloc disciples. Its not weakness in an absolute sense (like what British imperialism is suffering). The US remains the world's only superpower and will likely retain this status for the forseeable future, even as its problems develop.

The article makes reference to a rising German imperialism. Do we really continue to see German imperialism as rising? We have been on this narrative now for over two decades and still German imperialism remains largely stifled at the political/military level, even if at the economic level it retains a certain hegemony in the Eurozone. But isn't it precisely this role as Eurozone lender of last resort that keeps German imperialism bogged down on the European continent, unable to really project its power beyond? There seems a dearth of translations from the German section analyzing the position of German imperialism.

I wonder if instead its time to consider if there is something like a resurgence of Russian imperialism going on--or is this an illusion of the particular situation regarding Syria, etc. ?

As to parts of the UK bourgeoisie recognizing that it must acede to a secondary role--does this modulate our analysis of imperialism and the political life of the bourgeoisie at all? Are we admitting that it it is not always the most agressive and militaristic factions of the bourgeoisie that come to power at as given moment? Does this make them any less "imperialisitic"? What does this mean exactly?

Fred
Isn't there a danger of

Isn't there a danger of exaggerating the power and glory of the Imperialisms?  Just how "super" is the   world's remaining Super Power?  Obama appears so feeble and incapable of action. Putin rides around on his cart  horse, stripped to his podgy waste, but spends his time attacking gays and women, and admiring his collection of expensive watches.  Oh yes! I know they could destroy each other and sll of us: possibly by accident too.  But are they not beginning to display a sort of senile impotence, as their inability to control and develop their economies is ever more exposed?   Not that Imperialism's magnificent leaders ever could control their economies, but the idea that they could and somehow did used to be very prevalent. 

Obama snubbed Cameron (that'll be water off Cameron's duck like back, as an endless sequence of embarrassing howlers don't  appear to bother Cameron's upper class superiority - god given, like his riches - and he just moves recklessly onto his next "top table" assignment). But then who was that S. American President who has just snubbed Obama by canceling her State Visit to the all-powerful US over a matter so vital I can't even remember what it was?  She wouldn't have done this years ago, when the US was an Imperialism not to be messed with! 

So maybe it isn't just Germany's Imperialism which is failing, but the whole lot of them. China and Japan bicker over some tiny islands, and China bickers with the Phillipines over fishing rights.  In the good old days of Imperialism, the stronger got their way without too much petty bickering.  Now they all  seem scared.  It must be decomposition.  Or is it the undefeated  proletariat? 

Back in World War 2 Imperialisms that felt confident and strong didn't bother with mere snubs, they struck with the mailed fist.  Diplomacy went by the board.  Truman didn't waste much  time buttering up the Japanesr but used THE BOMB.  Hitler met with Chamberlain and promised to be a good boy and signed Chamberlain's paper,  which the latter was  famously captured on film fluttering  on his return to England.  Shortly after, Germany invaded Poland.  These were the good old days when being an Imperialism   meant something. On yes!  Once  they could perpetrate tragedies, now it's all a farce!

It 's time we dumped them all  in the rubbish bin from whence they came. (Hope I don't lose  this post too.) 

jk1921
The US has 11 aircraft

The US has 11 aircraft carriers compared to China's 1, Russia's 1, France's 1 and the UK's zero (two under construction). That's how "super" the US's imperialist power is. Its true that the US is having a great deal of trouble at the moment in pursuing its imperial project, but it remains the only power capable of projecting itself beyond its continental borders on a sustained basis.

The "weakening" of US imperialism--long a leftist dream--is real, but let's keep it in perspective.