Globalization and Imperialism Analysis - Essay Example

? Globalisation and Imperialism: An Analysis of The New Imperialism by David Harvey Essay May 23, 1890 words of Introduction A new historical age was expected to arrive in the 1970s. This age has been illustrated in different ways. A number of theories have highlighted cultural transformations, whilst others emphasise economic changes, transformations in the financial and business world, or in marketing and production. Such illustrations share an obsession with new communications and information technologies, such as the Internet. As argued by intellectuals, such as David Harvey, modernity and postmodernity embody two distinct stages of capitalism. The transition from one phase to another has not been a transition from capitalism to a certain ‘post-capitalist’ period, and the underlying principle of capitalist accumulation remains alive.1 This essay analyses David Harvey’s theory of new imperialism. The first section discusses the argument that imperialism is a part of the cycles of capitalism. The second section discusses ‘accumulation by dispossession’ as a permanent part of capitalism. The third section discusses how crucial is war to underpinning the theory of the new imperialism. The last part is a conclusive response to the entire analysis. Imperialism as a Part of the Cycles of Capitalism David Harvey describes the new imperialism in relation to two power logics: (1) capitalist logic of power, and (2) territorial logic of power. Harvey states that the former “operates in continuous space and time” 2 and sustains capitalistic operations via market processes; whilst the latter “operates in a territorialised and, at least in democracies, in a temporality dictated by an electoral cycle.”3 However, in the case of imperialism, so as to sustain one’s supremacy it should expand and strengthen its ‘territorial logic of power’ outside its boundaries, and reinforce political division of power. Thus, basically, the two power logics do not continuously operate automatically, but dialectically. Harvey argued that the theory of Marx suggested that capitalism could break free from its own contradictions or negations merely by means of ‘expansion’. Expansion was all together ‘geographical extension’ and ‘intensification’, even though the ideas of Marx did not envisage when, where, and how these processes would take place in given circumstances.4 As argued by Harvey, the capitalist and territorial mechanisms are distinct or independent, but interweave and it is the reality of the survival of capitalism, detached from the ultimate form of rational markets and ideal competition, that bring about imperialism: Imperialistic practices, from the perspective of capitalistic logic, are typically about exploiting the uneven geographical conditions under which capital accumulation occurs and also taking advantage of what I call the ‘asymmetries’ that inevitably arise out of spatial exchange relations... through unfair and unequal exchange, spatially articulated monopoly powers, extortionate practices attached to restricted capital flows and the extraction of monopoly rents.5 The expansion of capitalist trade globally is, in any case, not in itself unknown: in theory, capitalism is ‘expansionary and imperialistic.’6 The ideas of Harvey are informed about the latest aspects of globalising capital whilst emphasising its links with previous structures.7 For example, it is definitely the case that developments in transportation, communications, and information technologies have recreated the temporal and spatial experiences of numerous people. Accumulation by Dispossession David Harvey, in the neoliberal age, has proposed that primary types of destruction and dispossession have become integral to the perpetuation of political system. Harvey claims that accumulation by dispossession is a permanent part of capitalism by explaining that the purportedly primitive accumulation is actually unchanging and vital to the continuous capacity of capitalism to perpetuate itself.8 ‘Accumulation by dispossession’, according to Harvey, continuously survives in conflict with ‘accumulation by expanded reproduction’.9 As stated by Harvey, throughout the post-1973 period ‘accumulation by dispossession’ became increasingly important. Finance capital and credit agencies supported by the state were the “umbilical cord that ties together accumulation by dispossession and expanded reproduction.”10 David Harvey establishes the idea of ‘accumulation by dispossession’, wherein he introduces as a theory illustrating the contemporary forms of what Marx referred to as ‘original accumulation’, or ‘primitive accumulation’. According to Marx, this idea represented that type of “accumulation, which is not the result of the capitalist mode of production, but its point of departure.”11 In a more abstract and broader way, original accumulation involves the detachment of the actual producers from the means of production. In Marx’s investigation of the historical mechanism of primitive accumulation in Western Europe, he placed emphasis on the oppression of labourers and their alienation from the means of production (e.g. land).12 In other words, Marx viewed ‘accumulation by dispossession’ as merely one of the stages of capitalism. But Harvey introduces ‘accumulation by dispossession’ to illustrate that it is not just a stage of capitalism but a permanent part of it. Hence, Harvey’s ‘accumulation by dispossession’ is impossible to exist in harmony with Marx’s theories. New structures of accumulation by dispossession comprise developments like the emergence of inner “cannibalistic as well as predatory and fraudulent practices”13, state privatisation, and the formation of a system of intellectual property rights: this fact shows that primitive accumulation is not a past phenomenon, a capitalism’s bygone period, but still survives all through the formation of the capitalist mode of production. Nevertheless, the major distinction between the original accumulation’s historical course that Marx studied and contemporary accumulation by dispossession is apparently that the former was undeniably a primitive course for it took place within the milieu of a pre-capitalist regime that was governed by a broad array of national structures distinguished by mostly non-capitalist modes of production. On the contrary, primitive accumulation in East Central Europe after the Cold War is occurring in the framework of a systematically capitalist global economy. This distinction has basic outcomes.14 Harvey associates the stream of accumulation by dispossession presently engulfing the entire world with the permanent ‘excessive accumulation’ catastrophe of capital, which he views as: (...) a condition where surpluses of capital (perhaps accompanied by surpluses of labour) lie idle with no profitable outlets in sight. The operative term here, however, is the capital surplus. What accumulation by dispossession does is to release a set of assets (including labour power) at very low (and in some cases zero) cost. Overaccumulated capital can seize hold of such assets and immediately turn them to profitable use.15 Therefore, the development of a capitalist class is the outcome, not the prerequisite, of the emergence of capitalism. It is merely when primitive accumulation is increasingly dwarfed by the expanded reproduction of capital that the world at once witnesses the emergence of a capitalist group and the formation of a genuine proletarian group. War and the Theory of the New Imperialism The combined power of military and economic force fascinates David Harvey. His perspective on the diverse economic, political, and military globalising powers operating nowadays encourages him to support what he refers to as the ‘new imperialism’. This perspective, even though representing a forceful conflict between capitalist economic motives and state territorial-political motives, eventually is liable to witness the success of a capitalist economic logic. He claims that although the conventional knowledge of imperialism had a tendency to discern an uncomplicated unity between economic and territorial motives, the existing international condition, demonstrated by the American incursion of Iraq, and its related decision to form new coalitions in Turkey, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East is motivated more by economic motives than territorial and political ones.16 As stated by Harvey, “the fundamental point is to see the territorial and the capitalist logics of power as distinct from each other”17; political and economic motives can be hostile or opposed and definitely do not agree at all times, as well as the reality that the internal political affairs of a country are often opposed over political-territorial and global economic interests. One of the major issues has been whether the structure of mostly non-territorial economic authority and dominance of the United States should be classified as imperialism. Harvey has claimed that the ‘new imperialism’ should be interpreted in relation to two combined but pure logics: (1) a molecular logic of capital accumulation, and (2) a territorial logic of political influence.18 He considers ‘war’ as a way of protecting the control of the United States over energy resources (e.g. oil) and hence strengthening its economic superiority. Discussion and Conclusions The New Imperialism of David Harvey has, by his concept of ‘space’ and effort to associate the force of capitalism towards imperialism with changes in the structure of profitability, for its purposes a large number of the instruments to present a genuinely precise and credible evaluation of imperialism nowadays and the recently forceful strategy of the United States above all. However, Harvey is prejudiced by an economic knowledge focused on weakening capitalism and dropping profitability and by a weak understanding of the importance of other scholars’ theory of imperialism making the theory fully incapable of illustrating the recently expansive character of American imperialism in a time when capitalism is spreading out forcefully and profitability is growing. The general idea of Harvey’s argument is that the unquenchable and unavoidable yearning for further resources and wealth by entities who control the national resources propels technological advancement and economic progress, producing geographical insecurity and inequity, when their desires go above the capability of their national economy. Their power stretches all over the nation, and the inconsistencies between capitalist and territorial interests are mitigated by a rational course of action, with the capitalists emerging as ultimate winners. Going beyond the limits of their territories, the same mechanisms are sent overseas by investment, trade, and the nation’s exercise of military influence, forming world domains. The protagonists of this narrative are the postmodern ‘revolutionary groups’ addressing globalisation, and the antagonists are the global capitalist group. Guiding the readers through the whole host of variable explanations given by the United States for attacking Iraq, Harvey tries to determine the actual, implicit reasons. First was perhaps to turn the attention of the people away from the increasing economic problem by generating a restoration of nationalism through terror. A second explanation could have been the aspiration of the United States to expand its influence to secure its strong standing in global affairs. However, it is actually the last explanation that Harvey thinks is the most compelling, based on this assumption: “whoever controls the Middle East controls the global oil spigot and whoever controls the global oil spigot can control the global economy, at least for the near future.”19 Bibliography Castree, N. & Gregory, D., David Harvey: A Critical Reader (London: John Wiley & Sons, 2008). Dillon, M., Introduction to Sociological Theory: Theorists, Concepts, and their Applicability to the Twenty-First Century (London: John Wiley & Sons, 2009). Harvey, D., The New Imperialism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). Harvey, D., Spaces of Global Capitalism (London: Verso, 2006). Harvey, D., The Enigma of Capital: And the Crises of Capitalism (London: Profile Books, 2011). Hobson, J.A., Imperialism: A Study (London: Spokesman Books, 1938). Overbeek, H., Van Apeldoom, B., & Nolke, A., The Transnational Politics of Corporate Governance Regulation (London: Routledge). Peschek, J., The Politics of Empire: War, Terror, and Hegemony (London: Taylor & Francis, 2005). Tonkiss, F., Contemporary Economic Sociology: Globalisation, Production, Inequality (London: Routledge, 2006). Veltmeyer, H., Imperialism, Crisis and Class Struggle: The Enduring Verities and Contemporary Face of Capitalism (The Netherlands: BRILL, 2010). Read More