Searching for Imperialism in the Era of Globalisation:

Transcription

1 Contemporary Issues and Ideas in Social Sciences November 2005 Searching for Imperialism in the Era of Globalisation: Book Review The Politics of Imperialism and Counterstrategies, edited by Pratyush Chandra, Anuradha Ghosh and Ravi Kumar, 2004, Aakar Books, Delhi. Anjan Chakrabarti 1 Department of Economics Calcutta University This book is a timely intervention in the debate on imperialism. Three issues seem to dominate the spirit of the book - (i) the role of state and, more specifically, what some called the super-state of United States as the fountain-head of a new imperialism, (ii) the role of global capitalist enterprises (both productive and financial) and the global institutions such as the WTO, World Bank and the IMF in creating what could be called the US Empire 1 chakanjana@yahoo.co.in

2 2 CIISS November 2005 and (iii) the counter-hegemonic strategies to be adopted to stave off the US Empire (see the introduction by Pratyush Chandra, Anuradha Ghosh and Ravi Kumar). Various essays in this book have intervened at one or more of these levels in trying to figure out the new place of imperialism and the possible forms of resistance to it. Simply for the fact that it sensitizes us to the issue of imperialism in this era of globalization is important enough reason to peruse this book. Essays by John Bellamy Foster, Prabhat Patnaik, Doug Lorimer, William Tabb, Peter McLaren and Nathalia E. Jaramillo, and James Petras throw light on the role of USA as an imperial power from various angles which, though, due to its repetition, does become monotonous at times. These essays give quite a detailed account of USA s role as an intervening force of violence and reaction in all parts of the world. In this regard, they agree that the current form of Empire is driven by US imperialism and is thus basically a US Empire. Samir Amin s piece is an important exception where he is trying to explicate the place of USA within Empire as a fledgling yet hegemonic existence. In a rather complex rendition, he treats the current form of imperialism as an attempt to create a collective imperialism (representing some common global interest) within which USA is trying to carve out a project of its own. Generally, in these essays, aspects such as finance capital, transnational corporations, rightwing Christian organizations, racism and so on are seen as fitting into and furthering the agenda of US Empire. The other significant aspect of this book is a discussion on counterhegemonic strategies (see pieces by Ana C. Dinerstein, Werner Bonefeld, Massimo De Angelis and John Holloway) though one must say that these generally lack specificities regarding the exact nature of possible resistances

3 Chakrabarti: Imperialism in the Era of Globalisation 3 and why these should be considered as effective in the context of overthrowing US Empire. In this context, Angelis is particularly interesting since the author is trying to switch attention to micro-level resistance from below as a form of global resistance against the mechanics of US Empire. What, however, remains inadequately addressed in this book is the renewed attempt to rethink the idea of imperialism from within the unfolding new global order or Empire. This of course requires problematizing the idea of Empire itself because any understanding of imperialism is rooted in the production of that idea. We will come back to this issue later on. Furthermore, granted that US Empire exists, one is left searching for answers in this book regarding the question of mechanics and forms of articulation of US imperialism with global capitalism in producing the formation of US Empire and the possible counter-hegemonic strategies in relation to this unfolding US Empire. The essays (with few exceptions) generally asserted the growing role of USA as the super imperial power in the era of globalization with the somewhat problematically assumed underlying belief in that role as also singularly driving the formation of global capitalism. The exact constitutive relations between the two (global capitalism and US imperialism) along with their contradictions are not sufficiently specified neither satisfactorily addressed (the pieces by Amin and Ronald Chilcote at least identify this as a theoretical problem for Radicals). Imperialism in this age, if it is to be theorized, must account for the massive changes that have occurred in the world in the last two decades. In the last two decades the globe has been changing in some fundamental ways with the fall of the Soviet Union and the old style planning system along with the ongoing attempt to create a new global order and, within it, a new

4 4 CIISS November 2005 kind of capitalism popularly described as global capitalism. Empire formation, whether US or otherwise, must be seen as taking place in the context of this materialising global capitalism. In this regard, though not exhaustive, aspects such as the formation of global capital, of mobility and flexibility of global capital, its relation to the non-capitalist enterprises forming what we may call the circuits of global capital, the global management of the operations of global capital and its circuits, the irreversible loss of the economic (and even political) power of the nation states as part of the formation of the global order, the relation of global order to nation states including that of USA in the context of this loss of economic power, the relations and contradictions between various forms of capital such as productive capital and financial capital, the role of local agencies such as NGOs with its relation to nation states, global capital and global institutions, cultural changes that provide indispensable conditions of existence to the formation of global capital, are not adequately explicated. Only a few of these aspects have been definitely covered in this book but that too so intermittently that it leaves one with a feeling of loss regarding how these elements that are fast materializing in all their mutating forms can be integrated into a concept of Empire. Any meaning of imperialism must be explained from within this production. To reduce imperialism to interventions and plots of USA (nobody is underrating the importance of these) that do not account for the above mentioned materializing changes in the nature of capital and its various conditions of existence is too simplistic a discussion on imperialism. In this context, I would like to summarize areas I think are critical for addressing the issue of imperialism. 1. We begin with an ongoing hotly debated dispute on imperialism within

5 Chakrabarti: Imperialism in the Era of Globalisation 5 Radical thinking. The dispute can be forwarded like this: Supposing that Empire is another face of imperialism the question remains as to whether imperialism is a de-sovereignised Empire as professed by Marxists like Hardt and Negri in their celebrated book Empire (Harvard University Press, 2000) or is the new global order a special kind of Empire giving rise to a new kind of state-driven imperialism where, within this global order, the authority of one sovereign nation - namely US - rules over others? The character of Empire and the nature of imperialism in the context of this perceived Empire are already open questions for Radicals. However, in The Politics of Imperialism and Counterstrategies the need to problematize the notion of imperialism as a theoretical category is generally not felt and in fact is avoided (again the pieces by Samir Amin and Ronald Chilcote are important exceptions but they too avoid going at the problem in a comprehensive manner). To see the importance of debating the category of imperialism, take Hardt and Negri s proposition that the United States does not, and indeed no nation state can today, form the center of an imperialist project. Imperialism is over. No nation will be world leader in the way modern European nations were (xiv). Against imperialism Hardt and Negri pose the concept of a de-sovereignised Empire. Hardt and Negri aver...over the past several decades, as colonial regimes were overthrown and then precipitously after the Soviet barriers to the capitalist world market finally collapsed, we have witnessed an irresistible and irreversible globalization of economic and cultural exchange. Along with the global market and global circuits of production has emerged a global order, a new logic and

6 6 CIISS November 2005 structure of rule a new form of sovereignty (Hardt & Negri, 2000: xi). In contrast to imperialism, Empire establishes no territorial center of power and does not rely on fixed boundaries or barriers. It is a decentered and deterritorializing apparatus of rule that progressively incorporates the entire global realm within its open, expanding frontiers. Empire manages hybrid identities, flexible hierarchies and plural exchanges through modulating networks of command. The distinct national colors of the imperialist map of the world have merged and blended in the imperial global rainbow (Hardt and Negri, 2000: xii-xiii). Hardt and Negri would thus say: given that Empire is a global entity that is centered as well as de-centered and is imperial by construction, the question of an imperial nation-state such as USA within this Empire is anachronistic. With the sovereignty of the nation-states subsumed under the sovereignty of Empire, there can be no US imperialism within Empire. This is not to say that US, like other nation states, does not exercise influence or tries to establish its hegemony but its role remains constrained by the terms and contracts of global Empire that, by its very construction, rules out the possibility of a nation-state based imperial existence. Now, the point I want to be focused upon is not regarding whether Hardt and Negri s rendition is correct or their analysis is bereft of problems. Instead the issue is that they are raising serious questions on imperialism and, that too, in the context of changes that we have mentioned. These questions and the theoretical challenges they create for Radical theorization for concepts such as that of imperialism need to be addressed and not evaded. Unfortunately, such contentious issues regarding imperialism within Radical thinking are not raised in this book. The question of imperialism, its very existence

7 Chakrabarti: Imperialism in the Era of Globalisation 7 and form, is an open and not a closed question for Radicals. Since it is an open question still being debated, from now on, we will refer to Empire as (US) Empire signifying the openness regarding the nature of Empire and of imperialism within it. 2. What is the link between (US) Empire and global capitalism? If (US) Empire subsumes global capitalism within its ambit then what is the form of (US) Empire. How can (US) Empire account, not turn by turn but in one turn, the centred and decentred concrete existence of global capitalism. Ronald H. Chilcote s interesting piece where he is exploring the Left s agenda in Latin America perceptively forwards the point I am making here. Chilcote tells us that global capitalism and US hegemony challenges us to reassess old ideas and search for new theories. The relation between the two remains important enough issue to be seen as open for assessment and intervention but which the authors of book are not always sensitive to. 3. Counter-hegemonic strategies would depend upon the specific understanding of Empire, whether US or de-sovereignized and in the articulation of global capitalism with this understanding of Empire. Given the generally inadequate level of theorization wherein most of the authors fail to locate and explicate the multi-layered nodes of existence of (US) Empire and the rather simplistic reduction of the complex existence of Empire to the belligerence of USA, most of the essays on counter-hegemony border on the rhetorical rather than the substantive (save De Angelis s piece). While the above mentioned are topical issues that raise fundamental questions regarding the validity of the concept of imperialism as a theoretical category, one is left searching for answers in this book. Nevertheless, by bringing the agenda of imperialism into the forefront, the book highlights the

8 8 CIISS November 2005 importance of addressing imperialism in formulating resistances and counterhegemonic strategies against the materialising global order. That numerous people in this globe consider the current order to be unethical and unjust and are driven by a desire to create alternative and more humane forms of living experience are reasons enough to laud the effort of the authors and surf the pages of this book.