does imperialism basically mean taking over other countries?
- MenckenLv 58 years agoFavorite Answer
Imperialism today means the corporations of the imperialist country dominating the markets of the targeted country.
Imperialism and the State: Why McDonald's Needs McDonnell Douglas
By Paul D'Amato
Writing in 1913 in a debate over national oppression, the Russian revolutionary Lenin noted two tendencies within capitalism: on the one hand, "the awakening of national life...and the creation of nation states" and, on the other hand, "the development and growing frequency of international intercourse" and "the break-down of national barriers."4
These two contradictory tendencies--toward internationalization of capitalism, fuller integration, and interdependence on the one hand, and toward the growth and consolidation of national states on the other--have been constant features of capitalism throughout its history. The balance between the two tendencies, and the way the contradiction has expressed itself, has shifted. But the contradiction remains, even today, at the heart of world capitalism.
The modern nation-state was necessary as a means of creating a single, unified market that could facilitate commerce. But the state was also crucial in providing necessary infrastructure, and sometimes the pooling of capital resources, necessary for national capitalists to operate and compete effectively.
But the state as a bureaucratic institution had another, more fundamental function. Lenin, citing Engels, defined the essence of the state as "bodies of armed men, prisons, etc.," in short, an instrument for the maintenance of the rule of the exploiting minority over the exploited majority.
As capitalism burst the bounds of the nation-state, the coercive military function of the state took on a new dimension--that of protecting (and projecting) the interests of the capitalists of one country over those of another. As capitalism developed, the role of the state increased, the size of the state bureaucracy increased, and the size of its coercive apparatus increased.
Lenin was soon to refine this conception in light of the world's descent into the mass slaughter of the First World War. He argued that capitalism had reached a new stage--imperialism--the struggle between the world's "great powers" for world dominance. The central feature of imperialism was the rivarly between the great powers--whose economic competition gave way to military conflict.
Another Russian revolutionary, Leon Trotsky, put it this way:
The forces of production which capitalism has evolved have outgrown the limits of nation and state. The national state, the present political form, is too narrow for the exploitation of these productive forces. The natural tendency of our economic system, therefore, is to seek to break through the state boundaries. The whole globe, the land and the sea, the surface as well as the interior, has become one economic workshop, the different parts of which are inseparably connected with each other. This work was accomplished by capitalism. But in accomplishing it the capitalist states were led to struggle for the subjection of the world-embracing economic system to the profit interests of the bourgeoisie of each country...
But the way the governments propose to solve this problem of imperialism is not through the intelligent, organized cooperation of all of humanity's producers, but through the exploitation of the world's economic system by the capitalist class of the victorious country; which country is by this War to be transformed from a great power into a world power.5
- †RaunZ†Lv 68 years ago
No , the creation and/or maintenance of a country's power and influence through military force ,
= someone that it's '' controlling the country's power ''