4010 Spring08 Questions and Discussion 17

From Studyplace

[edit] David Solomita

[edit] The New Imperialism, David Harvey

“This may come as a shock to Americans, who don’t like to think of their country as an empire. But what else can you call America’s legions of soldiers, spooks and special forces straddling the globe? The U.S. cam no longer favour ‘empire ‘lite’…”, as quoted from Michael Ignatieff from a piece in the New York Times. (p. 3)

Even in the midst of Bush’s constant rhetoric chanting the opposite, “America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish’ (p.4), The New Imperialism points out that the U.S. in it’s actions is indeed the reigning empire in the post WWII world and some would say that we have held that position well before that time. The argument continues, in that, the U.S. in this position, must take the responsibility that goes along with this pervasive global influence. Niall Ferguson suggests, “that the U.S. must stiffen its resolve, shell out the money, and ‘make the transition from informal to formal empire’. A ‘new imperialism’, many now assert, is already in operation, but it calls for a more explicit acknowledgement and a more solid commitment if it is to establish a Pax Americana that can bestow the same benefits upon the world as Pax Brittanica secured in the last half of the nineteenth century.”(p. 4)

The U.S. has worked hard to deny and to try and create an image that is decidedly not ‘imperialistic.’ Quoted again from Ignatieff,, “but in a state of denial: imperial actions on the part of the United States were not to be talked of as such, nor were they allowed to have any ramifications for the domestic situation. It was this that produced ‘empire lite’ rather than an empire of solid, long-term commitment.” (p. 6)

This is a positioning of the U.S. in the world and the readings then move on to how this stance has played out in the Iraq War. The U.S. has postured that among the many reasons for going to war, that, “in this instance the claim to want to democratize Iraq and the whole region was but one claim among a welter of often conflicting explanations given as to why it was important to be prepared to go to war. Most people, even supporters, were perplexed and confused by the rationalization.” (p.9) WMD’s, biological weapons, including Anthrax as well as human rights violations were all touted as evidence for an assault on this dictatorship that was not that long ago allied to the U.S. A veritable plethora of disinformation surrounding the incursion and leading many to believe it was all simply about oil.

Here before addressing the oil issue directly the nature of power and conflict is tied together to reveal other motives for going to war. “There is indeed a long history of governments in trouble domestically seeking to solve their problems either by foreign adventures or by manufacturing foreign threats to consolidate solidarities at home.” (p. 12) “The engagement with Iraq was far more than a mere diversion from difficulties at home; it was a grand opportunity to impose a new sense of social order at home and bring the commonwealth to heel. Criticism was silenced as being unpatriotic.” (p.17)

This is not to diffuse the importance of oil but in this setting it becomes a component of, rather than the compelling reason for war. “There is, however, an even grander perspective from which to understand the oil question. It can be captured in the following proposition: whoever controls the Middle East control the global oil spigot and whoever controls the global oil spigot can control the global economy, at least for the near future.” (p.19) Although there are many scenarios in which the U.S. may not come out as planned due to its involvement in the war, “What better way for the U.S. to ward off the competition and secure its own hegemonic position that to control the price, conditions, and distribution of the key economic resource upon which those competitors rely? And what better way to do that then to use one line of force where the U.S. still remains all-powerful---military might?” (p. 25)

As further definition of Imperialism Mr. Harvey asserts. “I here define that special brand of it called ’capital imperialism’ as a contradictory fusion of ‘the politics of state and empire’ (imperialism as a distinctively political project on the part of actors whose power is based in command of territory and a capacity to mobilize its human and natural resources towards political, economic and military ends and ‘molecular processes of capital accumulation in space and time’ (imperialism as a diffuse political-economic process in space and time in which command over and use of capital takes primacy).” (p.26) The motivation of peoples aligned with each respective school of thought can differ greatly, an example given being, “The capitalist holding money capital will wish to put it wherever profits can be had, and typically seeks to accumulate more capital. Politicians and statesmen typically seek outcomes that sustain or augment power of their own state vis-à-vis other state.” (p. 27) Here the capitalist is responsible to himself or a small social circle, while the statesman seeks a ‘collective advantage’ for a much larger citizen base. “In practice the two logics frequently tug against each other, sometimes to the point of outright antagonism.” (p. 29) The one group that favors capital accumulation wants to keep as much of the world open to trade and business as possible, the other for reasons that include the maintaining and proliferation of power often has conflicting agendas. The other important consideration for the accumulation of capital is to take advantage of “the ‘asymmetries’ that inevitably arise out of spatial exchange relations.” (p.31) This implies that conditions be set to favor the accumulation of capital like monopolies or undue influence over resources or geography.

“But this then poses a crucial question: how can the territorial logics of power, which tend to be awkwardly fixed in space, respond to the open spatial dynamics of endless capital accumulation?” (p. 33) In response, “Some ague that the world government is not only desirable but inevitable. Others argue that some collection of states working in collaboration with each other… might be able to regulate matters.” (p.36) So as an extrapolation of this growing need for an ever expanding environment for endless capital accumulation and political interests, “to be truly hegemonic in a global sense entails the use of leadership to create a non-zero-sum game in which all parties benefit, either out of mutual gains from their own interactions (such as trade) or through their enhanced collective power vis-à-vis nature by, for example, the creation and transfer of new technologies, organizational forms, …” (p. 37) Here as a definition I take the non-zero-sum to mean a ‘win-win’ scenario.

“Driven by competition, individual capitalists seek competitive advantages within this spatial structure and there fore tend to be drawn or impelled to move to those locations where coasts are lower or profit rates are higher.” (p. 94) This all a part of what Mr. Harvey calls ‘space economy.’ This can create ‘uneven geographical development’ as capitalists vie for the most advantages locations, rich in resources to give them a competitive advantage or to create monopolies or oligopolies (A market condition in which sellers are so few that the actions of any one of them will materially affect price and have a measurable impact on competitors). Here again the asymmetries are evident as powers tend to be unevenly distributed throughout the world. I think a salient point that Mr. Harvey makes in regard to the spatial landscape is, “The aggregate effects, as I have often had cause to formulate in the past, that capitalism perpetually seeks to create a geographical landscape to facilitate activities at one point in time only to have to destroy it to build a wholly different landscape at a later point in time to accommodate its perpetual thirst for endless capital accumulation.” (p.101)

I want to mention briefly the concept of ‘structured coherence’ as it defines a particular area and marks its importance as it relates to the whole. “Structured coherence usually extends well beyond pure economic exchanges, fundamental though these may be, for it typically encompasses attitudes, cultural values, beliefs, and even religious and political affiliations among both capitalists and those whom they employ.” (p.102) These ‘regions’, “thus formed come to play a crucial role in how the body politic of the state as a whole, defined solely according to some territorial logic, positions itself.” (p.105)

Accumulation by dispossession or as said by David Harvey, “Accumulation by dispossession is about dispossessing somebody of their assets or their rights.” If expanded reproduction here defined as ‘class relations and class struggles with the field of capital accumulation’due to increased production to accommodate the endless need to sustain this economic model. This is largely manifest from trade unions and political parties that for their own well being are trying to keep up with demand and accumulation by dispossession is a byproduct of their efforts. This has created a backlash as many peoples have been adversely affected by the abuses inherent in this form of imperialism. Important to note is Mr. Harvey’s view in summary, “political movements if they are to have any macro and long-run impact, must rise above nostalgia for what has been lost and likewise be prepared to recognize the positive gains to be had from transfers of assets that can be achieved through limited forms of dispossession (as for example, through land reform or new or new structures of decision-making such as joint forest management). They must likewise seek to discriminate between progressive and regressive aspects of accumulation by dispossession and seek to guide the former towards a more universal valency than many local movements, which often refuse to abandon their own particularity.” (pp. 178-179)

He concludes with a somewhat cyclical view of our current condition in that in order to maintain this ‘new imperialism’ he quotes Hannah Arendt, ‘the original sin of simple robbery’ which made possible the accumulation of capital, ‘had eventually to be repeated lest the motor of accumulation suddenly die down.’ (p. 182)

An excellent source for clarification of terms and intent can be found here: Understanding the New Imperialism: It is an interview with David Harvey

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people4/Harvey/harvey-con4.html