OPE-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]
Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

Re: (OPE-L) 1, 2, 3, how many imperialist powers?

You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it. 

On Tue, 27 May 2003, gerald_a_levy wrote:

> Paul C, responding to Paul B, wrote on Tuesday, May 27:
>
> > He  (Michael E, JL) was making a fair point that Germany at
> > present is not an  imperial power. Clearly it was in the past,
> > it might be in the future but it is not one now.
> > The USA clearly is an imperial power, and so is France, and the UK
> > is in the process of re-establishing itself as such.
>
> We agree that the US, France, and the UK are imperialist powers.
> Why not Germany?  Why not Japan?  Why not many other
> advanced capitalist nations?  Why not e.g. Sweden and Switzerland?
>
> I gather you are presupposing that a military is a precondition for
> imperialism?  How so?

Note that Paul uses the relatively straightforward term, "imperial
power", not the more slippery "imperialist power".

To be an imperial power, you need an empire: foreign countries over
which you exercise direct political domination, which requires
military power as precondition or back-up.  Being home-base to banks
with a wide international influence is not having an empire.

Allin Cottrell.
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]