Theories of American Imperialism: A Critical Evaluation THOMAS WEISSKOPF

contended that the issue is whether or not the I. Introduction key United States &dquo;requires&dquo; imperialism in order in Almost a decade of overt war in Indochina; some sense to survive.[5] While these may be military interventions in Greece, Iran, Lebanon, important and interesting issues in their own right, the Congo, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Colum- they do not seem to me to go to the heart of the bia, Guatemala, Panama, Bolivia, China, Korea theoretical distinction between radical and ortho- and Thailand; military missions throughout most dox approaches. of the &dquo;free world&dquo;; and American economic I believe that what fundamentally unites dominance of countless Third World countries radical theorists is an insistence on analyzing have combined to impress upon all but the most societies as integrated social systems in concrete recalcitrant observer the truth in the assertion that historical circumstances. The radical approach in the postwar period the United States has been a differs from the orthodox approach to the social formidable imperialist power. Indeed, a brief sciences in the Western world (1) by emphasizing review of American history points to a pattern of the interdependence of different spheres of a imperialist behavior that goes back long before the society rather than compartmentalizing these postwar period to the very beginning of the Federal spheres and treating them independently, and (2) republic.[l] That the United States is now and has by analyzing a society in terms of its specific insti- long been an imperialist power is a proposition that tutional structure rather than in terms of abstract is no longer subject to serious debate. Very much a universal propositions.[6] This distinction points to matter of dispute, however, are the sources of a criterion for distinguishing radical and orthodox American imperialism. theories of American imperialism which hinges on A great variety of alternative theories of the significance attached to the particular form of imperialism have been advanced to explain the socioeconomic organization that characterizes the American experience, and these theories have given United States. rise to sharp controversies over the years. Since the The prevailing orthodox view attributes escalation of the war in Vietnam and the American imperialism primarily to the existence of resurgence of a radical movement in the United a system of geographically distinct societies claim- States during the past decade, proponents of ing independent political sovereignty. Orthodox &dquo;radical&dquo; theories of American imperialism have theorists hold that the internal socioeconomic challenged with increasing intensity the prevailing organization of a society has relatively little to do orthodoxy on the subject.[2] &dquo;Orthodox&dquo; theorists with the propensity for imperialist behavior. have in turn responded to the challenge with Rather, it is the externally imposed competition counter-attacks on the radical theorists.[3] The among sovereign states that generates imperialism purpose of this essay is to examine these in general and American imperialism in particu- contending schools of thought with a view to lar.[3] determining their relative merit in analyzing the Against this orthodoxy there is arrayed a sources of contemporary American imperialism. variety of revisionist radical theories, inspired Given the variety of views and the differences largely by the Marxist tradition.[8] The unifying of emphasis among theorists of each school, it is no distinctive feature of the radical theories is the easy matter to draw the line that separates radical assertion that American imperialism results to a from orthodox theories of imperialism. Sometimes significant extent from the fact that the United it is suggested that the central distinctive feature of States is a capitalist society. Thus radical theorists a radical approach is the prominence attributed to argue that the internal socioeconomic organization &dquo;economic&dquo; as opposed to other kinds of of a society does make a great deal of difference, motivations for imperialism.[4] At other times it is and that American imperialism cannot be 41 adequately explained without reference to Ameri- consequences of imperialism, but the sources of can capitalism.[9] imperialism are necessarily found in the capitalist In this essay I propose to evaluate the contend- mode of production. ing theories by considering whether or not it is For the purposes of this essay, a Marxist reasonable to locate sources of American imperial- definition of imperialism is inappropriate. I seek to ism in certain specifically capitalist insitutions. In investigate certain patterns of behavior associated so doing, I will consider a variety of possible causal with the notion of &dquo;American imperialism&dquo; and to links between capitalism and imperialism that have determine the extent to which these patterns of been hypothesized by radical theorists and I will behavior result from the capitalist form of socio- suggest a few new ones as well. economic organization that characterizes the I begin in section II by defining clearly what I United States. For this to be a meaningful inquiry, mean by the term &dquo;imperialism&dquo; and by listing as imperialism must be defined in terms that are comprehensively as possible various potential independent of any particular form of socioeco- sources of imperialism. In Section III I attempt to nomic organization. determine which sources can plausibly be regarded Non-Marxist definitions of imperialism gen- as contributing to American imperialist activity in erally refer to a relationship of domination/subor- the postwar period. In section IV I first define the dination between two communities, where a term &dquo;capitalism&dquo; and then go on to consider community is characterized as a social collectivity whether each plausible source of American with a strong sense of one-ness.[12] The agent of imperialism is independent of internal socioeco- domination may be public and/or private organiza- nomic organization or is rooted in specific tions in the dominant community; the sphere of capitalist institutions. Finally I conclude in section domination may be military, political, economic, or V that the radical view of American imperialism is cultural; and the communities may represent indeed a valid one, and I proceed to examine some nations or ethnic groups within nations. However of the implictions of that conclusion for anti-imper- delimited, a non-Marxist definition of imperialism ialist movements. suggests the use of superior power or authority by one community of people to exercise control over another. II. Alternative Sources of Imperialism In this essay I will use the term imperialism in The word &dquo;imperialism&dquo; is notoriously im- a non-Marxist sense according to the following precise. So many writers have used it in so many definition: imperialism is activity on the part of a different ways and for so many different purposes national government which involves the use of that it is incumbent upon anyone intending to dis- power (or the threat of its use) to establish or main- cuss the subject to define quite clearly what is to be tain a relationship of domination or control over understood by the term.[10] the government or (some of) the people of another Among a host of alternative definitions one nation or territory over which the imperialist can usefully distinguish at the outset between government has no traditional claim to sovereignty. Marxist and non-Marxist definitions. For Marxists This definition deliberately focuses attention on the imperialism represents a stage of capitalism activity of government agencies rather than private associated with the growth of monopolistic firms organizations, thereby ignoring an important but in the industrialized capitalist nations and the separable component of American imperialism.[13] spread of the capitalist mode of production across Among the imperialist activities of government national borders into previously non-capitalist agencies it includes not only the most obvious areas.[11] Marxists may differ as to the precise instances of territorial annexation and military characteristics of the imperialist stage of capital- occupation, but also any use of military, economic ism, but there is a general consensus that imperial- or diplomatic power to establish, maintain or ism is a term that describes capitalism in a expand spheres of control over foreigners. In short, particular phase of its development. Under such a imperialism is defined here essentially as an expan- definition, the relationship between imperialism sionary foreign policy.[14] and capitalism is purely tautological: where there is Some theorists of imperialism are content to imperialism, there must by definition also be rest with the general argument advanced by Landes capitalism. One can dispute and investigate the that &dquo;one has to look at imperialism as a multi- 42 farious response to a common opportunity that hand, if there is a class interest in an imperialist consists simply in a disparity of power. Whenever activity, there may or may not also be a national and wherever such disparity has existed, people interest. and groups have been ready to take advantage of If one can a national interest in an it.&dquo;[15] Such a view appears readily confirmed by identify there is a the fact that imperialist activity is now, and has imperialist activity, prima facie always been, carried out by relatively powerful motivation for the government to undertake it. The will refrain from the states. Obviously the opportunity to carry out government imperialist if there is some cla:.s which stands imperialist activity depends on the disparity of activity only (1) to lose the and that class has power between the potential actor and the potential by activity, (2) dispro- victim. portionate power to prevent the government from undertaking the activity even though other classes But imperialist activity more than the requires stand to gain more than the particular class expects opportunity consisting in a disparity of power; it to lose by it. If one can find no national interest in a requires also a motivation for a government to take potential imperialist activity, there may nonetheless advantage of that opportunity. If a government be a motivation for the government to undertake it applies its superior power in an imperialist activity if (1) there is a class interest in the activity and (2) -- indeed, if a government chooses in the first place the interested class has the disproportionate power to develop the kind of power that can be deployed to induce the government to undertake the activity in an imperialist manner - then there must be even though other classes stand to lose more than some identifiable motivation for its behavior. No the particular class expects to gain by it. theory of imperialism is complete without an explanation for this motivation. In the remainder of this section I will attempt to review as comprehensively as possible the major Every imperialist activity involves some kinds of motivations for imperialism which have expenditure of energy and resources by the been or by both The be suggested explicitly implicitly imperialist government. expenditure may radical and orthodox theorists. I will first consider trivial - as in the case of - or diplomatic pressure motivations based on an identifiable national it may be substantial, as in the case of very military interest and the that there is no intervention. If such is undertaken assumption losing expenditure by class strong enough to prevent the imperialist a it must be done with the government, expectation activity; these will be labeled &dquo;national motiva- that some kind of benefits will result from it. tions.&dquo; I will then consider motivations based on a one can alternative Accordingly, distinguish particular class interest and the assumption that motivations from to the imperialism according the class is enough to have the imperialist alternative kinds of interests which powerful might be activity undertaken; these will be labeled &dquo;class- promoted by imperialist activity. based motivations.&dquo; In analyzing alternative interests in imperial- ism I will distinguish carefully between a &dquo;national A major national motivation for imperialism interest&dquo; and a &dquo;class interest.&dquo; I will say that there that is always cited and most strongly emphasized is a national interest in an imperialist activity when by orthodox theorists is to enhance national the activity is expected to benefit the imperialist security.[16] It is argued that every nation has a nation as a whole, in the sense that the aggregate collective interest in defending its territory against benefits to citizens of the imperialist nation are possible attack by other nations that may be or may expected to exceed the aggregate costs. I will say become hostile and aggressive. Nations that are that there is a class interest in an imperialist sufficiently powerful to engage in imperialist activity when it is expected to result in net benefits activity will find that efforts to control other for a particular class of people from among the nations can contribute significantly to national citizens of the imperialist nation. If there is a security by improving the military posture of the national interest in an imperialist activity there is imperialist nation vis-a-vis its actual or potential bound to be also at least one class interest, enemies. although there may be other classes for whom the A second possible national motivation for anticipated net benefits are negative. On the other imperialism is one that is suggested in the work of 43 many radical theorists: to maintain macroeconom- problem is attributed not to net capital exports but ic prosperity, i.e., to avoid economic crises that to military expenditures. In this case a motivation threaten the viability of the whole economy.[17] A for imperialism arises from the need to legitimize variety of different arguments have been advanced such expenditures: an interventionist foreign policy to explain how the pursuit of an imperialist foreign creates a climate in which it is easy to justify the policy can help to maintain the prosperity of an maintenance of a large military establishment and levels of economy. The arguments are usually presented in high military spending. the context of capitalist economies, although some from to of them may conceivably apply to non-capitalist Apart arguments linking imperialist macroeconomic via the need to maintain economies as well. In the following paragraphs I prosperity shall discuss alternative lines of reasoning that have a high level of aggregate demand, there is an alternative line of which focuses been developed to link imperialism with macro- reasoning directly economic prosperity. on a need to maintain access to foreign economies. ’ Arguments along this line have been advanced by The first line of reasoning is derived from the many radical theorists examining contemporary classical of and associ- theory underconsumption American imperialism[20], and they are clearly ated with the work of Hobson, and - Luxemburg, inspired by some aspects fo the work of early - apparently erroneously Lenin.[18] Although Marxist theorists of imperialism such as Hilfer- writers have it in different various expressed ways, ding,Luxemburg and Lenin.[21] the basic argument can be summarized in a consistent and logically valid form as follows: (1) One such argument emphasizes a need for there is a chronic tendency in a economy capitalist opportunities to undertake direct capital invest- for aggregate demand to be insufficient to absorb ment in foreign countries or territories. It is argued all of the output that is produced; (2) there is that there tends to be an inadequate supply of a continual need to find new outlets consequently profitable investment opportunities at home, and for surplus production in order to avoid an that access to more profitable investment economic crisis; (3) countries and territories foreign opportunities abroad is to maintain important potential markets for the necessary represent overall economic prosperity. Imperialism is domestic surplus; and (4) an imperialist foreign motivated by the desire to assure access to these markets for the adequate policy provides opportunities for such foreign investment. imperialist country. Hobson regarded the problem of undercon- A second argument focuses on a need for to sumpiton/overproduction as potentially solvable opportunities export domestically produced commodities to markets. It is that through a redistribution of income, while foreign argued contribute to economic Luxemburg argued that the problem was inherent exports significantly pros- in the structure of capitalism. Hobson emphasized perity - e.g., by strengthening the balance of the notion of &dquo;surplus capital&dquo; seeking outlets payments - and that imperialism helps to provide abroad and the need for capital exports, while the access to foreign markets needed to keep up the Luxemburg stressed overproduction and commod- flow of exports. ity exports. But the underlying logic of the A final stresses the of argument is the same in each case: surplus capital argument importance raw materials for an industrialized or overproduction at home can be alleviated by net imported This with the observa- capital exports, i.e., by selling more goods abroad economy. argument begins tion that there are a of industrial raw than are purchased abroad for home consumption. variety key materials whose domestic supply is inadequate to A variant of this line of reasoning can be meet the input requirements of the economy. It is formulated by extending the work of modern then contended that the economy would be severely Marxists on the problem of surplus absorption in a crippled without access to foreign supplies of these capitalist economy.[19] This variant begins with the materials, and that an imperialist foreign policy same premise of underconsumption or insufficient can play an important role in maintaining that aggregate demand. However the solution to the access. 44 The desire to maintain macroeconomic psychic rather than military-strategic or economic prosperity and to avoid major crises is not the only gains: this arises simply from a generalized urge to possible national economic motivation for imper- dominate. Proponents of this view often contend ialism. Most writers would agree that imperialism that there is inherent in human nature an aggres- may be motivated on national economic grounds sive instinct that applies both on an individual and simply in order to increase the aggregate economic a group or national level.[231 People derive gains accruing to the imperialist nation from its satisfaction from domination, from being &dquo;number economic relations with other nations. The one.&dquo; Hence nations that can develop and apply the conditions under which private or public enter- power to dominate other nations will be inclined to prises in one nation enter into trade or investment do so if only to satisfy the atavistic urge among activities with or in other nations are obviously their people to achieve a position of supremacy over susceptible to the exercise of power. To the extent others. Whether or not one considers the urge to that one nation can exercise some degree of control dominate a natural human instinct, one can argue that in certain over another, there are a variety of ways in which it historical periods it has helped to motivate can secure greater economic gains for its nationals imperialist activity. than would be possible under a relationship of Among possible class-based motivations for equality. The imperialist nation can use its power imperialism one can identify first a motivation to improve the terms of trade and thereby lower the based on the the interest of the dominant classes of effective price of various imported commodities; it any unequal society in promoting their own social There are can enlarge export markets and increase the legitimacy.[24] several ways in which actions serve country’s export earnings; it can enlarge export imperialist might to legitimate the earnings; it can secure more favorable conditions dominance of some classes over others within a for its investors and thereby increase their nation. By generating or accentuating antagonisms repatriated profits; and in general it can open up between the nation and other nations on an international new trade and investment opportunities in areas level, imperialism can deflect atten- tion and concern which for whatever reasons might otherwise not be away from internal conflicts receptive to economic intercourse. In all such cases between dominant and subordinate classes and all behind the of the there are of course particular classes of people who rally people leadership have the most to gain from imperialism, and there dominant classes. By maintaining or extending the of institutions and values are others who may have something to lose. But geographical spread

- characteristic of the and there is always a potential national interest in imperialist nation, by

- the of alternative institutions and addition to a class interest so long as the overall limiting spread benefits realized by citizens of the imperialist values, imperialism can discourage the notion that nation exceed the associated costs. there are any real alternatives to the existing system with its particular class relations. For such reasons A fourth kind of national motivation for a national &dquo;missionary spirit,&dquo; and indeed exces- imperialism that has been suggested by some sive concern over &dquo;national security,&dquo; may actually writers is based on a generalized missionary result from the efforts of dominant classes to spirit.[16] It is argued that the people of a nation promote their own social legitimacy on an ideologi- can be so imbued with a belief in the desirability of cal plane. their own institutions and values that they feel A second class-based motivation for morally justified - indeed morally obliged - to possible arise from the interest of civilian extend their system to other parts of the world, even imperialism may or bureaucracies in where this requires the use of power to impose the military government organiza- tional Members of system on recalcitrant foreigners. The gains arising expansioh. [25] virtually any have to from an from imperialism of this kind are neither military- organization something gain in the volume of for which the strategic nor economic; they are psychic gains expansion activity is it leads to more involving a sense of satisfaction derived from organization responsible: more more if not more promoting (what is perceived to be) a better world. promotions, prestige, power, pay. This general phenomenon is no less true of the A final national motivation for imperialism civilian and military agencies of government that resembles the missionary spirit in that it involves are directly involved in imperialist activity. Such 45 In the agencies will have a natural inclination to favor the imperialist activity. following paragraphs I expansion of imperialism wherever it is at issue. will first consider whether or not there have been One last major class-based motivation for interest in American imperialism corresponding to imperialism, most frequently stressed by radical each of the motivations discussed in Section II. I writers, arises from opportunities for particular will then turn to an examination of the distribution firms, agencies or classes to increase their of power to affect government decision-making particular economic gains from international about imperialist activity. economic relations. Such opportunities are as Explanations for American imperialism based varied as the opportunities cited earlier for increas- on a national security interest have a ring of ing the aggregate economic gains from internation- plausibility. American political leaders have not al economic relations, the only difference being hesitated in the postwar period to brand the Soviet that in this case there may be losses to other groups Union or China as an aggressive hostile power and within the society which outweigh the gains from to justify military interventions and military bases imperialism. Improving terms of trade, widening around the world as necessary to protect the United export markets, providing privileged access to raw States against enemy attack. Yet it is difficult to see materials, securing better conditions for investors, how any rational calculus based on national opening up new areas for trade and investment - security considerations could explain many in- any and all of these can lead to economic gains for stances of American intervention that have taken particular firms, agencies or classes. They will place in small and/or distant countries such as therefore be motivated to press for imperialist acts Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, to achieve such results, whether or not the net etc., which pose no visible threat to American benefits to the nation as a whole are positive. security no matter with whom they might be allied. Nor is it plausible that national security considera- tions could require American economic dominance HI. Motivations for American Imperialism of many countries in the world with little economic or military potential. Of course, an irrational cal- The pattern of American imperialism in the culus might give rise to exaggerated notions of what postwar period is susceptible to a variety of inter- is required for American national security, but to pretations. Each act of imperialism is consistent appeal to irrationality to explain such a persistent with several different explanations based on some pattern of behavior is to place much too heavy a of the different motivations for imperialism listed burden on a thin reed. Granted that a national in the previous section. Hence it is impossible to security interest probably plays some role in isolate one particular source of imperialism as the motivating American imperialism, it cannot by any only or even the major explanatory factor. It is most stretch of the imagination be regarded as the likely in any event that several different factors primary tap-root.[26] have contributed to American imperialism, and the The possibility that American imperialism has most one can expect to do in examining competing been motivated by a national interest in promoting explanations is to determine which are plausible macroeconomic prosperity is one which has given and which are not. In this section I propose to rise to a great deal of controversy. Several orthodox examine each motivation for imperialism cited theorists[27] have undertaken detailed analyses earlier to evaluate its plausibility in the context of which purport to demonstrate that the American the contemporary United States. economy is not structurally dependent upon imper- To demonstrate the plausibility of a motiva- ialism for its prosperity, i.e., that it could maintain tion for imperialism one must first identify an its prosperity without resorting to any imperialist in interest imperialism and then show that the activity. This proposition may well be true. But structure of power is such that the interest in even if imperialist activity was not absolutely imperialism will be reflected in government policy. necessary to maintain prosperity, it remains In the case of a national interest one need only perfectly possible that imperialist activity has been show that there is no class opposed to imperialist -- and will continue to be - motivated by an activity which has sufficient power to prevent it. In interest in promoting prosperity. One need only the case of a class interest one must show that the show that imperialism can contribute to prosperity, interested class has sufficient power to promote and that it is plausible to attribute some American 46 imperialist activity to this motivation. activity - from the maintenance of military bases The first two variants of the macroeconomic abroad to actual military interventions abroad - prosperity motivation for imperialism are based on serve to increase the demand for military the presumed need to maintain a high level of expenditures. Morever, by antagonizing other aggregate demand. There can be little question nations imperialist activities can increase the threat that the maintenance of an adequate level of of military action against the imperialist nation or aggregate demand has been an important its nationals abroad and thereby indirectly economic policy problem of the United States contribute to a greater demand for military expen- government. Several postwar recessions attest to ditures. But the fact that imperialism often results the persistence and the difficulty of the problem. It in higher military expenditures does not prove that is also undeniable that increases in net exports it is undertaken even in part for that purpose. (exports minus imports) and/or military expendi- There are many ways in which an increase in tures contribute to higher levels of aggregate military spending can be and has been justified by demand. And one can envision circumstances in the American government (e.g., in terms of which imperialist activity could promote both of national security), and it seems rather implausible these sources of demand. Hence, these arguments to suggest that imperialist activity has been for a macroeconomic prosperity interest in intended to legitimize military spending. imperialism ae logically valid; the only question is The three remaining motivations for imperial- whether they are empirically plausible in the ism based on a national interest in macroeconomic context of the postwar United States. prosperity focus on the need for foreign investment, A glance at the relevant macroeconomic exports and imports, respectively. Two questions statistics casts great doubt on the significance of must be addressed in an assessment of the net capital exports in maintaining aggregate plausibility of such motivations in the postwar demand. Throughout the postwar period net United States: how important are foreign invest- exports from the United States have rarely ment, exports and imports for the prosperity of the exceeded 1% of the gross national product (GNP), American economy, and to what extent does and in recent years they have actually become nega- imperialism contribute to sustaining the flow of tive.[28] One might argue that in the absence of foreign investment, exports and imports? imperialist activity the net export figures would Turning first to foreign investment, there is no have been even lower, but the quantities involved doubt that the magnitude and rate of growth of are so small in relation to total GNP that it is quite U.S. direct private investment abroad in the implausible to suggest that American imperialism postwar period has been formidable. The total has been motivated to any significant extent by a value of U.S. direct private foreign investment rose national interest in promoting macroeconomic from $11 billion in 1950 to $86 billion by 1971.[31] prosperity through higher net exports. As a proportion of the corresponding total value of The case that military expenditures have been U.S. corporate assets at home and abroad, direct undertaken to bolster aggregate demand is much private foreign assets represented approximately stronger. The rate of military spending as a 5% in 1950 and 10% in 1971.[32] The relative proportion of GNP has varied between 7% and 13% importance of after-tax profits from this foreign. since 1950, and military spending has been by far investment appears to have been even greater, the largest single component of aggregate demand rising from less than 10% of total after-tax under government control.[29] Moreover, there has corporate profits to approach 20% two decades been an unmistakable correlation between periods later.[33] of relatively high military expenditures and periods Should the United States economy suddenly of relatively high levels of aggregate demand.[30] be deprived of access to these foreign investment Such observations are suggestive, although by no assets, it is likely that macroeconomic prosperity means conclusive. Even granting a significant role would be threatened. At the very least there would to military spending in maintaining aggregate be a very difficult period of economic readjustment. demand, one must still consider whether it is Yet it does not follow that U.S. imperialist activity plausible that imperialist activity has been can plausibly be ascribed to an interest in assuring motivated by an interest in keeping up military sufficient investment opportunities abroad to spending. Certainly many kinds of imperialist preserve macroeconomic prosperity. For many of 47 these opportunities are available and will remain virtually the same as that of exports. but imports available whether or not the United States can have a significance far greater than their undertakes any imperialist activity. More than nominal value if they consist of raw materials two-thirds of the total investment assets and more required as imports into some production process. than one-half of the profits therefrom result from For unless the flow of raw materials is maintained, investment undertaken in the &dquo;developed&dquo; capital- the production of an entire industry may have to be ist countries[34] whose borders are generally open cut back, and this in time can have significant to foreign investors without serious hindrance.[35] repercussions throughout an interdependent indus- Of the remaining U.S. assets and profits generated trialized economy. in the &dquo;underdeveloped&dquo; countries, some might The extent to which the American economy well be dependent on the pursuit of an imperialist has come to make use of imported raw materials policy while others would not. But it is difficult to has been extensively documented in a variety of argue that the overall prosperity of the American sources.[37] Imports account for a large fraction of economy would be seriously affected by the loss of the supply of key metals such as tin, nickel, investment opportunities that accounted for sub- manganese, mica, platinum, titanium, chromium, stantially less than 5% of total corporate assets and tungsten, and cobalt. Moreover, imports account substantially less than 10% of total after-tax for an increasingly significant fraction of the supply corporate profits. The United States economy - of such common minerals as iron ore, copper, and certain particular firms - would suffer some bauxite, lead and zinc. And the current &dquo;energy economic losses, but there is every reason to believe crisis&dquo; has highlighted the growing extent to which that the economy would remain buoyant with a American oil supplies are likely to come from somewhat lower level of direct private investment abroad. The foreign sources of most of these raw abroad. materials are located not in the &dquo;developed&dquo; capi- The case of exports is similar to the case of talist countries, which are relatively accessible from foreign investment: the magnitude of exports the point of view of the United States, but in the dependent upon the pursuit of an imperialist &dquo;underdeveloped&dquo; countries to which access can be foreign policy appears too low to render plausible unreliable. the hypothesis that American imperialism has been Granted that the United States currently motivated to some extent by an interest in imports significant quantities of key raw materials maintaining macroeconomic prosperity through from &dquo;underdeveloped&dquo; countries, it remains to be export promotion. Throughout the postwar period determined whether imperialist activity may exports have constituted less than 5% of the total plausibly be motivated by an interest in keeping up GNP of the United States; moreover, approxi- the flow of such imports. Critics of this view[38] mately two-thirds of these exports have gone to the have argued (1) that possibilities for substitution in &dquo;developed&dquo; capitalist countries whose markets the process of production or in the composition of generally remain accessible with or without end-products consumed are plentiful enough to American imperialism.[36] And even in the provide alternatives to the import of any particular &dquo;underdeveloped&dquo; countries the accessibility of raw material, and/or (2) that imperialism is not most markets to American exports does not seem necessary to assure access to needed imports likely to depend upon imperialist activity. Once because the exporters of key raw materials have again, the United States economy - and particular nothing to gain (and much to lose) by denying their exporting firms - would suffer some losses if products to the huge American market. These accessibility to certain export markets dependent arguments may hold in some long-run sense, and upon imperialism were denied. But it seems very they may well support the proposition that the implausible that such losses could precipitate a American economy is not critically dependent upon general economic crisis, and it is therefore imperialism for its ultimate survival. But they implausible that any imperialist activity has been do not rule out the possibility that imperialist motivated by an interest in maintaining overall activity may have been intended to contribute to prosperity through exports. macroeconomic prosperity within a shorter time At first glance it might appear that a similar horizon by preventing critical raw material case could be made for imports, whose total value shortages from arising. For in the short-run it is as a proportion of GNP in the United States is very difficult to change production processes or 48 consumption patterns, and in the short run it is Without yet inquiring into the roots of the quite possible that a raw material exporting missionary spirit itself, one can plausibley attribute country (or several such countries acting together) to it a role in encouraging American imperialism. might withhold their exports from the United Like the missionary spirit, the urge to States for economic or political reasons. In dominate would seem to be applicable to a conclusion, it appears that the only plausible significant extent to contemporary American argument that some American imperialist activity society. It is trite but no less true to point out that has been motivated by an interest in maintaining most Americans are steeped in a competitive ethic macroeconomic prosperity is one which is based on that places a tremendous premium on winning. the importance of ensuring regular and dependable That there are always winners and loser, that some access to foreign sources of key raw materials. must be dominant and others subordinate - these Quite apart from any incentive for imperialism are propositions that generally go unquestioned. It based on considerations of macroeconomic pros- follows that there is a great urge to dominate, if perity, there can be little doubt that an interest in only to avoid being dominated. And this individual aggregate economic gains has played some role in urge is easily translated into a national urge to motivating American imperialism. Whether or not dominate other nations, whether or not there is a the preservation or the expansion of foreign seious danger of being dominated. Again, without investment opportunities, export markets and inquiring into the origins of the urge to dominate, it import sources have been essential to maintain seems quite plausible to ascribe to it a role in macroeconomic prosperity, they have certainly motivating American imperialism. made possible some net economic gains for the Class interests in imperialist activity are American economy. American domination of many almost invariably cloaked in an ideological cover poor countries in the world has increased the share that emphasizes alleged national interests. Postwar of the gains from trade and investment accruing to American imperialism has most often been Americans rather than to citizens of the dominated justified by appeals to national security and/or to countries or to citizens of rival industrialized the missionary spirit. For example, many impe- capitalist countries. It would be quite implausible rialist activities have been associated with an to suggest that the U.S. government would refrain anti-communist ideology that stresses both the from taking advantage of potential aggregate eco- threat to American national security allegedly nomic gains made possible by imperialist activity. posed by communist powers and the benefits Turning now to national interests in impe- accruing to non-communist nations as a result of rialism based on psychic gains, one must consider United States efforts to &dquo;protect&dquo; them from the plausibility of the missionary spirit and the urge communism. Other imperialist activities have been to dominate as contributing elements in motivating represented as important to protect American American imperialism. It cannot be denied that national economic interests in a competitive world since American independence the notion that the economy. Sometimes a national interest is actually United States is a uniquely great nation (&dquo;God’s involved, but often the rhetoric of national interest own country&dquo;) and the notion that the American merely serves to obscure situations in which only a way of life represents a supreme human class interest is really at stake. achievement have been systematically fostered and One can quite plausibly ascribe to the have gained wide currency among the American dominant classes in the postwar United States a people. One can be as cynical as one wishes about class interest in imperialism based on the desire to the sources and purposes of this chauvinist promote their own social legitimacy. By encourag- but one cannot that it exists. It ideology, deny ing imperialist activity against actual or potential follows that it is quite plausible to attribute popular socialist societies in various parts of the world, the support for many imperialist ventures to a belief dominant classes in American society could hope to that American domination of other peoples and restrain the territorial spread or the success of countries may in fact be good for them. Certainly institutions and values that might ultimately the United States government has often cast its undermine the legitimacy - and hence threaten imperialist activities in the light of a modern &dquo;white the viability - of the American capitalist system man’s burden&dquo;, and this has made imperialism in which they dominate. Indeed, it is plausible to more for those involved in it out. palatable carrying suggest that the ideology of anti-communism so 49 prevalent in the United States and so often used to must first seek to identify those groups within justify American imperialism has been promoted American society who have something to lose by by the same interest of the dominant American imperialist activity and might therefore possibly classes in preserving American capitalism against oppose it. First of all, there are all the taxpaying competing alternatives identified with socialism or citizens and firms who ultimately bear the financial communism. burden of imperialism. In the case of military The interest in organizational expansion of the action there are the soldiers who suffer injury or civilian and especially the military bureaucracies death. There may also be particular groups whose involved in American imperialist activity has surely interests are adversely affected by the results of an also been a force favoring postwar American imperialist activity: for example, the consumers of imperialism. No student of contemporary history oil who pay higher prices when the monopolistic can fail to note the enthusiasm of the Pentagon for position of the oil companies is protected; or the military interventions and military bases around workers who lose their jobs because a firm shifts its the world. A similar enthusiasm for intervention operations to a more profitable foreign location; or into the affairs of foreign societies can be found in the businesses which find themselves at a the ranks of American political, economic and competitive disadvantage because a rival firm cultural agencies abroad. All such civilian and secured a privileged position abroad. military agencies thrive on foreign involvement, In the case of a national interest in from the which can both lead to and result imperialism the losses to such groups are by domination of foreigners. definition outweighed by the aggregate gains to Probably the most significant class interest in whole population. There may even be offsetting imperialism in the postwar United States has been gains to groups that have something to lose. Only if based on the opportunity for particular economic a group that suffers net losses has also a vastly gains by private enterprises. There can be no doubt disproportionate power to influence government that in the postwar period many - if not all - decisions on imperialism can it be expected to pre- American firms have had an economic interest in vent imperialist activity that is in the national inter- some kind of imperialist activity. First of all, those est. A glance at the categories of possible losers firms that have invested abroad, that export to listed above reveals little political strength. The foreign markets, or that import from foreign financial costs of imperialism are diffused widely sources, have stood to gain by having the power of among the taxpaying public and may be offset by the American government exercised on their behalf diffused aggregate gains. Soldiers are dispropor- in shaping the terms and conditions of foreign tionately drawn from the poorest and politically economic relations. Secondly, private firms without weakest strata of society. Consumers, workers and any past involvement in foreign economic relations businesses who lose from a particular imperialist may nevertheless have looked forward to future activity tend to be isolated and organizationally opportunities made possible by imperialist actions weak. In sum, there is every reason to believe that that help to preserve or to extend the areas open to in the postwar United States, a national interest in American private enterprise. Finally, even those imperialism is sufficient to motivate government firms that never trade or invest abroad have stood policy without serious opposition. to gain to the extent that imperialism promotes an To demonstrate that a class interest in increasing internationalization of the division of imperialism is sufficient to motivate government labor, for this places relatively scarce American policy, even in the absence of a national interest, labor in increasing competition with relatively one must make a stronger case. It must be shown abundant foreign labor.[39] For all of these reasons not only that the potentially anti-imperialist it is no exaggeration to suggest that there exists a opposition tends to be weak, but also that the substantial class interest in imperialism on the part pro-imperialist class is disproportionately strong. of the American capitalist class. There are several factors that work to favor the It remains now to consider whether the beneficiaries of imperialist activity over the losers distribution of power in the United States has been in the determination of American foreign policy. such as to permit the interests in imperialism First, although the beneficiaries may be much identified above to be translated into imperialist fewer in number, they typically command much government policy. To answer this question one greater wealth and power than the losers and 50 therefore have a vastly disproportionate influence in national security and the apparent national on decision-making even in the most democratic of missionary spirit in the United States may in fact political frameworks. [40] The dominant classes be traceable in considerable degree to class with an interest in promoting their own social interests in imperialism, even though such national legitimacy have by definition a dominant position interests may come to exert an independent and correspondingly disproportionate power to influence on foreign policy. shape foreign policy. The civilian and military In sum, the balance of power seems likely to bureaucracies interested in organizational expan- tilt in favor of imperialism in contemporary sion can count on the potent political force American society unless the costs of a given activity represented by the Pentagon and its allies in the become so high as to weigh heavily and obviously military-industrial complex in contemporary Ame- on large segments of the population, or unless the rican society. And the capitalist class with its activity involves a sharp conflict of interest among interest in particular economic gains is obviously powerful classes themselves. Such situations do much stronger economically and politically than arise from time to time (e.g., the war in Vietnam), the rest of American society. Moreover, within the and they set limits on the extent to which - or the capitalist class, the firms most directly involved in manner in which - the United States government foreign economic operations include many of the is motivated to pursue imperialist policies. But it is most powerful corporations in the United States. In clear that long before such a point is reached there 1965, nine of the largest ten and at least 18 of the is a great deal of scope for American imperialism largest 25 corporations (ranked by sales) were based on class interests without any national significantly involved in foreign operations.[41] interest necessarily at stake. These 18 corporations alone accounted for almost One final point deserves mention here. The 20% of the total sales and almost 30% of the analysis in this essay has been developed in a after-tax profits of all American industrial framework of assumed rationality. Motivations for corporations.[42] Hence even when there are American imperialism have been attributed to the conflicts of interest within the capitalist class over interest and power of various classes within particular imperialist activities, the balance of American society, under the assumption that power often tilts in favor of the pro-imperialists. people and groups generally perceive their interests A second factor that enhances the effective and act upon them insofar as their power permits. power of the beneficiaries of imperialism is that the It is of course quite conceivable that some gains from an imperialist action tend to be large for American imperialist activity has resulted either the immediate beneficiaries while the losses tend to from gross misperceptions of reality, or from be spread widely and therefore thinly over the highly irrational drives. That such possibilities have much larger number of losers. Under such been excluded from the analysis reflects a belief not circumstances, the gainers are always better that they do not exist, but simply that they are not motivated and better situated to mobilize of great importance. To attribute a major role to themselves as an effective political force. It is not misperceptions and irrationality in explaining necessary that the beneficiaries of imperialism American foreign policy is to subscribe to a dominate all policy-making in order that the fundamental cynicism about human behavior that government be induced to undertake imperialist would make social studies difficult and meaningful activities that serve particular class interests; it is action virtually impossible. only necessary that the beneficiaries exercise disproportionate influence in the sphere of foreign IV. Capitalism and American Imperialism policy, which they can more easily do if the losers have less at stake and hence less interest in foreign Like &dquo;imperialism&dquo;, &dquo;capitalism&dquo; is a word policy decisions than the beneficiaries.[43] that means many different things to many different Finally, the gainers from imperialism can people; hence it is important to define clearly what often generate support - or at least consent - intended by the term. I will attempt to define from among the objective losers by playing upon capitalism so as to reflect the general usage of compelling ideological themes that suggest a radical writers whose views on the relationship national rather than a class interest. It has already between imperialism and capitalism are at issue in been suggested that the presumed national interest this essay. 51 Capitalism is a form of socioeconomic maximize his money income in order to satisfy his organization (or a &dquo;mode of production&dquo;, to use the wants; he is concerned about the extrinsic rewards Marxist term) which is characterized by all of the for his productive activity rather than the intrinsic following conditions.[44] (1) Private ownership of quality of the activity itself. Such behavior must be the means of production: a significant share of the sustained by a set of values that emphasize the productive wealth of the society is owned by private importance of the individual rather than the larger individuals pursuing private profits. (2) Proleta- community, that urge competition rather than rianization of the work force: a large proportion of cooperation, and that stress the primacy of the population has virtually no claim to ownership material goods and services (purchusable with of the means of production and is obliged to sell its money income) for satisfying human needs and labor services in the labor market in order to promoting human welfare. These capitalist values receive any income. Conversely, a small proportion place a tremendous premium on increasing the of the population owns most of the means of supply of marketable goods and services available production. (3) Hierarchical control of the to the society, while other conceivable social goals production process: economic activity is carried out - e.g. greater equity, greater economic self-suffi- by units of enterprise in which decision-making ciency at a local or national level, development of control is vested in (at most) a few top owners and more meaningful and less fragmented communi- managers while the great majority of workers have ties, improvement of the quality of the work no such control. (4) Individual material gain experience - are viewed as subordinate to the incentives: labor is allocated and work is motivated primary goal of economic growth. by a system of differential economic rewards in the A second imprtant consequence of capitalism form of money wages and profits received by concerns the process and the outcome of income owners means of individual workers and of the distribution.[48] Private ownership of the means of production. production and reliance on individual material There can be no doubt that the form of gain incentives imply that in a capitalist society socioeconomic organization prevailing in the income distribution is linked directly to the United States as well as in contemporary Canada, process of production. Property income and labor most of Western Europe, Japan, Australia and New income are distributed to the owners of the Zealand, conforms to each aspect of the above property and the sellers of labor essentially definition of capitalism. Not so obvious, perhaps, is according to the market-valued contribution of the fact that there is nothing inevitable or universal their property and their labor to the output of about the capitalist form of socioeconomic organi- goods and services. Income distribution is therefore zation. Not have earlier historical eras only not a matter for political determination by the of societies that are charac- displayed examples society as a whole; instead, it emerges largely from or none of the conditions associated terized by few the process whereby the market mechanism but &dquo;socialist&dquo; with capitalism, contemporary allocates resources to production. This process of societies show evidence of varying degrees of income distribution is bound to create great departure from the four basic features of a inequalities of income. Not only does the small capitalist society listed above.[45] proportion of the population that owns most of the Certain consequences of the capitalist form of means of production receive the lion’s share of socioeconomic organization deserve emphasis here. property income, but also labor income is very The viability of any social system requires that unequally distributed because of the need to there be a prevailing set of institutionalized values allocate and motivate work through differential which encourage patterns of behavior consistent economic rewards. Hence, a capitalist society is with the smooth functioning of the system.[46] inherently an economically unequal society. These values are an essential complement to the A final important consequence of the basic socioeconomic institutions that define the capitalist form of socio economic organization system. In the case of capitalism, the successful stems from its inherent economic inequality and operation of individual material gain incentives from the inherent social inequality that results requires that people behave as &dquo;homo econo- from hierarchical control of the production micus&dquo;, the economically rational man.[47] Homo process. Economic and social inequality (which are economicus strives for individual gain; he seeks to bound to be highly correlated) imply political 52 inequality. A society that is predicated upon of key raw materials. At first glance such a need significant economic and social differentials is a does not seem to be peculiar to capitalism. If the society in which there cannot be a genuine American economy is critically dependent upon key democracy, in the sense of equal participation in raw materials, it is hard to see why this dependence political decision-making by those affected by the should be any less significant under some form of decision. So long as some people have much greater socioeconomic organization other than capitalism. access to economic resources than others, they can Yet closer examination of the question suggests a have much greater influence on political decision- line of reasoning which might well link raw- making ; and so long as the structure of decision- material oriented imperialism in some degree to making at the workplace is highly authoritarian, capitalism. one cannot expect the structure of decision-making The demand for raw materials in an economy at the community or national level to be ega- depends upon both the aggregate level and the litarian.[49] Thus capitalism is fundamentally sectoral composition of output. The higher the level incompatible with democracy.[50] of output, and the more heavily the sectoral The question to be considered now is whether composition of output is weighted toward the sources of American imperialism identified in industries requiring imported raw materials, the section III are related in any significant manner to greater will be the demand for such imports. Given the capitalist institutions that characterize the the emphasis placed on economic growth in a contemporary United States, or - alternately - capitalist society, one can argue that capitalism is whether they have little to do with the specifically likely to generate a more rapid rate of growth of capitalistic character of American socioeconomic output and correspondingly higher levels of organization. In the following paragraphs, I will demand for imported raw materials than might an examine each plausible source of American alternative form of socioeconomic organization. imperialism to evaluate its relationship to Moreover, the very unequal distribution of income capitalism. associated with capitalism may lead to a sectoral The first motivation for imperialism that composition of output that is oriented more heavily towards raw material appeared applicable to the contemporary United products requiring imported than would be the case under conditions of States was based on a national interest in national inputs For the kind of whose security. To the extent that this interest is not greater equality. products is most the of merely an ideological cover for other interests, it is production dependent upon import raw materials tend to be industrial and one which arises as a result of potential external key and threats to the nation. The existence and strength of technologically sophisticated (e.g. jet engines), such cater to the such threats depends upon the disposition of products disproportionately demand of rich consumers. The demand of the foreign powers towards the United States. Whatever the character of American internal poor and middle-income classes is more heavily concentrated on and industrial socioeconomic organization, there is always a agricultural simpler whose is less on possibility that foreign powers will prove hostile. So products production dependent scarce raw materials. that the long as the world is divided into nation-states Assuming composi- tion of reflects to some extent the structure without an accepted and respected superior output of in the distribution of authority to maintain world peace, each individual demand[51], inequality income will be associated with nation-state will have some justifiable concern greater dependence about its national security. Hence the national on key raw material imports. a could also security motivation for imperialism is one which Obviously non-capitalist society a motivation for would not seem to be attributable in any significant generate imperialist activity to secure access sources of raw sense to capitalism, or to any other specific form of designed to foreign socioeconomic organization. materials. But there are nonetheless grounds for Among various motivations for imperialism believing that under otherwise similar circum- stances such a motivation would be arising from a national interest in macroeconomic especially under because of its on prosperity, the only one that appeared plausible in strong capitalism emphasis economic and its inherent the context of the contemporary United States was growth economic based on a need to secure access to foreign sources inequality. 53 A national interest in aggregate economic system. But whether people will find acceptable the gains - like a national interest in macroeconomic use of power to spread a system depends upon the prosperity - could serve to motivate imperialist extent to which concern about outcomes overrides activity both in capitalist and in non-capitalist concern about the processes whereby outcomes are societies. But again there is good reason to believe achieved. The more highly the values of a society that such a motivation would be particularly stress genuine democracy - participation in forceful under capitalism. First of all, the emphasis decision-making by those affected by the decisions placed on the desirability of increasing the - the less acceptable will be the imposition of a available supply of goods and services in a system on others no matter how &dquo;good&dquo; for them it capitalist society puts a great premium on the may appear to be. Hence the more truly democratic ability of a government to promote economic the form of socioeconomic organization, the less growth. In a society where there is such pressure to will be the motivation for imperialism based upon a &dquo;deliver the goods&dquo;, the government will be more missionary spirit. And because capitalism pre- highly motivated to seek out and exploit cludes true democracy, a capitalist society will be opportunities for economic gain through imperi- more susceptible to undertake missionary imperi- alism than it would in a society where other social alism than an alternative society more compatible goals were relatively more important. with democracy. One alternative social goal that is notably de- The urge to dominate as a source of emphasized under capitalism is economic self- imperialism is often described as an innate human sufficiency. Capitalism encourages a relatively drive, an element of human nature impervious to high degree of economic specialization in order to the social environment. Yet it seems quite unrea- reap the economic gains made possible by a wide sonable to insist that the form of socioeconomic division of labor. Hence capitalism discourages organization and the values that complement it efforts to promote self-sufficiency at a local or have no influence on the attitude of people toward national level, for this requires deliberate one another. Instead, one would expect rather diversification rather than specialization of eco- different attitudes to emerge from (1) a society nomic activities. But the greater the emphasis which stresses the importance of the individual and placed upon specialization, the more extensively a competition among individuals and (2) a society society will undertake international trade and which stresses the importance of the community investment whose purpose is precisely to reap the and cooperation among its members. The more economic efficiency gains from extending the competitive a society, the more an individual is division of labor from a national to an international likely to be motivated to dominate others, and the level. Hence a capitalist society is likely to be more more the society as a whole may be motivated to heavily involved in international economic relations dominate other societies. Without question capital- than an alternative society with greater orientation ism is a highly competitive form of social to self-sufficiency and a capitalist government organization, and the urge to dominate is therefore would have correspondingly greater opportunities more likely to motivate imperialism in a capitalist as well as a greater incentive to secure economic society than in many other less competitive social gains from imperialism. systems. The existence of a national missionary spirit For a class interest alone to motivate imperial- that motivates imperialism requires that two ism, there must be a class with both the interest conditions be satisfied. On the one hand, there and the power to influence the government to must be a strong belief by the people of a society undertake an activity that is not in any national that their own way of life is a superior one. On the interest. In studying the relationship between other hand, there must be a belief in the capitalism and class-based imperialism, one must acceptability of imposing a way of life on others therefore examine both the nature of class interests through the use of dominant power. The first of and the distribution of class power. Turning first to these conditions cannot be identified more strongly the question of power, it is clear that there can be with one form of socioeconomic organization than no class-based motivation for imperialism in a another. For good or bad reasons, people in both genuine democracy. For if everyone in a society capitalist and non-capitalist societies may well participated equally in the political process, the come to believe in the superiority of their own government could not undertake imperialist 54 activities whose anticipated costs to the society as a enthusiastic about satisfying their growth impera- whole were greater than the anticipated benefits to tive abroad. But it has become clear that modern a particular class. Since capitalism is incompatible capitalism calls for a substantial government role with true democracy, a capitalist society offers a in many domestic economic and social spheres, so potential for class-based imperialism of various that the potential for organizational expansion is kinds which would not be possible in an alternative not significantly limited to foreign affairs. democractic society. If only for this reason, the fact Of the three types of class interest in imperial- that a particular society is capitalist does affect the ism discussed in this paper, it is the class interest in likelihood of imperialist activity. particular economic gains that is most clearly It can also be argued, however, that capitalism linked to capitalism as a form of socioeconomic generates certain class interests in imperialism that organization. This is not only because of the would either be absent or be less forceful under importance attached to strictly economic objectives other possible forms of socioeconomic organiza- in a capitalist society. Nor is it due simply to the tion. This appears to be true of at least two of the fact that under capitalism most of the means of three types of class interest that were cited in production are privately rather than publicly Section III as applicable to the contemporary owned. There is a more fundamental reason why in United States. a capitalist society particular groups should seek to A class interest in promoting social legitimacy promote imperialism as a means for realizing through imperialism becomes significant whenever particular economic gains. This reason has to do dominant classes in a society have reason to be with the manner in which income is distributed concerned about the acceptance of their dominance under capitalism. by the rest of the people. As a very unequal form of To see this one must recognize that an socioeconomic organization, capitalism obviously imperialist activity motivated by a class interest in generates some dominant classes, and these classes economic gain involves in effect an anticipated have a potentially greater concern about their redistribution of economic benefits from the rest of social legitimacy than would (less) dominant classes the population to the particular interested class. in a more equal society. But while its basic This redistribution does not involve any direct economic institutions imply profound inequalities, transfer, but it results indirectly from (1) taxing (or the value system associated with capitalism - with otherwise burdening) the society as a whole for the its emphasis on the right (and obligation) of cost of the activity and (2) benefitting the particular individuals to compete with one another in striving class by bringing about changes in the internation- for personal advancement - suggests an ideal of al economic situation which increase its income- free and fair competition. As people within a earning opportunities. capitalist society come to recognize how unfree and It is precisely the indirect character of the unfair the competition often is (because of the distribution that makes it attractive to particular inequality inherent in the underlying institutions), classes in a capitalist society. For under capitalism they are unlikely to accept the domination of the income is supposed to be distributed to individuals dominant classes. Thus under capitalism a contra- in accordance with their market-valued contribu- diction between the socioeconomic base and certain tion to production. The only legitimate source of aspects of the ideological superstructure will income is the production process itself, as mediated increase the interest of dominant classes in by the market mechanism. Direct transfers of providing some kind of legitimacy for their income without any quid pro quo are limited to dominance. For the reasons suggested in Section II, somewhat exceptional circumstances. This means imperialism can help to serve this purpose. not only that the poor cannot expect substantial A class interest in promoting organizational relief from poverty through transfers of income expansion through imperialism would not appear from the rich, but also that the rich cannot expect to be more or less likely under capitalism than to get the government to transfer income directly under any other form of socioeconomic organiza- from others to themselves - no matter how tion. One might possibly argue that because the powerful they may be. Hence any significant capitalist system of private enterprise limits the role redistribution in favor of the rich and powerful can of government bureaucracy in domestic affairs, be brought about only indirectly by government civilian and military agencies would be all the more activity which affects the process by which the 55 market distributes income. therefore fully confirmed. In a society where income were distributed There are three specific characteristics of a according to explicitly political criteria rather than capitalist society which appear to be most according to an apparently apolitical economic significant in enhancing its propensity for mechanism, it would make no difference whether imperialism. The first is the emphasis on individual redistribution of income were brought about economic gain as a primary objective of human directly or indirectly. The outcome of the income activity, which derives from the institutional values distribution process would be the object of concern of a capitalist system. The second is the linking of rather than the process itself. In such a situation a income distribution directly to the process of powerful group would find it no easier to get production, which is based upon the operation of income redistributed to itself indirectly than the capitalist market mechanism. And the third is directly. Moreover, it would not seek to get income the unequal and therefore inherently undemocratic redistributed by an activity that might reduce the nature of the society, which results from the basic size of the aggregate economic pie. But under economic institutions of capitalism. The capitalist capitalism redistribution in favor of powerful emphasis on economic gain intensifies national groups can be brought about only indirectly. Hence interests in imperialism to promote macroeconomic in any government activity which indirectly redis- prosperity, to achieve aggregate economic gains, tributes income in favor of particular classes, even and to satisfy an urge to dominate; and it if the activity involves aggregate economic losses. intensifies class interests in particular economic There are a variety of ways in which a government gains. The capitalist process of income distribution can indirectly redistribute income, through domes- intensifies class interests in particular economic tic as well as foreign programs. But imperialist gains and contributes to the unequal and activity clearly offers many such opportunities, and undemocratic nature of capitalist society. This a class interest in achieving particular economic inequality and lack of effective democracy in turn gains through imperialism is therefore significantly intensifies national interests in imperialism to linked to the capitalist form of socioeconomic promote economic prosperity and to exercise a organization. missionary spirit; it intensifies a class interest in social legitimacy and makes possible the transla- V. Conclusion tion of each major type of class interest in imperialism into an actual motivation for imperial- The analysis in Section IV leaves no doubt that ist activity. postwar American imperialism can be traced in While these relations serve to link imperialism significant respects to the capitalist character of to capitalism in a causally significant manner, American society. Most of the plausible sources of there are certain conclusions that do not follow American imperialism owe their existence and/or from the analysis. It cannot be argued that their strength to characteristics of a capitalist capitalism is the only form of socioeconomic society which need not necessarily characterize al- organization that leads to imperialism, nor even ternative forms of socioeconomic organization. The that capitalism is more likely than any other form only relevant source of imperialism that appears to of socioeconomic organization to lead to imperial- be quite unrelated to the internal socioeconomic ism. For some of the sources of imperialism organization of the United States is the one based discussed here are at least in some degree indepen- upon a national interest in national security. Not dent of capitalism, and other possible sources of surprisingly, this is the source that is given the imperialism that are independent of capitalism greatest (if not the sole) attention by orthodox may be relevant in a different context than that of theorists. But every other relevant source of the contemporary United States. What does follow American imperialism based upon a national from the analysis of this paper is that capitalism interest, as well as every source based upon a class leads to substantially more imperialist activity than interest,[52] is conditioned by certain aspects of the would result from at least some alternative forms of (capitalist) internal socioeconomic organizaton of internal socioeconomic organization under similar the United States. The radical view that American external circumstances. imperialism cannot be adequately explained The analysis also lends no support to the without reference to American capitalism is proposition that a capitalist society requires 56 imperialism in order to survive. This proposition capitalist society places significant limits on the may be asserted by some radicals, but it is more extent to which political reform movements can often attributed to radicals by orthodox theorists expect to curtail imperialism under capitalism. So who find it convenient to present radical views in long as the basic institutions of American society simplistic and therefore vulnerable form. It is remain capitalist, economic gain will remain an virtually impossible to prove that imperialism is important goal, inequality will persist and genuine necessary for the survival of a capitalist society, for democracy will be unattainable. The kinds of insti- there are many means by which a capitalist society tutional changes necessary to make substantial could conceivably remain viable. Yet the fact that a progress in eliminating the imperialist urges of a capitalist society may in theory be able to survive capitalist society would involve the development of without imperialism in no way diminishes the a radically different form of socioeconomic extent to which capitalist institutions can and do in organization in which (1) economic activity would practice stimulate imperialist activity. As one be motivated by an incentive system that did not radical theorist of imperialism has observed, the rely primarily on the prospect of individual (capitalist) United States does not require imperial- economic gain in competition with other indivi- ism any more than it requires Texas and New duals ; (2) income and wealth would be shared in an Mexico; but one might as confidently expect the egalitarian manner; (3) control over the process of (capitalist) United States to abandon its imperialist production would be exercised by all those activity as to return Texas and New Mexico to the involved, and the distinction between owner and Mexicans.[53] worker would disappear. An egalitarian society in The analysis of the relationship between which economic activity was based upon collective capitalism and imperialism in this paper does rather than individual incentives and cooperative suggest certain directions for anti-imperialist rather than competitive behavior would encourage movements in capitalist countries such as the a set of institutionalized values in which social United States. By identifying the specific character- goals other than economic gain were paramount istics of capitalism which contribute most and would facilitate the functioning of a truly significantly to imperialism, one can gain some effective democracy. Utopian as such a system may understanding of the kinds of reforms that might appear to contemporary observers, it represents the help to limit the extent of imperialist activity under kind of long-run goal toward which an anti-imper- capitalism and the kinds of radical changes in basic ialist movement must be directed if it is to achieve institutions that would be necessary to develop an any significant and lasting progress. alternative and much less imperialist society. Within the context of a capitalist society, the Thomas Weisskopf motivations for the government to undertake Department of Economics imperialist activity may be lessened to the extent (1) University of Michigan that the primacy of economic gain as a social Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 objective can be diminished; (2) that the distribu- tion of income can be made a more explicitly political issue; and (3) that income inequality can be reduced and democracy can be made more effective. Progress in these directions depends NOTES largely upon the ability of the disenchanted groups and the dominated classes in capitalist society to 1. See, for the historical accounts of American organize themselves and develop a stronger example, imperialism in Zevin (1972), pp. 321-333; in Magdoff political force with which to oppose the power of (1970a); and in Williams (1962). the dominant classes who have the most to gain 2. It would be impossible to list the names of all radical writers on the of American For a re- from the status quo. There is some hopeful subject imperialism. presentative sample of recent radical work, see Magdoff evidence that the war in Indochina has served to (1969), Kolko (1969), MacEwan (1972), and many of the galvanize more effective opposition to American essays reprinted in Fann and Hodges (1971). imperialism in particular and the oppressive 3. Orthodox critics of the radical theorists include Miller, Bennett and Alapatt (1970), Tucker (1971), and aspects of American capitalism in general. Cohen (1973). But one must recognize that the very nature of 4. See, for example, Kindleberger (1970), chapter 5. 57 5. This is how the issue is posed by Miller, Bennett and would be better off under another system which might Alapatt (1970). replace a crisis-stricken capitalism. But this long-run 6. I am indebted to Noam Chomsky for help in outcome is problematic: in the short run everyone stands clarifying the distinctive characteristics of a radical to lose if the economy is in crisis. Thus there is at least a approach. short-run national interest — and possibly also a long-run 7. Thus Cohen (1973), p. 245, states that "the real tap- national interest — in maintaining economic prosperity. root of imperialism" is "the anarchic organization of the This kind of national interest is quite distinct from the international system of states ... The logic of dominion kind of class interests discussed later in which the short- derives directly from the existence of competing national run and the long-run benefits accrue only to particular sovereignties"; and Tucker (1971), p. 73, asks: "Why may classes. we not say simply that the interests of states expand 18. See Hobson (1902), Luxemburg (1913), and Lenin roughly with their power and that America has been no (1917). Although some writers — e.g. Alavi (1964) — exception to this experience?" associate Lenin with an underconsumption/surplus-capi- 8. Not all radical theorists of imperialism would de- tal theory of imperialism, drawing mainly on Lenin scribe themselves as Marxists, but they do share the (1917), chapter 4, Harry Magdoff has stressed to me that Marxist methodological emphasis on analyzing the inter- this is a misrepresentation of Lenin’s overall approach to nal socioeconomic structure of a society in order to under- imperialism. stand its behavior. Baran and Sweezy (1966), chapter 7, and Reich and 9. The distinction that I am making here between radi- Finkelhor (1970) have developed the argument that cal and orthodox theories can be related to the exhaustive military expenditures are an important source of surplus classification of explanations of the causes of war sug- absorption in the American capitalist economy. Although gested by Waltz (1959). Waltz divides explanations of war these authors do not suggest that imperialism is into three categories according to whether they are (1) necessary in order to sustain such expenditures, Baran based on human nature; (2) based on the internal struc- and Sweezy do stress the strong compatibility of militar- ture of particular states; or (3) based on the (external) ism and imperialism. structure of a system of separate states. Orthodox 20. The work of Magdoff (1966) is probably the best theories stress the third category of explanation and tend known; other radical theoriests arguing along related to ignore the second; radical theories emphasize the lines include Kolko (1969), Julien (1971), O’Connor (1971) importance of the second category. and Dean (1971). 10. For useful discussions of the problems involved in 21. See Hilferding (1910), Luxemburg (1913) and Lenin defining imperialism, see Zevin (1972), pp. 316-321, and (1917). Cohen (1973), chapter 1. 22. The notion of a missionary spirit as one among 11. Lenin (1917) has provided the best-known Marxist several sources of imperialism is implicit in the work of definition of imperialism as "the monopoly stage of capi- Williams (1962), and it is suggested explicitly by Zevin talism" characterized by "(1) the concentration of produc- (1972), pp. 357-360. tion and capital ... (2) the merging of bank capital with 23. The view that imperialism results from an atavistic industrial capital ... (3) the export of capital ... (4) the human urge to dominate is most prominently associated formation of international capitalist monopolies... (5) the with Schumpeter (1919), but it is also implied by Landes territorial division of the whole world ...". The quota- (1961). tions are from pp. 88-89 of the 1939 edition of Lenin 24. Social legitimacy as a class-based source of Ameri- (1917). can imperialism is stressed by MacEwan (1972), esp. pp. 12. A typical example of a non-Marxist definition of 49-51. imperialism is the one proposed by Cohen (1973, p. 16): 25. Emphasis on the military bureaucracy as a source of "any relationship of effective domination or control, American imperialism is common among contemporary political or economic, direct or indirect, of one nation over "liberals"; see, for example, Bosch (1968) and Melman another." (1970). 13. By focusing attention on government activity, I am 26. The notion that a national security interest is the ignoring the variety of means by which private firms or primary tap-root of imperialism is advanced by Cohen organizations use their own power directly to affect (1973), chapter 7. conditions abroad. But I do take account of the way in 27. See Miller, Bennett and Alapatt (1970); Tucker which they do this indirectly through their influence on (1971), pp. 117-138; and Cohen (1973), chapter 4. government; see the discussion of motivations for 28. This can be verified by a glance at the annual imperialism based on class interests in particular figures of U.S. net exports and gross national product economic gains in sections II, III and IV of the paper. displayed in Table C-1 of the 1973 Economic Report of the 14. My definition of imperialism is not equivalent President. simply to intervention abroad, for it excludes instances of 29. Annual figures for U.S. "national defense" expendi- economic or military aid to foreign friends and allies ture as well as gross national product are given in Table which do not entail any relationship of domination and C-1 of the 1973 Economic REport of the President. control. 30. This correlation is documented in the Appendix to 15. Landes (1961), p. 510. Weisskopf (1972b). 16. See, for example, Tucker (1971), esp. pp. 55-82, and Cohen (1973), chapter 7. 31. These figures are drawn from articles on the inter- 17. The desire to maintain macroeconomic prosperity is national investment position of the United States often presented by radical theorists in the context of a published annually in one of the monthly issues of the capitalist society as a class-based rather than a nationa’ Department of Commerce’s Survey of Current Business. motivation for imperialism. The reasoning is that only the 32. These percentages are drawn from Weisskopf dominant classes have a real interest in maintaining (1972c), table 10-B; the figure for 1971 is based on an prosperity because it is primarily they who benefit from extrapolation of the trend through 1969. the existing economic system, while most of the people 33. See footnote 32. 58 34. For documentation see Weisskopf (1972c), Table Bosch, Juan, Pentagonism: A Substitute for Imperialism 10-D. (New York: Grove Press, 1968). 35. Among the "developed" capitalist countries only Brown, Lester R., World Without Borders (New York: Japan places strict limitations on foreign investment in Random House, 1972). the domestic economy. Cohen, Benjamin., The Question of Imperialism (New 36. Figures on the value of U.S. exports to "developed" York: Basic Books, 1970). and "developing" countries, respectively, are given in Dean, Heather, "Scarce Resources: The Dynamics of Table C-89 of the 1973 Economic Report of the President. American Imperialism," in Fann and Hodges (eds.), 37. See Magdoff (1969), esp. pp. 45-54; Kolko (1969), Readings in U.S. Imperialism (Boston: Porter Sargent, Chapter 3; Julien (1971); Dean (1971) and Brown (1972). 1971). 38. See Miller, Bennett and Alapatt (1970), pp. 16-17; Edwards, Richard C., Michael Reich and Thomas E. and Tucker (1971), pp. 118-126. Weisskopf, The Capitalist System (Englewood Cliffs, 39. I was reminded of this point by Sam Bowles; it N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972). follows from the neoclassical theory of international trade Fann, K.T. and D.C. Hodges (eds.), Readings in U.S. and was first emphasized in a classic article by Stolper Imperialism (Boston: Porter Sargent, 1971). and Samuelson (1941). Gintis, Herbert, "A Radical Analysis of Welfare Econom- 40. Miliband (1967), chapters 6 and 7, describes many of ics and Individual Development," Quarterly Journal of the means by which powerful groups are able to wield Economics, Vol. 86, No. 4 (November, 1972). disproportionate power in a capitalist democracy. Gurley, John, "Maoist Economic Development," Monthly 41. This is documented in Weisskopf (1972c), Table Review, Vol. 22, No. 9 (February, 1971). 10-E. Hilferding, Rudolf, Das Finanzkapital (Vienna: 1910). 42. See footnote 41. Hobson, J.A., Imperialism: A Study (Ann Arbor: Univer- 43. I am indebted to Sam Bowles and Noam Chomsky sity of Michigan Press, 1967; first published in 1902). for making this point. Julien Claude, The American Empire (Boston: Beacon 44. For a very similar characterization of the capitalist Press, 1971). mode of production, see Edwards, Reich and Weisskopf Kindleberger, Charles P., Power and Money (New York: (1972), introduction to chapter 3. Basic Books, 1970). 45. China appears to have moved furthest from a Kolko, Gabriel, The Roots of American Foreign Policy capitalist mode of production; Cuba to a lesser degree; (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969). and the Soviet Union only to the extent of abolishing Landes, David S., "Some Thoughts on the Nature of Eco- private ownership of the means of production. For useful nomic Imperialims," The Journal of Economic History, discussions of the contemporary Chinese mode of produc- Vol. 31, No. 4 (December, 1961). tion, see Gurley (1971) and Riskin (1973). Lenin, V.I., Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism 46. This proposition has been elaborated in the work of (New York: International Publishers, 1939; first pub- Gintis (1972), who combines elements of Marxian and lished in 1917). Parsonian theories of the structure of social systems. Luxemburg, Rosa, The Accumulation of Capital (London: 47. See Edwards, Reich and Weisskopf (1972), Routledge, 1951; first published in 1913). introduction to Chapter 3, as well as Gintis (1972) for MacEwan, Arthur, "Capitalist Expansion, Ideology and discussion of this point. Intervention," Review of Radical Political Economics, 48. The process and the outcome of income distribution Vol. 4, No. 1 (Spring, 1972). in a capitalist society is analyzed in greater detail by Magdoff, Harry, The Age of Imperialism (New York: Weisskopf (1972a). Monthly Review Press, 1969). 49. That democracy at the workplace is a prerequisite Magdoff, Harry, "Militarism and Imperialism," Monthly for democracy in other spheres of life is emphasized by Review, Vol. 21, No. 9 (February, 1970a). Pateman (1970). Magdoff, Harry, "The Logic of Imperialism," Social 50.I am indebted to many critics of the earlier version Policy, Vol. 1, No. 3 (September/October, 1970b). of my paper for stressing this point. Melman, Seymour, Pentagon Capitalism: The Political 51. In principle foreign trade can break the link Economy of War (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970). between the composition of domestic output and the Miliband, Ralph, The State in Capitalist Society (New structure of domestic demand, but in practice trade is York: Basic Books, 1969). never carried out so extensively as to divorce the two Miller, S.M., Roy Bennett and Cyril Alapatt, "Does the entirely. U.S. Economy Require Imperialism?" Social Policy, 52. All class-based motivations for imperialism are Vol. 1, No. 3 (September/October, 1970). conditioned by capitalism because they depend for their 0’Connor, James, "The Meaning of Economic Imperial- force on the absence of genuine democracy, and ism," in K.T. Fann and D.C. Hodges (eds.), Readings in capitalism precludes genuine democracy. U.S. Imperialism (Boston: Porter Sargent, 1971). 53. This point is made by Magdoff (1970b) in response Pateman, Carole, Participation and Democratic Theory to Miller, Bennett and Alapatt (1970). (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1970). Reich, Michael and David Finkelhor, "The Military Indus- trial Complex: No Way Out," in Christoffel, Finkelhor REFERENCES and Gilbarg (eds.), Up Against the American Myth (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970). Alavi, Hamza, "Imperialism: Old and New," in Socialist Riskin, Carl, "Maoism and Motivation: Work Incentives Register 1964 (New York: Monthly Review Press, in China," Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, Vol.5, 1964). No. 1 (July, 1973). Baran, Paul and Paul Sweezy, Monopoly Capital (New Schumpeter, Joseph, Imperialism (New York: Meridian York: Monthly Review Press, 1966). Books, 1955; first published in 1919).

59 Stolper, Wolfgang F. and Paul A. Samuelson, "Protection and Real Wages", Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (November, 1941). Tucker, Robert W., The Radical Left and American Foreign Policy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971). Waltz, Kenneth N., Man, the State and War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959). Weisskopf, Thomas E., "Capitalism and Inequality," Sec- tion 3.7 in Edwards, Reich and Weisskopf, The Capi- talist System (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972a). Weisskopf, Thomas E., "The Problem of Surplus Absorp- tion in a Capitalist Society," Section 9.1 in Edwards, Reich and Weisskopf, The Capitalist System (Engle- wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972b). Weisskopf, Thomas E., "United States Foreign Private Investment: An Empirical Survey," Section 10-3 in Edwards, Reich and Weisskopf, The Capitalist System (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972c). Williams, William A., The Tragedy of American Diplo- macy (New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1962). Zevin, Robert, "An Interpretation of American Imperial- ism," Journal of Economic History, Vol. 42, No. 1 (March, 1972).

60