Can we characterise 21st century international relations as a neo-imperial world order?

intro

• this essay will discuss the definition of imperialism, and how it manifests in 21st century IR, from two different approaches - realist and marxist

• it aims to demonstrate a similarity between the two, while proving that modern IR is certainly still characterised by imperialistic action

P1 - Lenin (2010)

• one of the first references made to a new form of imperialism was by Lenin, who built on Marxist theory

• he explains that imperialism is a direct continuation of the monopoly stage of capitalism - a lack of free competition

• takes an economic focus, with imperialism having five main tenets - concentration of production/capital/money, capital focussed exports/monopolies/territory divisions

• 21st century IR certainly still dependent on finance - wealthier countries advantaged, developed countries measured by economic markers, economic sanctions in war

• Flawed by extreme emphasis on economic imperialism

P2 - E H Carr The Twenty Years Crisis (2016)

• realist approaches to imperialism tend to be broader

• while Carr does not explicitly discuss his definition of imperialism in TYC he does define power as having three strands - military, economic and propaganda (power over opinion) - which can be broadly applied to our interpretation of modern day imperialism

• he adds that nationalism “develops almost automatically” into imperialism - certainly something that characterises 21st century IR

• TYC also explains his perception of the IO as a hierarchy, with dominant nations interests and positions privileged above all others - links to Lenin’s theories on economic control where territory is divided between strongest capitalist powers

• while Carr’s approach has some validity, a generally better regarded approach is that of Morgenthau - more grounded in realism, stable

P3 - Morgenthau Politics Among Nations (1949)

• another realist, who ultimately remained more grounded in the tradition than Carr and better expanded on similar ideas

• he describes international politics as a struggle for power (control over the minds and actions of men)

• imperialism is any policy / action designed to overthrow the status quo

• the strength of this argument is that it leaves a much broader scope for what imperialism can be interpreted as

• while some may view this as a weakness due to its lack of clarity, I argue that this gives a better fit for the current IO - a constantly changing and evolving landscape

• under this interpretation, almost every action in modern IR can be seen to have some imperialistic tendency, which I believe to certainly be true at a time when not only states, but MNCs NGOs etc have also become major world actors

P4 - Gramsci (Bates 1975)

• alongside the relevance of the realist approach, I propose that the marxist approach should not be wholly disregarded

• Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony as laid out in his Prison Notebooks is also incredibly relevant

• Gramsci takes a similar stance to Morgenthau, stating that “man is not ruled by force alone, but also by ideas” (Bates 1975)

• cultural hegemony is the theory that the ruling class shape the culture of society so that their worldview becomes the accepted cultural norm

• I believe this phenomenon is present across the IO - from the extreme influence of states like China and America on the world economy to the increasing influence of celebrities and MNCs on the everyday person and trends

• in this way, the best understanding of how imperialism still pervades international relations can be taken from synthesising theories from multiple approaches