Imperialism is the act of forcefully extending a nation’s authority through territorial conquest or by establishing economic and political dominance over non-colonized nations. This practice has taken various forms throughout history.
Ancient clan groups expanded their territories and dominated others in order to compete for resources. Unfortunately, imperialism often led to the suffering, neglect, or intentional destruction of indigenous cultures as the dominant powers believed themselves to be superior.
Interestingly, empires both past and present have justified their actions by claiming to spread order, morality, religion, civilization, and even occupy a morally superior position. Empires such as Alexander the Great’s empire, the Roman Empire,
the British Empire,and the Napoleonic empire saw themselves as forces for good despite engaging in violent expansion.
Imperialism is often associated with totalitarianism because colonized nations had little control over their own governance.
Despite the fact that democracies have engaged in imperialistic actions, they also place great importance on defending democracy and freedom. The United States is an example of this dichotomy as it sees safeguarding these principles as crucial to its identity and global mission. However, it has also pursued imperialistic endeavors. Nevertheless, empires have historically brought peace and stability to large populations. Throughout history, the formation and dissolution of empires have profoundly influenced and shaped the world, leading to linguistic and cultural alliances that persist despite negative aspects of cultural and political control.
The ability for the global community to engage in discussions about shared values and universal human rights is largely a consequence of significant parts of the world previously being under imperial rule. Humanity may be moving towards a stage where prioritizing self-interest over others’ exploitation gives way to a new form of humanity—one focused on promoting the well-being of all individuals while restoring our fractured relationship with the planet we all call home.
According to Liah Greenfeld, a Professor of Sociology at Boston University, nationalism can be defined as a sense of identity with the nation, which is similar to tribalism and is held together by a sense of kinship. In its original use, nationalism referred to elite groups, but its modern usage typically refers to very large groups, sometimes as large as an empire. What distinguishes a nation from a tribe is its larger size, made possible by greater literacy, improved communications, and transportation facilitated by industrialization. Unlike an empire, which relies on military force or religion to hold itself together, a nation is theoretically based on an equal relationship between citizens. However, the development of this relationship varies among different national communities and historical circumstances. Professor Liah Greenfeld also points out that nationalism can take either a collectivistic or individualistic perspective depending on whether the community or the individual is considered more important.
Collectivist nationalism tends to have an authoritarian nature, while individualistic nationalism tends to be more liberal. Nationalism can also be categorized as either ethnic or civic. Ethnic nationalism is inherently collectivist as it is based on factors such as blood, race, or ethnic group. On the other hand, civic nationalism is typically individualistic, but it can still possess collectivist elements. Examples of civic and individualistic nationalisms can be observed in England and the United States, whereas France represents a civic and collectivist nationalism. Germany and Russia exemplify ethnic and collectivist nationalisms. The question remains: when did nationalism gain particular significance in Europe?
Which areas experienced the consequences of the event and what were its outcomes?
The goal of Marx and Engels’ socialism was to create a society where the benefits of industrialization would be fairly distributed. This system aimed to improve conditions for workers, in contrast to the English system when the Communist Manifesto was published in 1848. The majority of workers having more power than bosses allowed them to govern. While socialism focuses on economic distribution, it is not a political system. In their ideal forms, both socialism and laissez faire capitalism would be similar as they cater precisely to individual needs. However, in practice, these systems face limitations at national or international levels due to human imperfection. For these systems to succeed, everyone must adhere to the same rules; unfortunately, many individuals do not play fair. Socialism is often considered liberal because it aims to involve more people (ideally everyone) in shaping the economy.
Marx believed that democracy, which emphasizes inclusivity and the involvement of all in government, is a precursor to socialism. He recognized the shared foundations between economics and politics, although his understanding of their relationship was incorrect. In contrast, communism takes a conservative stance by limiting economic decision-making to the Party Secretary. Similarly, Republicans gradually restrict government decision-making to those who control the Party figurehead. Conservatives in the US find themselves in a situation similar to that of communists in the 1930s due to failed revolutions and reluctance to acknowledge mistakes. It is important not to confuse socialism (an economic system) with communism (a political system). Just as Republicans claim to be “compassionate conservatives” without practicing it, communists claim to be “socialist” despite little resemblance between their version and Marx’s vision. Initially, Marx and Engels conceived communism as the ultimate stage of their socialist revolution.
According to Encarta, communism underwent a transformation following the rise of Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party in Russia in 1917. They rebranded themselves as the Communist Party and established an oppressive single-party regime committed to implementing socialist policies. However, these policies were not fully realized. Instead of empowering industrial workers to control their means of production as envisioned by Marx, communist regimes predominantly emerged in underdeveloped agrarian nations such as the Soviet Union. Despite improving upon the Tsarist regime through the October Revolution, a fatal error was made by placing trust in leaders like Lenin to spearhead this transformative movement. In 1921, Lenin introduced the New Economic Policy which officially abandoned socialism and allowed for taxation, local trade, state capitalism, and excessive profiteering. Additionally, that same year witnessed Lenin purging 259,000 party members who lost their voting rights leading to reduced participation in decision-making processes. This transition eventually led Marxism to evolve into Marxist-Leninism and later transformed into Stalinism.
The term Stalinism was coined by anti-Soviet Marxists, such as Trotskyists, in order to differentiate the policies of the Soviet Union from those they believed were more closely aligned with Marxism. According to these Trotskyists, under Stalin’s leadership, the USSR was considered a bureaucratically degenerated workers’ state where exploitation was controlled by a ruling caste. This ruling caste enjoyed privileges and benefits at the expense of the working class but did not have ownership of the means of production or constitute a separate social class.
Communists who defended Stalin were driven by Cognitive Dissonance. This psychological discomfort motivated them to reduce this dissonance and avoid any information that could increase it. They actively rejected factual evidence and refused to acknowledge criticism. Despite many socialists being aware of Stalin’s disastrous actions and recognizing deviations from Lenin and Marx’s ideals, they still offered support for the Soviet Union. These individuals identified as Communists while rejecting most of Stalin’s viewpoints and much of Lenin’s revisionism.
Despite being initially responsible for problems, Lenin and Stalin are revered in Russia. Lenin is seen as a Hero of the Revolution, while Stalin is admired by Communists for overthrowing the Third Reich. Similarly, conservatives defending George W. Bush face a situation similar to Communists defending Stalin.
Conservatives refuse to acknowledge criticism and deny facts, even though neither Stalin nor Bush truly embodied their respective ideologies (socialism and compassionate conservatism). The structure of the current conservative movement in the US can be traced back to anti-Communists during and after WWII, blue-collar workers who supported George Wallace’s “America First” ideology, racists who switched parties during Nixon’s Southern Strategy, and the emerging libertarian movement led by Barry Goldwater.
Ronald Reagan endorsed Goldwater in his speech at the 1964 Republican National Convention and emphasized the importance of a balanced budget for global security: “There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States.” However, like Lenin adjusting Marx’s ideas, Reagan did not practice fiscal restraint as governor of California.
In addition, after assuming presidency in 1980, Reagan went against his campaign promise and tripled the deficit which resulted in a lack of fiscal and economic stability.
Reagan’s failure to implement fiscal restraint resulted in a betrayal of his own ideals, causing many conservatives to remain devoted to the Republican party despite their disagreement with Reagan’s new policies. However, conservatives still regard Reagan as a Hero of the Revolution for his role in overthrowing the Soviet Union. Although comparing Reagan to Lenin and Bush to Stalin may not be entirely accurate, there are noticeable similarities between their situations. Just as Stalin inherited a failed revolution, Bush inherits a situation that relies on an almost cult-like admiration for his predecessors and a refusal to acknowledge facts. In fact, according to Wikipedia’s definition of Stalinism, it involves a ruling caste exploiting the working class—a goal that aligns with what Bush and the Republicans aim for. While I know many Republicans and conservatives who are good individuals, they have become susceptible fools over the past two decades by trying to reconcile Reagan’s betrayal through embracing falsehoods. Despite labeling the Soviet Union as an “evil empire,” Reagan did not view it as much of an empire nor consider its inhabitants inherently evil.
Khrushchev repudiated Stalin after he died in 1953, but lacked the strength to alter the system or the cult worship that sustained the dictatorship. Republicans need to repudiate Reagan, but there is nobody courageous enough to speak the truth. The GOP is reduced to complaining, displaying patriotism, and blatantly lying. The embarrassment of being a conservative has never been more profound. Despite Nader’s objections, John Kerry and the Democrats do represent a return to American values. It took 40 years for the Soviet Union to decay internally before democracy took hold. Let us not wait 40 years before the Republican-controlled US decays from within. The choice is apparent. To come full circle, allow me to quote the final line of Reagan’s 1964 speech, which holds greater significance when discussing the necessity of voting Democrat in 2004: “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will condemn them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at
least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.”
