Is Imperialism dead? Or it just takes a new form?

>>2626661
Never went away. Its just done through covert means militarily or economically/culturally now

File: Horatio Nelson.jpg (20KB, 376x450px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 376x450px

One could argue that US, Russia and China are the closest one can get to an 'imperialist' power these days.

>>2626671
Completely agree, Anyone who says imperialism is dead just needs to look at the effects of international systems such as the IMF and World Bank

It's mainly economic now.

File: Flag_Map_of_the_United_States_1912_-_1959.png (32KB, 2006x1258px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 2006x1258px

>>2626661
Strong nations exploit weak nations it will never end. I fully believe that if the situation was reversed a former colony of the Europeans would come over and exploit the European nations and have undo influence over them.


Oh wait that already happened

>>2626671
>>2627515
yup yup

with the post-WW2 world and fully developed economies transitioning from production to service economies, colonies and overseas territories became more expensive to maintain than the revenue they generated.

so signing contracts for companies to mine the resources and ship it out, rather than build a government, send a military garrison, and administrate all the land became much more efficient at getting what the colonizers were after at the start, resources.

>>2627544
It makes more sense to support a small politcal elite that will give you what you want. This is much cheaper than trying to actually control and govern a colony. Now there are obviously risks of losing control, but that exists in regular colonies.

The biggest problem with the current system from an imperial perspective is that it is to easy for a nation to find another nation to support it. This leads to instability and war like the cold war. It is not a problem as much when only one nation exists as a super power, but that is unlikely to remain the case in the future.

>...the American capitalists gained effective control of these smaller countries of the South and ran their banks,railways and mines, and exploited them to their own advantage...That is to say the United States annexed the wealth, or a greater part of it, of these countries. Now this is worth noting as it is a new kind of empire, the modern type of empire. It is an invisible empire, an economic empire, which exploits and dominates without any obvious signs of empire.

>This latest kind of empire does not annex even the land; it only annexes the wealth or the wealth producing elements in the country. By doing so it can exploit the country fully to its own advantage and can largely control it, and at the same time has to shoulder no responsibility for governing and repressing the country., In effect the both the land and the people living there are dominated and controlled with the least amount of trouble.
>In this way imperialism has perfected itself in the course of time and the modern type of empire is the invisible economic empire.

Nehru, Jawaharlal. Glimpses of World History Vol II. (1935). Ch 138, The Invisible Empire of America, pp. 894-5.

>>2626661
>Or it just takes a new form?

It's this. The United States has dominated the world culturally and economically since the the 1940s, and it's all it needs. The massive waste of money they spent every year on funding hundreds of military bases is pointless since most countries in the world are their puppets anyway.