From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

'Imperial' Israel[edit]

So, yeah, does anyone know what the editor was talking about when they included Israel in this article: 1 ? mat_x 09:05, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well I don't know the editor, but many people (including anti-imperialists and those said to be American imperialists) regard Israel as a crucial ally of the perceived US Empire. Noam Chomsky (who says he was Zionist until Zionism turned into its opposite) describes Israel as a "strategic asset" in the US goal of "maintain[ing] control over [Middle Eastern] energy reserves and the flow of petrodollars" and against Arab nationalism and independence. He also points to the useful "subsidiary services" offered by Israel, such as military and financial aid to apartheid South Africa, Mobutu's Zaire, the Latin American dictatorships of the 70s and 80s, at times when the US had difficulties in giving this kind of support directly to these US allies. Chomsky points out that Israel is totally dependent on US support, remaining the No.1 recipient of US aid, at least as long as Israel doesn't make peace with its neighbours. See his excellent book The Fateful Triangle for more. Israel is seen by many as the Americans' attack dog against Arab unity.pir 10:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Gotcha. Just confusing wording originally then. Right to leave it out as the article stands, I think. mat_x 12:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some quotes? some sources?[edit]

This is pretty heady stuff: Although not all self-describing anti-imperialists understand the theoretical bases, such a tendency originates in Marxist theories of imperialism, in which imperialism is understood as the economic (rather than primarily military or political, though these are related) dominance of the First World (imperialist countries) over the Third World. All forms of Leninism are anti-imperialist, although there are strains of Marxism which are not, since they do not accept the existence of imperialism. Anti-imperialist praxis generally concentrates on trying to liberate Third World countries from the burden of imperialist exploitation. I won't stoop to labelling it a violation of "NPOV" but it would gain credibility with some reference to any particular published work and even some quoted material. The mix of Marx and the "Third World" seems especially anachronistic. The thought is impenetrable. --Wetman 07:15, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

overly complicated entry[edit]

This is an overly complicated entry that can do with a far simpler definition, i.e., Anti-Imperialism representing the sentiment or active struggle against Imperialism and Empire. While in Marxist thought, Imperialism is seen as the last desperate stage of Capitalism, it can also transcend this definition to include those who actively oppose wars of conquest (i.e., Republican senators of the Roman Republic, members of the Anti-Imperialist League that opposed the occupation of the Philippines during the Spanish-American War, and even the Rebel Alliance in the Star Wars films).(annon user:

I have added your suggestion (slightly changed), remember you are as free as anyone else to edit the page. Be bold.--JK the unwise 13:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Marxist, femminist and Post-modern definitions[edit]

Hi Mihnea Tudoreanu, to start I agree that the down right crazyly worded version by annon User: was indeed ineed of a complete rewrite, however I think your version also needs some work. Here is why I have made the current edits:

  • Relinked national liberation movements to Category:National liberation movements, why not since there seems to be no page specifically about this. I agree one should be created but while its not why not link here it at least gives the reader a bit more info.
First of all, hi. Now let's get down to business. :) Let's see... I'm not sure if linking to a category is a good idea, but it's not worth arguing over. Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Reverted Marxism and Anti-imperalism to my version.
1) Your version contains POV speculation like this "the majority of Marxists are fervent anti-imperialists. This is due to the fact that Marxism is highly egalitarian and opposes all forms of exploitation."
Very well, but the fact remains that the majority of Marxists are fervent anti-imperialists. Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
2) You deleted the bit about Marx not having a specific theory of imperalism, since the section is titled Marxism and ... do you not think this is an relevant fact?
Actually, I'll let you in on a secret: I didn't edit your version and added some of my paragraphs, I edited my version and added some of your paragraphs. I must have overlooked the bit about Marx not having a specific theory of imperalism. Sorry. Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
3) You deleted some of the ref's (I note you have provided no ref's)
Again, that was my mistake. The reference for my material, however, should be obvious: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism [1] Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
4) Your version contained extended discution of imperialsim which though generally correct belongs on the imperialism page rather then here. (I disagree with the point about imperalism buying off first world workers, this is a point of contention with in the marxist tradition)
It may be a point of contention within the Marxist tradition, but it is certainly established within the Leninist tradition. That's why my version refers to Leninism, not Marxism, when discussing this idea. I also don't believe my discussion of imperialism is in any way extended. It's just one extra paragraph, and it helps make things clearer for the reader. Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Generally the idea of the wiki is that people will clink on the links to get more info' but I leave it for now. Lets see what other editors think.
I don't agree with your use of Leninist tradition. It not only those whom call themselves "Leninists" that follow in Lenin's tradition (for example Trotskists). Lenin's theory of imperalism certainly has a following outside of self-described "Marxist-Lenninists". With in the 'Leninist' tradition (in this wider (less POV) definition) the idea that "1st world workers benifit form 3rd world explotation" is very much disputed.--JK the unwise 18:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I have not restored the femminism and anti-imperalism bit since I'm not 100% sure of it, though I vagely remember reading such claims at some point. However, I am more sure of the post-modern stuff (though in my POV traditional Marxism (in its more subtle forms) reconises the role of culture in imperalist domination even though it posits that the point of that domination is profit). I will look for some ref's for this, but since you provide no ref's ur self you should show some willingness to go with this for the time being at least.

--JK the unwise 16:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have no objections to your paragraph on post-modernism in its current form. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

ummm lets play catch? on the playground? with a ball the size of the austro-hungarian empire?

minor edits, new feminism section[edit]

I've made an effort to reduce the (to me, obvious) pro-Marxism bias of the article, though I share it. I made some minor changes to the Marxism and Anti-Imperialism and Postmodernism and Anti-Imperialism and added a new and improved Feminism and Anti-Imperialism section. Both need expansion, badly, preferably by someone with a more thorough knowledge of each than I. Kalkin

Your changes are good.One thing that would improve the article further is if we could referance some good acamdemic works.--JK the unwise 09:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Put in some names, but they don't have articles and I don't know enough to write any. Kalkin

I've now added a short section on "right-wing anti-imperialism." I thought it ought to be mentioned. I'm not entirely happy with it as it stands, however: I don't think right-wing national liberation movements can be omitted from a section with that title, but at the same time the article focuses on Western anti-imperialism rather than national liberation movements, which I think makes sense. My less-than-satisfactory compromise is to just mention their existence and say little about them. I also added a paragraph to "Marxism and anti-imperialism" noting that "anti-imperialism" is a term used most often by Marxists. My evidence? Personal experience, and the pretty obvious record of who's been working on this article... Kalkin 04:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the "right-wing anti-imperialism" section is very hard to understand. I also think the postmodernism section is a bit odd. It doesn't sound like postmodernism as I know it. I changed the title to give postcolonialism more prominence, and I think maybe it should be rewritten to focus on postcolonialism rather than postmodernism. Crucially, many postcolonialists are not postmodernists (e.g. Said!), while many more are Marxists who see economics rather than culture as central. --BobFromBrockley 10:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism[edit]

I think these should be two seperate articles. Current article focuses on critical theories of imperialism, and on the movement against it in the West. It either needs to be rewritten to reflect the story of anti-colonial struggles and movements internationally - the pan-African movement, the non-aligned movement, Fanon, etc OR (better) a seperate article be written along those lines. --BobFromBrockley 10:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right that anti-imperialism is not the same thing as anti-colonialism (in that imperialism is not the same thing as colonialism), but I am dubious that there is any such identifiable phenonenon as 'anti-colonialism'. The phrase national liberation is more common. I'll make Anti-colonialism redirect there. mgekelly 11:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I made anti-colonialist and anti-colonialism redirect here, as well as national liberation. All of them used to redirect to wars of national liberation, which is a bit pessimistic and certainly misleading as it implies that all anti-colonialists are necessarily in favor of military actions, and besides that the only liberations happened after wars. Thus it reduces anti-colonialism, which is an ideology shared by many left-wing people during the process of decolonization, to the national liberation wars, which were historical events parts of the anti-colonialist war. I agree with Bob who states that the two were separate articles, but in the meantime, I think it's better that they redirect here than to "wars of national liberation". Cheers & hoping to improve the serie on colonialism. Maybe some construction of templates would be good (to link colonialism, decolonization, scramble for Africa, colonization of the Americas, colonization of Africa, decolonilization of Africa, human zoos, etc. etc.) ... Lapaz 22:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Same for national liberation movements, which is not a synonym of NLwars... Lapaz 22:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

a reduction in scope[edit]

I think the article ought to focus exclusively on Marxist and Marxist-derived understandings of anti-imperialism. There are certainly many other ways and justifications for being opposed to imperialism, but the term and the concept are primarily used by Marxists. That's why it's so difficult I think to figure out what fits in a section on feminism, postmodernism, etc. The introduction of the article should just be explicit that it's about a concept from Marxist theory, and then perhaps include a "See also" section linking to postcolonialism, national liberation, feminist IR, and whatever else might be related. I'll go ahead and do this tomorrow if there are no objections. Kalkin 18:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is broadly sensible and that all that stuff should be in see also, as you suggest. However, I just want to point out that some non-Marxists have used the term and concept, and indeed contributed to our understanding of it - e.g. Hannah Arendt (in The Origins of Totalitarianism) and John A. Hobson, the latter of whom should probably be mentioned in this article, as should Rosa Luxemburg. --BobFromBrockley 10:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


While there is undoubtedly some overlap, anti-imperialism is neither logically nor historically an 'anti-war' credo. I am therefore removing the anti-war thingo, and will rm anti-imperialism from it in turn, probably. If you dn't like it, rvv me and leave your objection here. mgekelly 11:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Standardization for Imperialism (re. Lenin)[edit]

In this article, the Imperialism article, and the Theories of New Imperialism article, I standardized the stuff about Lenin's Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Darth Sidious 23:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Right-wing anti-imperialism[edit]

The section highlights a very important issue but there are no citations. Is it possible to source this? --Jammoe (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Lack of sources[edit]

Most of the content is unsupported by sources. Please improve by including links to RS. --Ts5seeker (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Marxism Leninism.[edit]

I think this page focuses too much on the Marxist-Leninist views on imperialism. There are other anti-imperialist movements. You even included a section on right wing imperialism but neglected every other view on anti-imperialism. For example, anarchists are staunchly anti-imperialist yet they are not Leninist of any kind. It only briefly mentions it. (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I second this. How on earth does anti-colonialism redirect me to an article in a series on marxism-lenninism, called "anti-imperialism"? Obviously some political hijacking has gone on here, carry on.. Username policy1211 (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I third this. Especially when there's a "criticism" section that basically says that anti-imperialism is just anti-American. It makes no sense. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm disgusted by this article. I came looking for details on anti-colonialist leaders and activists in one-time European colonies, the kind of people who rattled the chains before the European powers started getting rid of their colonies. I'm directed to this article, which is about a related but different subject, and which is itself dominated by what is actually just one aspect of anti-imperialism. Someone in 2006 actually said "I think the article ought to focus exclusively on Marxist and Marxist-derived understandings of anti-imperialism." And someone else said "I am dubious that there is any such identifiable phenonenon as 'anti-colonialism'". Pffff. Meanwhile some of the article is Americocentric, besides the Marxocentrism. It seems to suppose all anti-imperialism came from people in the developed world, and nobody actually in a country ruled invaded and ruled by an empire ever had anything to say about it. This is the worst of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Inverted commas in entry[edit]

Why do inverted commas surround the opening word? This seems suspect to me, like it is meant for the reader to distrust the concept and not take it seriously. That is biased and it should be removed in accordance with standard policy. Oiygg (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)