How to find the Modern Imperialists:
The end of Empires after the Second World War might be an illusion, just as the end of History after the fall of the Soviet Union, certainly seems to be an illusion. The end of Soviet communism in 1989, marked by the
fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, was widely
hailed as a triumph for liberal democratic ideology, suggesting a global
consensus around its values of free markets, human rights, and other perceived political
freedoms. However, this apparent ideological victory also ushered in a new form
of imperialism under the guise of "liberal hegemony." In the decades
following, Liberal Democratic powers, particularly the United States and their large
alliance network, sought to expand their influence globally by promoting
liberal democratic norms and economic policies. This endeavour often involved
interventions—military, political, and economic—in various countries under the
pretext of spreading democracy and protecting human rights.
In this article, I argue that such actions,
instead of being purely altruistic, often served the geopolitical and economic
interests of the intervening imperialist institutions – not nation-states per
se, imposing a one-size-fits-all model of governance that may not align with
their diverse political landscapes and cultural identities of the affected peoples
and their independent norm-forming communities. This wide range of
interventions highlights a complex layer of modern imperialism, driven by the
ambition to mould the world into a liberal democratic framework, which can
paradoxically lead to the destruction of human agency through their right to become
independent norm-forming communities. Furthermore,
this attempted destruction of human agency is already leading to instability rather
than the promised creativity, harmony and freedom.
What follows is an evolving list and
description of what I consider to be properties describing some of these
modern-day Imperialists' modern behaviours and strategies. It is being created in the same spirit as
what might have been animating Martin Luther, when he wrote the 95 Theses, to
be debated by the most powerful ordering institution of his time, the Roman
Catholic Church. This list is by no means complete and constantly evolving while
it is rooted in my personal experience and academic framing. It synthesises my extensive
readings on the subject and, more crucially, reflects my own experiences as a
citizen of South Africa. This country is also my home, where my ancestors have
lived for the past 12 generations. It is
built on insights I gained in my search to make sense of the world that was
dramatically shaped, most importantly, by the misperceived post-Communist &
Liberal Hegemonic world that changed the way we think about everything ever
since 1989. For myself and all my fellow South Africans of many languages and
tribes, these dramatic world-changing events took place with the advent of what
is known to South Africans as “the New South Africa” and to the world as “the
Liberal World Order or Liberal Democratic Hegemony”.
In this examination of imperialism, it is
essential to avoid the constraints imposed by any single political ideology,
such as liberalism, communism, socialism, fascism or even nationalism. The
reason for this approach is twofold. Firstly, imperialism can manifest under
various political spectrums, adapting its methods and ideologies to suit
specific geopolitical or socio-economic contexts, in order to achieve some kind
of empire. By not tethering the analysis to any particular ideology, these
theses will provide a more versatile and comprehensive understanding of how
imperialist strategies are generically applied, irrespective of the governing
ideology. Secondly, focusing on the underlying actions and consequences of
imperialism, rather than the ideologies which may justify or disguise these
actions, allows for a more objective and critical assessment of its impacts.
This forced focus is crucial in identifying and understanding the
characteristics and motives of imperialists across different times and places,
thereby enabling a more effective critique of their actions and policies, and
hopefully new knowledge that synthesises new, hopefully more ecology-centric
ideologies.
The key to these so-called modern imperialist
behaviours lies in the fact that my arguments attempt to highlight how imperial
agendas impact those of independent norm-forming communities. This means that,
without dogmatically sticking to the textbook definition of an “imperialist” or
an empire, in the historical sense, it should be possible to create new
knowledge about what a modern imperialist looks like. Throughout this synthesis, I also realised
that I had to look at nationalism as both an imperial construct or in other
cases a true container for actual independent norm-forming communities. Therefore, to avoid this ambiguity about
nationalism, I placed my focus on imperialist behaviour regardless of its
ideology or containing social structures.
To facilitate this I will simply introduce
and explain some observed imperial behaviours and agendas that will allow the
reader to evaluate the new imperial behaviours, and then hopefully be able to take
part in the discourse and decide for yourself what a true modern imperialist
is. However, at this stage of the introduction
and invitation to discourse, it might not be clear what an independent
norm-forming community is. Therefore, we
first need to define this term.
The concept of independent norm-forming
communities positions them as a distinct entity within the social and political
spectrum. This attempted definition will try to define what constitutes an
independent norm-forming community, contrasting it with the concepts of
individualism and empire, and emphasizing the unique position such communities
hold in enabling individuals to freely establish norms.
An independent norm-forming community is
fundamentally a collective of individuals endowed with the inherent capacity,
willingness, and dedication to autonomously create norms that frame and guide
all dimensions of their communal existence. This definition implies a
deep-rooted belief in the power of collective human action free from external
dictates. Such communities are characterized by their ability to operate
independently from overarching political or social structures, like empires and
quasi-imperial-nation states, which often impose standardized norms and
practices.
This kind of individualist reality, should
not be conflated with the broader definitions of what constitutes a community
or an empire. Here, individualism is not about isolation or self-centeredness;
instead, it’s about the empowerment and responsibility of each member to
contribute to the communal ethos. In contrast, an empire typically operates on
a supra-communal hegemonic basis, ever more centralizing power and limiting the
normative flexibility of its constituents.
Moreover, this definition implicitly argues
for a recognition of the unique capabilities of independent norm-forming
communities in fostering a type of governance and social organization that is
reflective of and responsive to the diverse needs and aspirations of its
members. This approach allows for a dynamic and adaptive framework, unlike the
often rigid and prescriptive norms of an empire. This is why the evolution of
norms should find protected independent communities that can give life to new
and revitalise old norms.
Therefore, independent norm-forming
communities represent a paradigm where collective human capacities and
individual agencies converge to create a self-sustaining and self-defining
social order. These communities challenge the traditional dichotomies of
freedom and coercion, and empire and individuality, proposing instead a model
where norms are not just inherited or imposed but are deliberately and
thoughtfully crafted by those they directly impact. This concept redefines what
it means to be a community in that it champions autonomy, participative
governance, and deep respect for individual contributions within a livable collective
framework as opposed to the unlivable construct of a global ideological empire.
From this working definition of what an
“Independent norm-forming community” is, it furthermore becomes necessary to
build an understanding of the difference between what a community is and what a
society is. The difference between a
community and a society is generically described as follows:
A community is first of all the place where
you experience most of your connected/shared life, as becomes clear from the
German word “Gemeinschaft” and the related Afrikaans word “Gemeenskap”. It is a group of people who, demonstrably, share
common characteristics and interests and most of all unique norms, and who
interact with one another to pursue shared goals or interests. A community can
be based on geographic proximity, cultural heritage, ethnicity, religion, or
any other shared love that brings people together, within an experience of “living
together”.
A society, on the other hand, is, first of
all, premised on the ability of people to “talk together and make new knowledge
and agreements”. This working definition
is derived from one of the German words for society, “Gesellschaft” and the
Afrikaans word “Geselskap”. For many
reasons, of which polyglot interactions and other cosmopolitan abilities of
many people, a society is usually a larger and more complex grouping of people
who might share common institutions based on mostly mechanistic agreements that
flow from the rational analysis of those agreements, and usually universally
(…or at least multi-laterally) agreed practices that do not intend to make
living bonds of community, but simply confirm transactional interactions.
Society refers to the whole network of relationships and interactions among
individuals, groups, and institutions that make up a social transactional system.
It encompasses mostly market-related interactions of human life, including
economic, legal and related social systems.
This should make it clear that the place
where independent norm-forming should be focused should be the community and
not the larger society because norms are the things that any individual has existentially
available to enter into society. You should
be able to see the community is the place where the existentially available
norms of individuals are the most loved and the most naturally incorporated
into any other application of those norms.
Communities can indeed create societies unique to their independent
norms, and it is also true that communities and individuals can share societies
with other communities or sometimes individuals outside their communities. While societies do not expect the living
togetherness and existential fulfilment that communities imply.
With this working definition of an
independent norm-forming community in mind, it is now possible to identify
modern imperialist behaviours. From the
following list of imperial behaviours, strategies and agendas, it should be
clear how imperialists use universalist and atomising societal ideas about our
human solidarity to ensure the destruction of independent norm-forming communities.
Imperialist behaviours, with a short introductory
description for each:
·
Imperialists fear independent norm-forming
communities most because it is the only legitimate orchestration of human
intentions able to break free from their empire, that is why they prevent
independent norm-forming communities as a matter of highest priority.
·
o
Imperial powers are
particularly threatened by independent norm-forming communities because these
entities represent a profound and legitimate challenge to imperial control.
Independent norm-forming communities embody the unique capacity to orchestrate
human intentions in a way that can fundamentally disrupt the hegemony of an
empire. Recognizing this potential, imperialists strategically prioritize the
suppression of this kind of community to prevent any divergence from their
dominion. This preemptive strategy is crucial for maintaining their influence
and preventing the establishment of alternative norms that could undermine
their authority.
·
o
Imperial powers often seek to
consolidate independent norm-forming communities into a singular, imperialistically
recognized sovereign state. This state, by design, encompasses a vast diversity
of communities, languages, and tribes, all of which are species for
free-forming norms. The broad heterogeneity within such a state makes it
inherently challenging to achieve genuine harmony and mutual understanding
among its disparate groups. By imposing a uniform sovereign structure over such
diverse constituents, imperialists dilute the distinct norms, identities and
governance models of these communities, rendering the concepts of 'nation' and
'nation-state' effectively meaningless. The artificial unity enforced under
this model suppresses the organic development of inter-community relationships
and undermines the possibility of these communities autonomously navigating
their coexistence and collaboration. This strategy not only stifles local
self-determination but also obscures the true essence of nationhood, which is
founded on more coherent and genuinely integrated “gemeinschaft” as opposed to
“gesellschaft” bonds.
·
o
Imperialists often co-opt the
concept of multiculturalism, transforming it into a melting pot strategy
designed to erode the distinct norms established by independent communities.
This approach dilutes unique cultural identities, subsuming them into a
homogenized framework that aligns with imperial objectives. Rather than
fostering a genuine exchange of cultural practices through organic and
trust-based interactions between communities, this strategy manipulates
multiculturalism to create a landscape of cultural conformity. This not only
diminishes the autonomy of these communities but also undermines the rich
potential for diverse cultural experiences to naturally enrich and inform each
other, preserving the sovereignty and vibrancy of varied cultural traditions.
·
o
Imperialist powers actively
seek to dismantle civilizations that support and safeguard independent
norm-forming communities. These civilizations, by their very nature, pose a
significant threat to the sustainability of empires because they foster an
“ecology” of autonomous communities rather than a monolithic imperial state.
Such civilizations can more aptly be described as a commonwealth – a dynamic
alliance of communities that maintain a balance of power through mutual support
and shared respect for differing norms. This decentralized model of governance
inherently resists imperial domination, prompting imperialists to target these
civilizations, from within and without that imperialist civilisation, as an
ongoing measure to curb the emergence of an alternative and mostly dispersed power
structure that could challenge their attempted hegemony.
·
o
Imperialists strategically
establish and sustain a monetary system designed to prioritize imperial transactional
trust, a mechanism that disproportionately benefits the imperial ruling elites
and the institutions they employ for wealth generation. This system is supposedly
crafted with the intent to be ostensibly neutral or community-agnostic, yet it
inherently evolves into anti-community behaviour by aiming towards a zombified
individual as the base economic actor. By doing so, it ensures that financial
and economic structures support and reinforce the power and influence of these imperialists
at the expense of independent norm-forming communities. The monetary flows of
capital are designed to undermine these communities' ability to retain wealth
within local economic systems. This is
not an unintended consequence but a calculated effort to maintain control and
limit the development of alternative, community-based economic models that
could challenge the hegemony of the imperial power structure.
·
o
Imperial powers strategically
represent the mere existence of weapons of mass destruction as a legitimizing
aspect of their imperial ambitions. Rather than leveraging this formidable destructiveness
to support the obvious need for a balanced alliance sphere – where independent
norm-forming communities could flourish and contribute to global stability – imperialists
use it to bolster an ever-increasing geopolitical dominance. By framing these
weapons as essential tools for maintaining hegemonic order and security, they
obscure the potential for these arms to protect and sustain a more equitable
and diverse international system. This manipulation not only consolidates their
control but also sidelines the constructive role that independent communities
could play in fostering a truly secure and dynamic global order.
·
o
Imperial powers do not view
independent individuals lacking strong community ties as a threat; rather, they
actively cultivate such individuals through internationalist institutions. This
strategic cultivation serves a dual purpose: it extends the reach of imperial
control and deploys these isolated individuals as tools to undermine and
dismantle independent norm-forming communities, which pose a significant threat
to imperial hegemony. By promoting individualism divorced from communal
affiliations, these powers weaken the social fabric and collective resilience
of communities that could otherwise resist imperial domination. This approach
not only marginalizes the role of strong, cohesive communities in global
affairs but also ensures that individuals are less likely to form alliances
that could challenge the status quo, thereby preserving imperial influence and
control.
·
o
Imperial powers actively engage
in tactics of coercion and enticement to draw established and emerging leaders
away from their functional independent norm-forming communities. These
individuals are lured with promises of greater influence and opportunities on
an international stage, persuading them to adopt an internationalist
perspective that prioritizes the goals and values of the empire over those of
their own communities. By extracting these key figures, imperialists not only
strip communities of their leadership but also redirect these leaders’
capabilities towards enhancing the prestige and power of the empire. This
strategic manipulation undermines the autonomy and development of these
communities, sapping them of the very leadership, talent and vision necessary
to build their own prestige and foster genuine self-determination.
·
o
Imperial powers systematically
enforce investment strategies and corporate behaviours that align with
internationalist principles, deliberately suppressing local and regional
economic autonomy. By doing so, they ensure that wealth generation serves
broader imperial interests rather than emerging organically through enterprises
rooted within and among independent norm-forming communities. This orchestrated
redirection of economic activity stifles the potential for these communities to
cultivate their own economic landscapes and sustainably develop their
resources. Instead, the wealth created flows back to enhance the imperial core,
entrenching economic dependencies and precluding the growth of self-sufficient,
locally-living economies. This strategy not only marginalizes the economic
aspirations of these communities but also weakens their ability to form
resilient economic networks free from imperial dominance.
·
o
Imperial powers strategically
support the proliferation of suboptimal and/or dysfunctional communities,
recognizing that such entities, by their fragmented and inefficient nature,
inherently lack the resilience and cohesion necessary to evolve into
sustainable, independent norm-forming communities. This tactical endorsement is
calculated to destabilize the foundational structures that could otherwise
enable these communities to thrive autonomously. By fostering conditions
conducive to disunity and inefficacy within these groups, imperialists
effectively dilute their potential normative strength, thereby mitigating the
risk that they coalesce into formidable entities capable of challenging
imperial dominance. This approach not only stymies the development of these
communities but ensures their dependence and subservience to imperial agendas,
curtailing their growth and longevity.
·
o
Imperial powers manipulate
certain universalist claims within identity politics, using them as tools to
fragment and weaken independent norm-forming communities. By framing these
claims in ways that emphasize victimhood and grievance, they effectively reprogram
individuals' perceptions, leading them to act in ways that inadvertently
undermine their own communities' cohesion and resilience. This strategic
deployment acts like a virus, infecting individuals with a mindset that
prioritizes personal and disconnected identity grievances over the collective
well-being and autonomous development of their communities. As a result, these
communities face internal divisions and conflicts that detract from their
ability to form strong, cohesive units capable of resisting imperial influence
and sustaining their own norms and values.
·
o
Imperial powers strategically
exploit the universal truth claims of religions and the philosophical
assertions of ideologies like capitalism, socialism, communism and atheism to
undermine the autonomy of independent norm-forming communities. By co-opting
these spiritual and intellectual frameworks as being valid outside the
community, they craft narratives that question the legitimacy of local norms
and values, positioning them as somehow inferior or in opposition to these
broader, proposed universal truths. This approach not only diminishes the
perceived validity of the communities' own traditions and beliefs about
universal truths but also prevents these from serving as a basis for unity and
inter-community alliances. Instead of allowing all kinds of religious and
philosophical convictions to foster connections and guide the development of
these communities naturally, imperialists repurpose them as tools of division
and control, thereby stifling the potential for genuine independence and
self-determination.
·
o
Imperial powers often leverage
the universal appeal of scientific authority and selectively interpret social
data to undermine the legitimacy of independent norm-forming communities. By
presenting certain scientific findings as universally normative, they assert a
monolithic amoral interpretation of data that can override and invalidate local
norms and practices, thereby eroding the autonomy of these communities. Rather
than acknowledging the incredible diversity and resilience found in natural
ecosystems as a model for the social ecology of varied human communities,
imperialists manipulate ecological scientific narratives to centralize control
and assert a homogenized global standard. This strategy not only stifles the
rich potential for community-specific adaptations and innovations but also
disregards the natural principles of non-homogenizing diversity and adaptation
that could otherwise validate and support the sustainable development of
independent norm-forming communities.
·
o
Imperial powers strategically
deploy welfare policies as a mechanism to undermine the autonomy of independent
norm-forming communities. By positioning such aid as essential for survival,
they subtly erode the self-reliance and internal governance of these
communities, creating dependency. This method effectively invalidates the
communities' capability to govern and sustain themselves independently through
their own values of fair play, hard work, and thrift. Rather than encouraging
these communities to develop robust internal economies and social structures
that promote self-sufficiency, imperialists use welfare as a tool of control,
discouraging the very industriousness and prudent resource management that
could empower these communities to thrive autonomously and maintain their
distinct norms.
·
o
Imperialists often cloak their
interventions in communities under the guise of an exaggerated concern for care
and justice. This ostensibly benevolent approach is strategically employed to
subtly erode the communities' drive and capacity for self-determination and
collective resilience. By presenting their oversight as necessary for the
community's well-being, they gradually diminish the local will to engage in the
hard work and collaboration required to develop and sustain independent norms
and cohesive communal structures. This method effectively disempowers
communities, making them reliant on external support and guidance, and thus
less likely to assert their independence or challenge the imperial status quo.
·
o
Imperialists systematically
implement human rights frameworks that prioritize individual rights at the
expense of community rights. This approach is not merely a preference for
individualism but a calculated strategy to weaken independent norm-forming communities.
By emphasizing rights that isolate individuals from their communal contexts,
imperial powers fragment the social fabric that binds these communities,
thereby undermining their collective identity and resilience. This policy
shifts the focus from communal to individual priorities, effectively promoting
a form of internationalism that favours detached, isolated individuals over
robust, interconnected communities. This intentional undermining of community
rights serves to dilute the power of collective action and erodes the
foundation upon which independent communities build their norms and sustain
their autonomy.
·
o
Imperialists skilfully conflate
a globalized notion of justice with the concept of togetherness to legitimize
their empire, presenting their dominion as a benevolent unification of diverse
entities. This strategic conflation diverts attention from the true potential
of togetherness that could be realized through security and cooperation within
and between independent norm-forming communities. By promoting a universal
sense of justice that aligns with imperial interests, they overshadow the
nuanced interplay of local and universal values that could foster genuine
collaboration and mutual respect among communities. This approach not only
centralizes power within the imperial structure but also discourages the
organic solidarity that could emerge from communities empowered to define and
uphold their own norms in a secure and cooperative framework.
·
o
Imperial powers systematically
co-opt and control the avenues through which individuals seek understanding,
ensuring that these processes reinforce reliance on imperial narratives rather
than on the wisdom and knowledge cultivated within one’s own independent
norm-forming community. By monopolizing these channels of education and
information, imperialists undermine trust in the local processes of
socialization, understanding of any kind of knowledge and knowledge-creation.
This strategic intervention not only isolates individuals from their communal
roots but also diminishes the community’s role as a source of credible
knowledge and understanding. Consequently, individuals are steered away from
valuing and trusting the insights and norms developed through their community's
collective experience, further entrenching imperial dominance and control.
