Ο νέος ιμπεριαλισμός

by David Harvey, Ελένη Αστερίου (Translator), Αριάδνη Αλαβάνου (Editor)

Oι άνθρωποι σ' όλον τον κόσμο είναι μπερδεμένοι και ανήσυχοι. Eίναι σημάδι δύναμης ή αδυναμίας το γεγονός ότι οι HΠA μετατοπίστηκαν ξαφνικά από μια πολιτική συναίνεσης σε μια πολιτική εξαναγκασμού στην παγκόσμια σκηνή; Tι διακυβευόταν πραγματικά στον πόλεμο στο Iράκ; Tα πάντα έγιναν για το πετρέλαιο και, εάν αυτό δεν ισχύει, ποιες ήταν οι άλλες αιτίες του πολέμου; Tι ρόλο έπαιξε η πτωτική τάση της οικονομίας στο να ωθήσει τις HΠA σε τυχοδιωκτική εξωτερική πολιτική; Ποια είναι ακριβώς η σχέση ανάμεσα στο μιλιταρισμό των HΠA στο εξωτερικό και στην εσωτερική πολιτική τους;
Aυτά είναι τα ερωτήματα με τα οποία καταπιάνεται O νέος ιμπεριαλισμός, ένα εντυπωσιακό και πρωτότυπο βιβλίο, που εξετάζει τα γεγονότα της εποχής μας τοποθετώντας τα στο ευρύτερο πλαίσιό τους και παρέχοντας βαθιές πολιτικές, οικονομικές και κοινωνικές ερμηνείες της αποφασιστικότητας με την οποία προχώρησε στον πόλεμο η κυβέρνηση των HΠA.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Economics, History, Theory, Geography, Academic

256 pages, Paperback

First published October 9, 2003

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.

David Harvey (born 1935) is the Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY). A leading social theorist of international standing, he graduated from University of Cambridge with a PhD in Geography in 1961.

He is the world's most cited academic geographer (according to Andrew Bodman, see Transactions of the IBG, 1991,1992), and the author of many books and essays that have been prominent in the development of modern geography as a discipline.

His work has contributed greatly to broad social and political debate, most recently he has been credited with helping to bring back social class and Marxist methods as serious methodological tools in the critique of global capitalism, particularly in its neoliberal form.

Reviews

[Reid tries to read · Rating 4 out of 5]

The second Gulf War:
Why did the Bush Jr’s Iraq war happen? Harvey uses this question as a springboard to explore the mechanics of American imperialism at the time of the book’s publishing (around 2002). Although the U.S. claimed it was to bring democracy to Iraqis, America has historically only cared about democracy when it benefits America. For example, democracy didn’t matter when America overthrew Mossadegh in Iran (1953) to install a dictator; Arbenz in Guatemala (1954) to install a dictator; Allende in Chile (1973) to install a dictator; or Aristide in Haiti (1992) to install a military junta. The United States also claimed the war was due to Iraq being too dangerous with all its crazy high tech weaponry capable of causing mass destruction (ironic considering daddy Bush was the dude who supplied Iraq with the chemical weapons it used to murder hundreds of thousands of Iranians). Unfortunately for this narrative, the First Gulf War completely destroyed Iraq to the point where its military was completely enfeebled (and the nation itself was ‘bombed back to the Stone Age’). According to Harvey, the CIA both concluded that: 1. Iraq wasn’t a “real threat to the peace of (the Middle East)” and 2. Saddam would only use chemical weapons (that he likely did not have anymore) if he was provoked, meaning going to war with him to prevent an Iraqi terrorist attack was counterintuitive. So, if America’s justifications for war were blatantly false, what were the actual reasons?

Harvey begins by pointing out that, in 2002, the German Minister of Justice made a compelling case (which he got a big spanking for) for the theory that Bush Jr and his administration went to war as a way to relieve domestic tensions. As other authors such as Radhika Desai have pointed out, America was lurching towards recession in the months preceding 9/11 and unemployment was rising, while Bush had also quite blatantly stolen the election. 9/11 and the anthrax attacks bore out a sense of national unity that helped solidify Bush and the Republicans as the ‘true’ patriotic leaders of America. The war in Afghanistan could be seen as an attempt to leverage the newfound popularity of the Bush administration and raise it to new heights, which it failed to do seeing as Osama was never captured or killed during that war. So Bush then moved on to Iraq. The usage of fabricated Casus Belli, such as Saddam’s allegiance to Al Qaeda or his possession of WMDs, were ways for Bush to build his stature as a strong war president while continuing the “war on terror” and the hunt for the 9/11 perpetrators. War in Iraq had also long been a goal of the neocons. Bush’s deputy Secretary of Defense and all around cool guy Paul Wolfowitz had been publicly supporting a coup against Saddam since the 90s. The neocon ‘Project for the New American Century’ (which was made up of neocons in Bush’s cabinet like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Armitage) had explicitly supported a military invasion of Iraq since 1997. The group had long said the quiet part out loud: a military invasion of Iraq would only be possible if America was hit by “a catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor”. Domestically, the war on terror also allowed the American ruling class to impose draconian surveillance measures on the American masses, and it did so with popular support. This further consolidated ruling class power against any possible uprisings from below, which were now more likely due to the extremely chaotic climate American life had entered into following the turbulent 90s, the end of the Cold War, increased economic precarity and inequality, and overall disillusion with ideological justifications for American neoliberalism.

So one plausible theory of the invasion rests on the idea that Bush and the neocons invaded Iraq to consolidate power. A second theory amongst Harvey explored believed it was all because of oil. American and British oil companies had been barred from Iraq, while the loudest opponents of the war (France, Russia, China) all had access to Iraqi oil fields.
However, Harvey believes that Iraqi oil fields themself were not the main focus of America’s intervention. He thinks it’s more likely that American geopolitical strategy operated under the idea that “whoever controls the Middle East controls the global oil spigot and whoever controls the global oil spigot can control the global economy”. Instead of going after Iraq’s oil, Harvey believes it’s more likely America was trying to impose a pro-U.S. regime to give the empire another puppet in the region (along with Israel and Saudi Arabia) while knocking out a potential recalcitrant in Saddam. Overthrowing Saddam was one piece of the overall puzzle in America’s post-WW2 strategy in the Middle East, which began with FDR allying with the Saudis at Bitter Lake in 1945, and Eisenhower overthrowing Mosaddegh in 1953. By the 1960s the British had forfeited their military presence in the region, meaning America was the sole imperial power within the Middle East. Afterwards, America (hemorrhaging cash due to the Vietnam war) let its proxies in Saudi Arabia and Iran, and eventually Israel as well, dominate the region as long as they maintained American interests. The OPEC oil shock of 1973, plus the fall of the Shah in 1979, made the U.S. rethink their policy of indirect rule over the region. They used Iraq’s growing power to support them in committing genocide against their former allies in Iran, but they also made contingency plans to weaken the Ba’ath regime of Iraq should they become too powerful. This occurred after Saddam invaded Kuwait (which the U.S. did little to discourage). The subsequent Gulf War brought a much stronger American military presence to the Middle East, which was followed by a massive increase in weapons sales to Saudi Arabia. Harvey notes that by the 2000s “Europe and Japan, as well as East and South-East Asia (now crucially including China) (were) heavily dependent on Gulf oil… What better way for the United States to ward off that competition and secure its own hegemonic position than to control the price, conditions, and distribution of the key economic resource upon which those competitors rely?”.

What is capitalist imperialism?
Harvey’s discussion of Iraq awkwardly dovetails into an entirely different essay about imperialism. His definition of imperialism and “that specific brand of it called ‘capitalist imperialism’” feels wonky to me. Capitalist imperialism, building on Arrighi’s definition, is a relationship between “the ‘territorial’ and ‘capitalist’ logics of power”. Capitalists seek to make profits and constantly accumulate more capital. Politicians/statesmen seek to build/maintain their power against internal threats as well as build the power of their state compared to other states. Imperialism really boils down to states maintaining and taking advantage of whatever inequalities exist in the interstate system that advantage them. For example, the wealth of one state/territory is often at the expense of the impoverishment of another state/territory. By maintaining this asymmetry of resources (or power), one state imperializes another. Harvey gives the example of the U.S. using the IMF to pry open foreign markets through Structural Adjustments to maintain certain advantages for American financial institutions. Looking through this lens, one can create a narrative about post-WW2 American dominance leading to a decision to invade Iraq. After the war America was the top dog in the capitalist bloc. To combat those outside of this bloc (I.e the communists and non-aligned states), America rebuilt Europe, Japan, and parts of Asia and opened up its domestic market for their exports. It also made sure none of the former imperialist powers could challenge the United States by supporting or turning a blind eye to various decolonization movements. Internally, class conflict was dampened through a compromise between the bourgeoisie and the labor movement, allowing for high wages, high rates of unionization, and the fostering of consumerism throughout the various lower classes. By the 1960s Germany and Japan had surpassed the U.S. in terms of manufacturing, and a crisis of overaccumulation began to emerge as internal U.S. markets could no longer absorb international capital flows. This was an issue of the ‘logic of capital’. An issue due to territorial logic also occurred, as various third world nations, who had once benefited from the U.S’ support of decolonization, began to act in ways that the U.S. didn’t approve of. The third world was supposed to simply export raw materials and absorb American agriculture as well as higher value added goods produced from their cheap raw materials. The U.S. overextended itself in attempting to both maintain this relationship as well as stop other nations from leaving the capitalist bloc for the communist bloc. Vietnam represented the height of this overextension, and its costs to the U.S. economy basically broke this entire system down. The U.S. printed more dollars to try and cover its Vietnam expenses, leading to world-wide inflationary pressures. At the same time the historically strong labor movement had resulted in high wages, which cut into profits. With overaccumulation leading to profit outlets disappearing, and inflation continuing throughout the 1960s, stagflation was the result. The response: neoliberalism. A war on unions took place in the United States, the gold standard was abandoned, and capital controls were lifted to allow dollars to flow freely across the globe. The U.S. colluded with the Saudis to back the dollar with oil by exclusively allowing oil to be purchased through dollars. These dollars were then ‘recycled’ into U.S. banks and Wall Street. The Saudis and OPEC (with the approval of the U.S) also raised the price of oil which hurt Japan and Germany far worse than America, since they imported more oil from OPEC than the U.S., which therefore helped raise American firms competitiveness relative to German and Japanese firms. The balance of power within the American bourgeoise shifted from industrial dominance to the dominance of finance capital in order to maintain American hegemony. The raising of capital controls, along with technological innovations such as containerized shipping, made relocating production centers easier than ever. Capital thus redeployed to where wages were low and infrastructure was readily available, resulting in large industrial production centers booming in Asia (mainly in China, Singapore, and Taiwan).

Such financialization, according to World-Systems-Analysis and theorists such as Harvey and Arrighi, means that U.S. global dominance is coming to an end as productive economic sectors relocate to Asia. Harvey correctly predicted this would result in increased conflict between the United States and China (remember this was written shortly after 9/11 and well before the 2008 crash, which Harvey also predicted). Because Asian countries needed the U.S. consumer market in order to export their surplus, they were willing to finance America’s twin deficits (domestically outspending what is brought in through taxes, and internationally importing more than it exported) to the tune of $2.3 billion a day. Harvey says this willingness to finance U.S. twin deficits cannot last forever, and both the U.S. and Asian economies are preparing for future alternatives. Under Bush, the U.S. approach towards maintaining global dominance took a distinctly military form, and a unilateral one at that which did not seem concerned with the opinions of the rest of the world (not even the other capitalist powers the U.S. claims to lead as a team in the ‘rules based global order’.). East Asian capitalism, Harvey correctly predicted, will attempt to build new markets so as to no longer rely on American markets. China’s belt and road initiative seems to be the biggest example of this strategy coming to fruition. America could attempt a ”new New Deal”' to try and rebuild its failing social systems (healthcare, education), infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc), and manufacturing sectors. Not only will the financial elites certainly not risk losing their autarkic privileges by doing this (thanks Richard Lachmann for expanding on this), but there is no guarantee that even this would save America; Harvey points out that WW2, not the New Deal, is what actually brought America out of the Great Depression. So, although the invasion of Iraq, in the minds of Bush Jr. and the Republicans, could have been a strategy of distraction and power consolidation, in the overall scheme of the U.S. empire it was all about preventing rival Asian growth by controlling the “global oil spigot” of the Middle East. As the U.S. attempts to control the flow of global oil, it will also seek to maintain a strategy of ‘divide and conquer’ with both its allies in Europe and rivals in Asia. In Europe, the U.S. will use NATO to ensure that European military planning and development remains under American command and control. It will also cultivate alliances with Europe on a state by state basis rather than the EU bloc as a whole in order to further divide these states. In Asia it will use its regional proxies/allies (South Korea, Japan, Australia, Taiwan) to assert some military and political force over the region.

Theory of a “spatial fix”:
There is a tendency in capitalism for the rate of profit to fall (theorized by daddy Marx) which manifests itself in the overaccumulation of capital (i.e surpluses of commodities or money) that cannot find any profitable outlets to be invested in; along with this inevitably comes over accumulated labor power. The logic of Imperialism often seeks out spatio-temporal fixes to the “capital surplus problem”. This means either investment in geographical expansion or in investment in long term projects which will hopefully become profitable after a certain amount of time has passed.

Endless capital accumulation is the basis of capitalism. Exchange of capital, goods, services, labor power, etc. always requires travel from one location to another. Capitalists, always required by the capitalist laws of motion to seek competitive advantages, are drawn into locations where costs are lower or profit rates are higher. The anarchic nature of a system which constantly pushes capitalists into searching for superior (i.e profit maximizing) locations means that the geography of production, exchange, distribution, and consumption is never in equilibrium; it produces “a state of perpetual motion”. Two key features of the geography of capitalism emerge:
1. The importance of a location monopoly: “no one can place their factory where my factory is already located. And if very special advantages attach to my location, then those advantages belong to me alone.”. Capitalists will therefore attempt to control key resources or strategic locations to maximize profits.
2. The friction of distance, whereby the more distance a good has to travel, or the longer a good has to travel, the more it costs to transport it.

Capitalism therefore has an innate desire to reduce spatial barriers and accelerate the movement of capital (AKA reducing the cost and time it takes to move something). To be able to move capital “fluidly”, “fixed physical infrastructures/fixed capital embedded in the land” must be erected such as railroads or ports. This fixed infrastructure absorbs a lot of capital which is invested in it (again in order to reduce the friction of distance and therefore maximize profits); whether fixed infrastructure recovers the amount of capital invested in it depends on how much it is used. There springs up a contradiction between the dynamism of capitalism, always seeking to relocate to reduce profits, and the inertia of capital invested in infrastructure, transportation, and communication which seeks to recoup the massive amounts of capital embedded within them. The flows of capital through transportation infrastructure as well as into fixed geographic infrastructure end up creating coherent regions of masses of capital. Through the economic activities moving to and from these masses, certain areas develop distinct cultures, beliefs, and political affiliations to the various capitalists dominant in said region. Regional economies, which function as “small islands in a much grander polity… create impulses which eventually engulf (a) whole nation”. States are therefore often beholden to the interests of powerful regions or coalitions of regions within it. But the relationship between regions and the state is dialectical: while regions seek to influence the state to their own advantage, the state can also seek to foster certain regions at the expense of others for the perceived benefit of the state’s total power. The interaction of regional economies with the state is what makes up the basis of imperialism according to Harvey: when a region cannot find profitable outlets within a state’s boundaries for its surplus, it creates impulses that direct the state to export capital to other nations.

[Billie Pritchett · Rating 4 out of 5]

The upshot of David Harvey's The New Imperialism is that the new period in which we find ourselves in the world is not about territorial control, as in the days, for example, when the British Empire controlled so much of the world. Rather, the new imperialism is about economic control, particular control of resources. The occasion for which Harvey wrote the book was the run-up to the Iraqi War, at a time when it was not certain that the war was going to take place. In the book, Harvey argues that the main purpose that the Bush II administration wanted to attack Iraq was to have both new friends in the Middle East and to control the oil supply in Iraq. Many readers suspicious of an "all-about-oil" thesis might object that this could not have been one of the primary motivations for attacking Iraq, because after the United States military got in there and protected the oil fields, they almost immediately turned them over to the newly established Iraqi government. But this might be to miss Harvey's point. Harvey's point is not that the United States government would like ownership over the oil supplies but that the government would like control over the oil supplies. And one way to maintain that control is to control the economic rewards and amount of military protection that the Iraqi government can receive, putting pressure on Iraq to keep oil deals and supplies in the U.S. government's favor. Nobody can see into the hearts of men, but Harvey makes a convincing case that this was at least a primary motivation.

[Steffi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Man, I have been *really* getting into David Harvey lately (especially his new podcast 'anti-capitalist chronicles'). So now nerding away on his entire work big time, in no particular order. By the way, versoobooks.com is running a special ‘the essential David Harvey series’ with 50 per cent discount on his books. Also, living in an about to open, third world economy that's transforming with the full force and violence of a double digit growth rate, Harvey' work of the geographies and spaces of capitalism is beyond helpful to make sense of what's going on here and elsewhere.

David Harvey's 'The New Imperialism' was published in 2003, written just before the fall of Baghdad on 14 April 2003, which I remember watching live on CNN. Since then, it became public knowledge that there never were weapons of mass distraction and that ‘regime change’ in Iraq became a key objective during Bush oldie and Clinton hubby in the 90s. So why then, did ‘we’ go to war? The absence of this answer continues to provide an endless source of conspiracy theories (9/11) and oversimplifications (‘only about oil!’ ‘distraction from domestic issues’). Harvey is providing an analysis of these ‘underlying forces’ though a lens of ‘historical-geographical materialism’ which of course includes the role of the war on terror, contradictions and economic crises at home (which would explode only 5 years later) and the critical role of oil and natural resources in global capitalism (whoever controls the wider middle east, controls the global oil spigot, and whoever controls the global oil spigot controls the global economy, at least in the near future’).

Harvey argues that global capitalism experienced a chronic and enduring problem of overaccumulation since the 1970s, also leading to the financialization of capitalism (‘globalization’) and volatility of global US hegemony (dependence on overseas borrowing, credit driven growth, bubbles, trade imbalance etc). The 1990s and 2000s shift towards an open imperialism (American empire) backed by military force may then be seen as a sign of the weakening of that hegemony before the serious threat of recession and widespread devaluation at home, as opposed to the various bouts of devaluation formerly inflicted elsewhere (Latin America in the 1980s and early 1990s, and East and South-East Asia and Russia in the late 1990s). Harvey also argues that the inability to accumulate through expanded reproduction on a sustained basis has been paralleled by a rise in attempts to accumulate by dispossession, the hallmark of ‘new imperialism’. Overaccumulation of capital pushes capitalists and capitalism into an ever-greater recourse to non-capitalist forms of plunder, that is, forms other than the extraction of surplus-value from wage-labor, from confiscation of communal property to privatization of welfare, which arise from capital’s encroachment on the commons, whether this be public property or pristine nature.

Of course, only five years later in 2008, the bubble burst causing the global financial crisis which led to a direct takeover of the global financial oligarchy of politics, quite literally in the case of Trump and institutionally in the form of the unelected Troika in the EU. The ongoing struggle for global dominance by new powers (and security council members) such as Russia and China found its most obvious manifestation in Syria, Yemen and increasingly in Africa. These are the new wars of capitalist imperialism, fights to plunder and securing areas of influence and domination for monopolistic access to resources. None of these wars and geopolitics makes sense without understanding the crises of capitalism, the need to expand geographically through wars and in terms of intensity of exploitation of people and the planet, such as forcefully opening up Africa with its growing population of a billion or so people who work for less than 30$ a month.

[Joe Blankenship · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was eye-opening in several aspects. This is a must read for people, especially those in the US wondering what is happening around them and to them, needing answers to the obstacles we face today and those we’ll face in the future.

[Joshua · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was written in the lead up to the 2003 Iraq war. It has a very prescient analysis that stands up well to the hindsight that the last 11 years affords. It is very useful for understanding how the G20 are attempting to restructure the global capitalist economy today. The G20's current strategy of long term infrastructure development is pointed to by David Harvey 11 years before the time. He explains how this is one method the capitalist states can reactivate capital accumulation. I think this is a work of science that has explanatory power and can therefore help us as activists today.

[Sophia Rathleff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I forgot this account existed but I'm back!

In terms of this book, I genuinely do not know wether to be impressed or launch a campaign against Harvey for witchcraft. It is so interesting to read a book with 20 years (give or take) of hindsight to play upon. Harvey was talking about the BRI and debt trap diplomacy before political scientists knew how to define the concepts. He proves that political science should be considered a science in some terms through flawlessly demonstrating its predictive power. I found especially interesting his comments on the American public psyche on the Israeli-Arab (now Israeli-Palestinian) conflict and how it would go on to hinder progress for Palestinians in the future. Additionally, Harvey makes certain predictions at the end of the book in relation to Iraq and the conflict that had just begun at the time of his penning of this book. To be able to look back and see how dire the situation seemed and how hyperbolic some of the schools of thought were at the time was fascinating.
The only issue I found with this book was that it, at times, came across as not trusting the reader to know what he was talking about. At times it felt overly padded in its language where further directness would have been more appropriate.
That aside, this is a fantastic book for anyone studying comparative politics or the science part of political science. It is probably one of the strongest modern arguments for placing political science at least partially in the science sect.

[James Kenniff · Rating 3 out of 5]

Compelling ideas, and I definitely liked Harvey’s style of signposting and substantiating, but generally too heady that it killed entirely my recent momentum for reading. He tries to do a lot, retelling all of American and recent world history and then predicting the next fifty years with a lens that is legible and takes him far, if at times getting bogeyman-y and/or alienating to readers with less of an academic economics background (me). Fine book, good for the world, glad it’s done.

[Kyle · Rating 3 out of 5]

Probably worth reading just for the section on accumulation by dispossession. It's clearly resonated with a lot of authors, and part of the resurgence (and theoretical inspiration) for theoretical work on primitive accumulation. Also useful for the discussions on overaccumulation, economic crises (some prescient stuff here about austerity, privatization, overaccumulation and economic crisis) and how these relate to and problematize the relation/dialectic between territorial and capitalist logics of power, and how power seeks to resolve these contradictions arising from overaccumulation through spatio-temporal fixes. Discussion on monopoly, capitalism, and IP protection also very useful.

So a lot of good stuff.

However, as a book that came out in 2003 trying to make sense of the Iraq War, certain things are extrapolated from that time that make the book seem dated in retrospect. It's clear now that the EU was no real challenge to American hegemony, and that its success in capitalist terms was far overrated. Additionally, Harvey's positions on how Japanese and EU manufacturing relate to American manufacturing, and finance's relations to industry seem far less thought through than those of Gindin and Panitch in "The Making of Global Capitalism," a book that covers many similar themes (though I'd say it's worth reading both, they definitely have good insights in separate areas and some different theoretical approaches in places). Finally, Harvey's modernism will set the teeth grinding of anyone invested in anti-colonial practice and theory. While he's right to acknowledge that not all anti-primitive accumulation (accumulation by dispossession) struggle is progressive or liberatory, and that at times can be downright reactionary, and while he acknowledges many of the failures of the workerist left and trade unionist socialism in ignoring these sorts of community/social struggles, his insistence that there is a progressive aspect to capitalist/state primitive accumulation that should be encouraged because it tears apart old hierarchies is frustratingly a stagist and doctrinaire Marxist view of history and colonialism. However, this doesn't ruin the theoretical work on accumulation by dispossession, as I think this ending to the chapter he provides is simply one way to view the chapter and the work, and it's clear that many other scholars have taken this in a different direction, avoiding the stagist view and focusing further on anti-colonial and anti-partriarchal struggle against capitalism.

[Steve Rolf · Rating 4 out of 5]

Harvey’s text stands up remarkably well 15 years on from its publication. He claims to have produced it in around a month, during the leadup to the Iraq war which began in March 2003, which is an impressive achievement. It was once described to me as an ‘airport read’ by a lecturer, and though this is an overstatement, it is relatively more lightweight than the texts which made Harvey’s name as a leading Marxist political economist (namely ‘Limits to Capital’ and ‘The Condition of Postmodernity’). Perhaps the speed of production eliminated the possibility of detailed examination of the work of rival theoreticians which is at one point the most frustrating aspect of the work and contributes substantially, I think, to its popularity and readability.

The argument running through the text is one now well-referenced in the extensive contemporary literature on materialist geopolitics — that of defining modern imperialism as the outcome of a complex relationship between ‘capitalist’ and ‘territorial’ logics. While the capitalist logic represents ‘molecular processes of accumulation’, the territorial logic operates at a grander spatio-temporal scale of world politics whereby state managers seek to uphold their powers. These are occassionally conflated with ‘economic’ and ‘political’ logics by Harvey’s critics (and supporters), but rereading this text demonstrates to me that this is not Harvey’s intention. On the contrary, Harvey is careful not to ascribe a territorial logic merely to states, pointing out that (certain) capitalists frequently hold interest in developing particular territories (or ‘structured coherences�� of capital accumulation) over the medium to long term (he writes that ‘Imperialistic practices, from the perspective of capitalistic logic, are typically about exploiting the uneven geographical conditions under which capital accumulation occurs and also taking advantage of what I call the 'asymmetries' that inevitably arise out of spatial exchange relation’); while states never escape the imperative successfully to accumulate and appropriate capital and thus regularly intervene to smooth and improve its conditions (not to mention making substantial investments themselves, usually in the ‘secondary and tertiary circuits of capital’ — social expenditures and the built environment). There is, however, a broad distinction between the modes of operation of these two logics and the sets of economic and political actors which *tend* to embody them, which is readily distinguishable by the focus on profit motives of the capitalist logic and the longer-term, mediated character of state expenditures (which need not be themselves directly profitable if they enhance capitalist accumulation).

All this is used to present an incredibly convincing explanation of the Iraq war based upon an account of the US’ non-territorial imperialism. This sought to leverage control over Middle Eastern oil over decades prior to 2003, *the* crucial input into the US economy, through complex geopolitical engagements and a regional military buildup substantially independent from the direct control of oil interests in the US. I will not focus any further other than to say the detail of this account is one of the most impressive parts of the work and to my mind places Harvey firmly in the ‘realist’-inspired camp of Marxist geopolitics.

From this, Harvey goes on to develop what again I think is a highly convincing account of the Wall Street-Treasury-IMF complex. Theoretically his accounting for this institutional formation in the drawing on Brenner and Gowan is convincing, but this section is empirically thin and doesn’t add much historical detail in support of his argument. A positive aspect of this section is that while Harvey acknowledges the power and success of this complex in pursuing what he terms ‘enforced devaluations’ in Latin America, Russia and East Asia in the 1980s and 1990s whereby US banks raided these economies following debt crises, he equally emphasises the serious risks inherent in the neoconservative strategy of reasserting US economic dominance through military means in the Middle East — risks which most would now accept did indeed transpire with the quagmire of the Iraq war. Neoconservatives envisaged cowing rising rivals by successfully removing Saddam before moving on to challenge Iran, Syria and North Korea (and perhaps ultimately Russia). Instead, these three latter powers remain resurgent (with the partial exception of Syria’s still pressurised Assad regime) and bolstered by increasingly close ties with China, with the potential to cohere into a serious geopolitical rival bloc to the US over the coming decade.

There is little to add on Harvey’s other crucial concept elaborated in chapter 4, accumulation by dispossession (ABD), beyond the criticisms levelled by many other writers. Some of this I believe is unjust. Harman (2010) insists that Harvey views the state as ‘separate’ from capital and thus ripe for privatisation as a form of ABD, a charge I think is unfair given Harvey’s embedding of the territorial logic of capital in its capitalist logic. Harvey also insists on the predominance of ‘expanded reproduction’ (or ‘relative surplus value’ vis-a-vis absolute surplus value) and thus the common charge that ABD cannot stand-in for capitalist accumulation through productivity enhancing investment is not one that Harvey would dispute, in my view. Instead, he links profitability crises in the advanced economies (drawing on Brenner) to the intensifying drive to cheat and steal in order to maintain growth, a temporarily-delimited possibility when enabled by the credit system and fictitious capital circulation.

In sum, this book is not quite readable enough to be a popular classic, and not quite precise enough in its positioning with regard to other theories of imperialism to satisfy the reader with substantial knowledge of the field (something characteristic of Harvey’s late work). But for its creative deployment of theory construction to important empirical events, it repays reading today — and its many predictions (particularly of a resurgent populism drawing on nationalism to shield against neoliberal pressures) are surprisingly accurate. His proposal of a stable and ‘benevolent’ US-EU ultra-imperialism characterised by social democratic politics rather than aggressive militarist expansion as a first step with breaking with empire may chafe with radical readers for obvious reasons, but the current best hope for the left in the UK and the US (a Sanders-Corbyn alliance) might well have to contend with such a situation and it at least bears thinking through what such a shift in government would mean for the potential for ending imperialism altogether.

[Ramil Kazımov · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gerçi tam olarak anlayamadığım kısımlar olmadı değil tabii ama ABD-nin sürdürdüğü kapitalist imparatorluk fikrini anlamada çok yardımcı oldu.
İmparatorluklar genelde iki tür sınıflandırıla bilir
1) ülkesel (territoryal)
2) kapitalist
Tarihi olarak imparatorluklar ülkesel olmuştur. İmparatorlukların genel maksadı sermaye toplamak ve ekonomiyi yükseltmek için tabi kıldığı arazileri sömürmüşlerdir. Lakin günümüzde imparatorluk sermaye biçimine dönüşmüştür. Bu mantığa göre, yabancı arazileri sömürgeleştirmek gereksizdir. Bunun yerine her hangi bir devleti yabancı sermayenin kolaylıkla kazanc getireceği biçimde global üçlünün - İMF, Dünya Bankası vd Amerikan Hazinesi - ekonomik boyunduruğuna sokmak ve ülkede ABD çıkarlarını kollayacak "demokratik" bir hükümetin sürmesine olanak sağlamak yeterlidir. Bu türlü devletler global üç sermaye ihracatı merkezinin - ABD, Avrupa ve Japonya - sermaye fazlası ihracatı ve sermaye ihracatından para kazanmasına hizmet edecektir.
Harveyin adı geçen kitabı gerçi uzun zaman önce - Henüz Irak savaşı yaşanmamıştır - yazılmıştır ama savları günümüz için de geçerlidir. O zamandan günümüze bir çok değişim olmuştur - ABD için Suriyede ikinci bir Viyetnam batağı, Çinin yükselişi, Mike Pompeo tarafından kongre kütüphanesinde Çine karşı yeni Soğuk Savaş ilanı. Ama kitap emperyalizmin yeni türünü anlamak için sayılı kaynakdan biridir desem yanılmış olamam.
Bu kitabı benim gibi global politikaya tutkuyla bağlı ve politikanı anlamak için dünyada neler baş verdiğini öğrenmeye merak duyanlara şiddetle tavsiye ederim.

[Jake · Rating 4 out of 5]

While very much grounded in the early noughties conversations around globalization and the war on terror this book makes a conceptual contributions that makes it one of the most influential theory books of the 21st century. There should be a word for books whose argument seems obvious because they have shaped so much of the literature since. I could see in The New Imperialism the foundation for Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.

This book is rightly a social science classic.

[Foppe · Rating 3 out of 5]

As I've read Cosmopolitanism and the Geographies of Freedom before I read this book, this book reads more like a progress report than a standalone work, and it should probably be read in conjunction with A Brief History of Neoliberalism and Cosmopolitanism (though I would recommend you read the other two books first). Contains a number of interesting insights, in any case.

[Karlo Mikhail · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book offers a concise and accessible overview of Harvey's thoughts on capitalist-imperialism. Especially liked the elaboration of his concept on "accumulation by dispossession". Some reference are a bit dated though with the Bush administration as its main point of departure. But many of the conclusions and implications explored by the book remain valid up to the present: the growing trend towards multi-polarity amid gradual weakening of US imperial power, rise of China, the Real Estate bubble crash, etc. Can't agree with his idea of a new "New Deal" as a way out of untangling the havoc created by decades of neoliberal triumphalism though.

[Sajad · Rating 3 out of 5]

کتاب "امپریالیسم جدید" به بررسی مشکلاتی که پیرامون سرمایه داری و انباشت سرمایه می پردازد و امپریالیسم و شیوه های نوینش را توضیح می دهد.دیوید هاروی کتاب را کمی قبل از حمله ایالات متحده به عراق در 2003 نوشته و در کتاب اشاراتی به دلایل و انگیزه های حمله را میتوان دید.
توصیه میکنم قبل از خواندن این کتاب،مطالعاتی در اقتصاد داشته باشید تا مثل من سردرگم نشوید.

[وسام عبده · Rating 5 out of 5]

(ديفيد هارفي) عالم أنثروبولوجي بريطاني الأصل، يعمل حاليًا استاذًا في (جامعة نيويورك)، وقد عمل سابقًا استاذً في جامعات مرموقة مثل (جامعة جون هوبكنز) و(جامعة أوكسفورد)، ولكن ما يميز (هارفي) ليس مسيرته الأكاديمية وأعماله العلمية بقدر ما هو انحيازه المبدئي للحق الذي يعتقد، وهو ما يجعله في نظري نموذج للمثقف الملتزم والمستقل، في مواجهة نموذج المثقف العضوي المُستخدَم الشائع بين الأكاديميين حول العالم؛ تأثر (هارفي) بأعمال (ماركس) و(جرامشي) و(راذاكريشنا) لذا تجد هناك من يعتبر (هارفي) يساري النزعة، وإن كان هو نفسه ينفي في كتابته أن يكون فكره أن يبتغي الحق والعدل أيًا كان مصدره؛ كتابات (هارفي) يتردد صداها بين هؤلاء المثقفين الشبان الغربيين عامة والأمريكيين بالذات، هؤلاء الذين يجدوا في أنفسهم القدرة والجراءة على نقد المجتمع والثقافة والمؤسسات الأمريكية؛ لذا تجد مثل كتاباته موضوع للمناقشة في الحلقات المناهضة للفاشية والمناهضة للحرب والحركات النقابية وحركات الاشتراكية الاجتماعية وما بعد الحداثة ونقد المركزية الغربية؛ ويهتم (هارفي) في كتاباته بتحليل الظاهرات الرأسمالية وأثاراها الاجتماعية والثقافية، ومن أهم ما كتب في هذا الموضوع كتاب (العدالة الاجتماعية والمدينة) و(التجربة الحضرية)؛ وبعض من كتاباته قد ترجمت للعربية وحازت على كثير من احترام وتقدير القارئ العربي، ووجدت طريقها للحلقات الثقافية، وأهم هذه الكتب بالذات كتابه (الليبرالية الجديدة: موجز تاريخي)، والذي قدم فيه تاريخ نقدي لنشأة وتطور الليبرالية الجديدة.
اليوم أقدم لكم كتاب (هارفي) المسمى (الإمبريالية الجديدة) وعنوانه الأصلي في اللغة الإنجليزية (The New Imperialism)، وقد صدر الكتاب في طبعته الأصلية عام 2003، أما الترجمة العربية التي أضعها بين أيديكم فقد صدرت عام 2004 عن مطبوعات (الحوار الثقافي) في (بيروت)، وترجمها إلى اللغة العربية المترجم اللبناني (وليد شحادة).
الكتاب في الأصل مجموعة من ثلاثة محاضرات ألقاها (هارفي) في حلقة دورية تعقد في (جامعة أكسفورد) عنوانها (محاضرات كلارندون)، وذلك في شهر فبراير عام 2003، أي في خضم الاستعدادات الغربية للغزو المجرم للعراق؛ والموضوع الذي يبحثه (هارفي) في الكتاب والمحاضرات هو ذلك العقد السري بين نخب المرابين/المصرفيين/الماليين من ناحية، ومن الناحية الأخرى المؤسسة الحاكمة في الغرب بصورة عامة ومعتنقو الليبرالية الجديدة من النخب الحاكمة بصورة خاصة، وكيف يقود هذا الحلف اليوم الغزو الهمجي وأه��افه ومن المنتفع منه؛ كان (هارفي) يلقي هذه المحاضرات في الوقت الذي يتظاهر طلاب (جامعة أوكسفورد) مطالبين بوقف هذه الحرب، وآخرين يتظاهرون لنفس الهدف في نواح مختلفة من (لندن) و(مدريد)؛ في الوقت نفسه الذي كان جنود صاحبة الجلالة فوق بوارج الأسطول البريطاني يتجهون إلى العراق، ويسلح (المارينز) قاذفات الشبح بالقنابل الذكية.
الكتاب مكون من خمسة فصول. الفصل الأول عنوانه (النفط أولًا وأخيرًا)، وفي هذا الفصل يتناول (هارفي) تاريخيًا مسألة العراق، ابتداء من الحرب العراقية الإيرانية، ثم غزو الكويت، ثم حرب تحرير الكويت، وصولًا للاستعداد لغزو العراق الجاري على قدم وساق، ويبين في عرضه التاريخي للمسألة الدور الذي لعبته شركات البترول الأمريكية بالذات في تطور هذه المسألة، وكيف كان التحكم في سوق النفط هو الهدف الرئيس من الحصار الذي فرض على العراق، وليس أي سبب آخر، ثم كيف سوف تنتفع شركات النفط وحلفاءها من المصرفيين والليبراليين الجدد من الغزو في تحقيق أهدافها؛ الفصل الثاني وعنوانه (كيف تعاظمت قوة أمريكا)، يناقش فيه مفهوم القوة الأمريكية من حيث هي قوة اقتصادية وقوة عسكرية في آن واحد، مبينًا كيف تكون حلف يربط ما بين المؤسسات الربوية والفاشية العسكرية واليمين الإنجيلي، وكيف نجح هذا الثالوث في الاستيلاء السلمي على السلطة في الولايات المتحدة ابتداء من عهد ريجان، وهو الأمر المستمر إلى اليوم كما أرى، وكيف يستخدم هذا الثالوث تجارة الحرب حول العالم لنهب ثروات الأمم وتعزيز قدراته وخداع الشعب الأمريكي بالمعارك الوهمية التي يخوضها الثالوث باسم هذا الشعب؛ الفصل الثالث عنوانه (عبودية رأس المال) وفي هذا الفصل يفضح (هارفي) التطور الاقتصادي المزعوم الذي حققته الليبرالية الجديدة، وكيف أن منافع هذا الإصلاح تذهب إلى النخب، بينما يتحول المواطن العادي لما يشبه عبيد الأرض في عصور أوروبا المظلمة؛ ويستمر في الفصل الرابع المعنون (التراكم ينزع الحيازة) في نقد مقاربة الليبراليين الجدد وأثارها المجحفة بالطبقات المتوسطة والفقيرة؛ ولعل نبوءاته التي يطرحها بناء على تحليله الاقتصادي الاجتماعي بشأن الأزمات التي سوف تنشأ عن الليبرالية الجديدة تقابل أزمة الديون التي عصفت بالمواطن الأمريكي وبدول مثل اليونان والبرتغال بعد محاضرات (هارفي) بنحو خمسة أعوام، وهو الأمر الذي عرضه في الفصل الأخير (القبول بالقسر)، والذي ناقش فيه (هارفي) السيناريوهات المتوقعة للمستقبل. الكتاب يتميز بالالتزام بالمنهج العلمي الصارم، وهو ما يجعله صادقًا على الرغم من تعرضه لمسألة تمثل فخًا للخطابة أو التلاعب بالمشاعر، وهي صفة غالبة على كتابات (هارفي) وهو ما يجعل هذه الكتابات موضع ثقة واهتمام من هؤلاء المهتمين بمسألة التطور الاجتماعي للعالم.

[Pierre-Olivier · Rating 4 out of 5]

L’impérialisme et sa structure monopolistique est le stade contemporain et actuel du capitalisme comme le disait Lénine. Harvey à travers une analyse contextuelle magistrale ( qui me rappelle parfois celle de Chomsky ) nous présente ce nouvel impérialisme et ses impératifs de dominations. Analyse surtout historique pour les 2 premiers chapitres à travers la situation géopolitique des États-Unis dans l’après 11 septembre , de l’Irak et de l’Afghanistan . 3ème et 4ème chapitre expose en détail sa théorie d’accumulation par dépossession, la suite logique et contemporaine de l’accumulation primitive expliqué par Marx dans le capital. Privatisation des communs comme outil d’accumulation est la méthodologie suivit par les états bourgeois impériaux à l’international pour palier à la suraccumulation de leur économie intérieure. Cette accumulation est effectué de façons économique ou militaire ainsi que consentis ( fabrication du consentement ) ou coercitive ( guerre ) . L’analyse des stratégies de rupture et de résistance de l’altermondialisme dans le chapitre 4 est super intéressante et pertinente. La remise en question du déterminisme marxiste orthodoxe de la pseudo étape inévitable du capitalisme pour la transition vers le communisme qui est une grave erreur d’analyse de Marx selon moi , qu’il révisera à la fin de sa vie. Harvey est une historien ,un géographe et un anthropologue aguerris et cela se transmet dans cet œuvre. Toute la partie sur l’analyse géographique de la modification de la topographie par les états bourgeois en fonction de la rationalité du marché et de l’imbrication du capitalisme dans l’architecture , la construction de bâtiment et de moyen de transport ( route , chemin de fer , et ) est tellement intéressante , c’est rare d’avoir l’analyse d’un géographe qui est totalement rafraîchissante. Bon livre.

[click__derecho]

Primera vez que leo un libro entero de Harvey, y a pesar de ser poco lineal (o digamos, organizado) en sus diferentes apartados, propone una serie de reflexiones bien interesantes y curiosamente premonitarias para haberlas dicho en 2003, año en que el libro se publica; por ejemplo, que el desvío de capitales hacia China podría desembocar en una guerra económica entre Beijing y Washington. Sus ideas sobre la dialéctica entre lógicas territoriales y capitalistas del poder en el siglo XXI explican varias de las dinámicas gringas en los últimos años, y su análisis de las motivaciones de Washington para atacar Irak es bastante esclarecedor (como amo la argumentación que toma teorías explicativas y las va desmontando o complementando), pero sin duda alguna lo más importante de este libro es entender el concepto de acumulación por desposeción, el cual a lo largo de mi carrera tantas veces leí y tan pocas realmente comprendí. Puedo decir ahora, tras leerlo directamente en el autor, que es crucial saber cómo opera este sistema de acumulación de capital, qué formas tiene de operar, y cómo puede este materializarse en eventos o situaciones puntuales. Conclusión: Harvey te amo por favor nunca mueras.

[Ivy Schulte · Rating 4 out of 5]

fascinating dissection of the decay of the american empire, its desperation to secure "spatio-temporal fixes" for the problem of overaccumulation at the expense of particularly middle eastern and southeast asian states that have long been the targets of the american accumulation regime. the contextualization of the war on terror, and the heterogenization of the global proletariat, was right on the money. as always, though, harvey has a tendency to overgeneralize his claims, which themselves draw upon markedly few sources, which certainly clouds its veracity, if not significantly degrading it. harvey also does not elaborate too much on the financial methods of imperial coercion, beyond structural adjustments, which leaves some of his exploration of the neo-colonial apparatus wanting.

[Paz · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great book to understand how neoliberal logic (and its institutions) has strengthened US imperialism.

By the way, this book contains what is perhaps one of the essential Harvey’s concepts, “accumulation by dispossession”. This concept is situated as a modern continuation of the primitive theft, the “original accumulation of capitalism”, and which has become a continuous practice in many of our countries today, by neoliberal imitation or enforced by its international institutions like IMF. That chapter is excellent!

The book is also a political reflection by Harvey on the anti-capitalist and anti-globalization resistance that, years later, is still very relevant.

[Edward Hsieh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very impressive as this is the first book that introduce to me how capitalism works.
This book is more about how capitalism and nation/groups power entangled with each other to cause the problem of inequity all over the world. People need to know better to act better against capitalism to avoid dispossessions from capitalists.

P.S. the traditional Chinese translation isn't really good. Some sentences aren't fluent.

[M · Rating 5 out of 5]

A prescient analysis of the late 20th century and what was to come in the years after it was published. His analysis of capital's varying logics and drives was especially compelling, along with the chapter on accumulation by dispossession.

[Mitch · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wild to read this now, 20 years later. Harvey does a good job explaining where the global economy was at the time and exploring the economic reasons for the war on Iraq that so evidently triumphed over any bullshit public narratives like "spreading democracy" or "protecting our rights."

[Faith Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

did just read this because i had to but actually quite enjoyed it. a lil bit over my head, but salient points all the same.

[Tohid · Rating 4 out of 5]

مباحث خوبی داره توصیه میکنم خوندنش رو

[Altay · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5/5

[Damien A. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good conclusions

[Theodor · Rating 4 out of 5]

dunno why I expected this to be a light read :((( fantastic book, though

[Şeyma · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dec. 2024

[Krysten]

Neolib, accummulation by dispossesion

[David Lyndorff Paris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Chatbotten, den opgradede version self, pt version 40 har udarbejdet en liste over de vigtigste begreber fra mit notedokument til denne bog:

Kapitalistisk Imperialisme
Imperialisme
Industriel Reservearme (kapitalen kreerer sit eget 'other', noget uden for sig selv)
Spatio-temporal Fix (herunder Temporal Displacement og Spatial Displacement)
Accumulation by dispossession
Overakkumulation
Underconsumption (Luxemburg)
Neoliberalt Hegemoni
Finansialisering
Primitiv Akkumulation
Udvidet Reproduktion (expanded reproduction vs simpel reproduction, Marx)