Thank you for reading, John, and thank you for the comment! It was not my intention to suggest that Alexi was being cynical—he seemed to be speaking from the heart, and I suppose I was just trying to avoid coming across as too starry-eyed about the Green Party (which I agree has significant problems).
As for the question of Britain being an imperialist power...obviously, Britain still has colonial possessions, and imperialism is built into the very structure of the United Kingdom. I don't take issue with the "imperial" part so much as the "power" part—it seems to me that the post-WW2 compact between the US and Britain was designed to allow Britain to maintain the pretence that it could pursue its own imperial policy, while having to answer to Washington on the important stuff. I think this was borne out in the ludicrous display at the G7 last week. Toadying up to the strong man, congratulating him on his illegal strikes knowing full well he has no plan—this is simply not how sovereign powers behave. It's how clients behave.
As a Canadian, of course, I grew up understanding (and disliking) that my country was entirely subject to American whim. This may explain why I am often puzzled when the UK's ruling class talks as if it's still 1920 or even 1982, when to my mind (and I say this with some affection for the place) Britain is a pretty ordinary medium-sized European country only able to project global power through its relationship with the US.
I regard Alexi as a consistent anti-imperialist. Anyway, no more on this.
As for Britain being an imperialist power... you'll likely agree that imperialism can be defined as the supremacy of finance capital; in which case, the fact that the City of London is second only to New York as a financial centre, and only just at that (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Financial_Centres_Index), lends some support to my contention. Add to this the vast empire of wealth owned by British capitalists in other peoples' countries (a.k.a. FDI - foreign direct investment), Britain's nuclear weapons, and its status as one of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the UN security council, then the notion that "Britain is a pretty ordinary medium-sized European country" needs to be reconsidered.
Tony Norfield's 'Index of Power' (see https://economicsofimperialism.blogspot.com/search?q=index) combines five factors - GDP, FDI, Banking, FX (foreign exchange), and military - to rank countries according to their power - and shows Britain in third place, just behind the much more populous China and some way behind the USA. This index doesn't claim to be anything more than an approximation, but it is based on a well-thought-out methodology, and is worth a look.
I.m.o. the left in this country is in denial about this - for example, the Stop the War Coalition argued that Tony Blair was "George Bush's poodle" (as if he wasn't in fact the poodle of Britain's imperialist rulers... worse, this stupid slogan implied that what we need is a British bulldog to stand up for 'our' interests) - and Tony Benn asked 'why should Britain go to war for US oil companies?', somehow forgetting that two of the four biggest oil companies in 2003 were British!
So, Britain could be described as a junior partner to the USA, but the term 'client state' applies to countries like Egypt or Panama, not to Britain!
I appreciate this considered response, which helps lay out some of where our difference of opinion may lie: I find the classical Marxist line on imperialism to be a little narrow, and my views on Marxism are, to say the least, heterodox. But I'm happy to concede the broader point about the banking sector as a locus of imperial power.
OK; maybe we'll have an opportunity to continue this discussion elsewhere, in which case you'll find I think "a little narrow" is a big understatement. Anyway, this discussion hasn't been about theories, but about whether the description of Britain as a "client state" of the USA is supported by any facts.
Great article... but Britain is an imperialist power, not a "client state" of the USA!
Also, while I've no time for the pro-NATO Green Party, I don't like the article's insinuation that Alexi Dimond's speech was cynical.
Thank you for reading, John, and thank you for the comment! It was not my intention to suggest that Alexi was being cynical—he seemed to be speaking from the heart, and I suppose I was just trying to avoid coming across as too starry-eyed about the Green Party (which I agree has significant problems).
As for the question of Britain being an imperialist power...obviously, Britain still has colonial possessions, and imperialism is built into the very structure of the United Kingdom. I don't take issue with the "imperial" part so much as the "power" part—it seems to me that the post-WW2 compact between the US and Britain was designed to allow Britain to maintain the pretence that it could pursue its own imperial policy, while having to answer to Washington on the important stuff. I think this was borne out in the ludicrous display at the G7 last week. Toadying up to the strong man, congratulating him on his illegal strikes knowing full well he has no plan—this is simply not how sovereign powers behave. It's how clients behave.
As a Canadian, of course, I grew up understanding (and disliking) that my country was entirely subject to American whim. This may explain why I am often puzzled when the UK's ruling class talks as if it's still 1920 or even 1982, when to my mind (and I say this with some affection for the place) Britain is a pretty ordinary medium-sized European country only able to project global power through its relationship with the US.
But maybe that's just the colonial in me talking!
I regard Alexi as a consistent anti-imperialist. Anyway, no more on this.
As for Britain being an imperialist power... you'll likely agree that imperialism can be defined as the supremacy of finance capital; in which case, the fact that the City of London is second only to New York as a financial centre, and only just at that (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Financial_Centres_Index), lends some support to my contention. Add to this the vast empire of wealth owned by British capitalists in other peoples' countries (a.k.a. FDI - foreign direct investment), Britain's nuclear weapons, and its status as one of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the UN security council, then the notion that "Britain is a pretty ordinary medium-sized European country" needs to be reconsidered.
Tony Norfield's 'Index of Power' (see https://economicsofimperialism.blogspot.com/search?q=index) combines five factors - GDP, FDI, Banking, FX (foreign exchange), and military - to rank countries according to their power - and shows Britain in third place, just behind the much more populous China and some way behind the USA. This index doesn't claim to be anything more than an approximation, but it is based on a well-thought-out methodology, and is worth a look.
I.m.o. the left in this country is in denial about this - for example, the Stop the War Coalition argued that Tony Blair was "George Bush's poodle" (as if he wasn't in fact the poodle of Britain's imperialist rulers... worse, this stupid slogan implied that what we need is a British bulldog to stand up for 'our' interests) - and Tony Benn asked 'why should Britain go to war for US oil companies?', somehow forgetting that two of the four biggest oil companies in 2003 were British!
So, Britain could be described as a junior partner to the USA, but the term 'client state' applies to countries like Egypt or Panama, not to Britain!
I appreciate this considered response, which helps lay out some of where our difference of opinion may lie: I find the classical Marxist line on imperialism to be a little narrow, and my views on Marxism are, to say the least, heterodox. But I'm happy to concede the broader point about the banking sector as a locus of imperial power.
OK; maybe we'll have an opportunity to continue this discussion elsewhere, in which case you'll find I think "a little narrow" is a big understatement. Anyway, this discussion hasn't been about theories, but about whether the description of Britain as a "client state" of the USA is supported by any facts.