The Relationship between Capitalism and Imperialism Essay

The Relationship between Capitalism and Imperialism            This is a world of continuous struggle. All people needed to overcome obstacles in life in order to survive. It is a world where one must do things either to be strong, remain strong, or even just to survive.

It was whether to hunt or be hunted, be the predator or fall prey. This world witnessed many struggles from the beginning – from animals, plants and even people. Humans themselves face many struggles against every element of this world, and even against one another. They may have a sense of belongingness, but the struggle still remained – would they be strong enough? Or will they simply fall like dry leaves from a rotten tree? With this in mind, this group of people, often form nations and face the hardest struggle of this world: the struggle for power, prominence and supremacy (Arrighi).

            Since nations began to exist, struggle for authority became the main issue of existence. A nation, after its formation would intend to gain strength and try to be strong. Its strength is the major key factor in determining its length of existence (Arrighi).            If a nation becomes strong, it has the burden to stay strong. It will try to conquer the weaker ones. It will do the necessary things to stay in power until the time it cannot hold much longer. It will eventually lose its hold of the power it dreamed of, and end up either in ruins or fall a prey for the stronger (Arrighi)A weaker nation will face the struggle to stay alive.

It will ask the mercy from the stronger. It will try to survive by trying to evade quietly from the acts of struggle. It will strive for reliable alliances and seek for strong allies. Its allegiance will dictate its fate: to stay in a weaker place with this world or struggle or be like small possessions of a big merchant.            Yes, this power struggle has been clearly seen through the past 500 years.

After the emergence of the powers of the ancient world like Egypt, Greece and Rome, new struggles for power emerged. Europe primarily became the players – hunters and predators of the chase and the whole world is the jungle, full of things to hunt and prey to engulf. Just like any hunter or predator, these nations formulated strategies to obtain power, because power is what a nation needs to stay alive (Arrighi).            Yet, two popular systems of struggle did these predator became so successful that almost the whole world became under their control. These systems: Capitalism and Imperialism, provided really intriguing questions: Are these two different? Can a capitalist power be also imperialist, and the other way? The best way to find out is by examining these systems separately: goals, mechanisms, strategies, effects, and how powers believing with these methods view the key to win in this world of power struggle. Examining the past, the behavior of the “World Powers” as many call them, will determine the way to understand these two. Capitalism and Imperialism at a glance            Before making an in-depth comparison of capitalism and imperialism based on the perspectives of several political analysts, it would be very helpful to know what the two concepts in general and how it originated.

            It was the middle of the 19th Century that Karl Marx introduced the concept of Capitalism to refer to countries that did not support the Communist ideologies. However, this system was often attributed to the Father of Economics, Adam Smith. It was a system widely used in Europe during this century and was adapted in most parts of the world. It did not have any counterpart until its dark side began to surface that compelled some countries to oppose this system. Those who were against this system actually supported and gave rise to communism where the production and distribution of goods were no longer managed by selected individuals but by the government and evenly distributed to the public. Capitalism was actually an economic system in which the trade and industry was managed by private sector with lesser intervention from the government. Businessmen and other individuals had the freedom and privilege to manage the production and the distribution of goods. They handle the affairs in the production of these goods as well as distributing them to the consumers.

Several producers compete for the consumers’ patronization of their product in the market. The consumers had the freedom to choose the product that they wanted and the government had no right to impose what product to patronize. The government could simply act as a mediator if things are not going well and set the rules of trade for public protection against abusive and greedy capitalists. The capitalists needed manpower in the production who would receive compensation which the latter could use to purchase the goods. Therefore, the flow of wealth and goods was focused between the consumers and the producers. Several producers compete for the market value of their products and thus the value of the product was determined. The competition between the producers was actually necessary so that the quality and price will be regulated.

However, one possible highlight of this system that had been quite controversial was the improper distribution of wealth. In this system, the wealth was distributed in unevenly. The capitalists got higher profits and became wealthier while those who were working for them tend to struggle with the increase in the goods they needed to purchase for daily living (“Capitalism”).On the other hand, imperialism was actually a system wherein a certain country dominates and stretches out its tenets among other nation forcing them to adapt its principles either directly or indirectly.Albeit it was system that had some advantages like inducing smooth business relation due to the likeness in its policies, a lot of underlying issues were associated in this system. The real motive behind this system was often questioned.

Others resolve to an imperialist system for fame and dignity. Others were mainly on political and economical gains. It could probably be an indirect way of amassing the resources of other countries for the benefit of the imperialist (“Imperialism”).

In his book, “Imperialism: the highest stage of Capitalism” (Lenin), Vladimir Lenin considered Imperialism to be a form of into its fullest degree.  Since the capitalists were after greater profits, they trend to dominate to expand their business among other countries. However, instead of exporting the products they produce, they would tend to export the capital to other countries. That was the reason why a lot of international corporations were able to flourish in different countries affecting the local industries in the said country.

The products produced where exported and even sold in that country thereby competing with the local market.  It uses marketing strategies and influences to make its product more marketable to the local consumers. By means of colonialism, a cycle was created wherein the international firms gets richer since it is using the resources of other countries while reaping the rewards in its own country (Lenin).The Capitalist – Is it really the Quest for Riches?            The Age of Exploration (1400s to 1700s) had been an time that the ardent desire and continuous struggle for power evidently escalated. The Europeans (e.g.

France, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, and England) participated in the battle for supremacy, making the rest of the world as the field, like a monopoly board game. Powerful countries fought over lands and dominions and even in taking over the colonies under them. The British colonized India and and flourished business and trade for their benefit. Others were attempted to colonize other Asian countries for because of the richness in resources that will be very useful for the development of their own countries.

Rich businessmen hovered over the lands of their colonies and exploited its possessions. They did their best to instill fear among the inhabitants and subject it to their authority.  That was the time for the untiring search for riches. This battle involved acquisition of wealth like land, crops and even gold. This was what Adam Smith called as Capital. The struggle for capital as an indicator of success led to the concept of CAPITALISM. As Giovanni Arrighi thought, capitalism could be an instrument to acquire wealth and goods and at the same time achieve hegemony and pride (Arrighi 34).

            The modern economists and historians had actually classified 1500’s to be the demarcation line between the modern and pre-modern period. It was a time that the sleeping West culture suddenly awakened from its slumber and began to progress and dominate the East (Kennedy 1).            The endless tales of the navigators and travelers about the elegance and abundance of resources in the Far East was actually one of the factors that made the West become obsessed in dominating the Eastern culture. The voyagers vividly described the greatness of the Eastern Civilization as well as the abundance of its terrain with natural resources and the beauty of the land in general. The vastness of the empire in the East was so great and incomparable to the scattered kingdom of the West.  Compared to the weather and resources in the East, the Western part of the World was bounded by water and paralyzed by winter that their lands became barren and could not produce much crops as those in the Eastern side (Kennedy 4)            The Chinese dynasty was the strongest empire in the Far East that dominated vast number of land and vast number of constituents.

It was a stalwart and leading among other empires in Asia at that time. The flow of business and trade in  China was more advanced compared to their culture. Other civilization like the Hindu Civilization also had remarkable cultures that filled the Western world with envy and became obsessed to dominate the culture and amass their resources (Kennedy 6).This gave rise to the promulgation of capitalism in the East. Businessmen in West traveled to the East to discover their land and confirm the claims of the previous voyagers. Seeing that the abundance of the resources in these areas could be a very profitable business back in their land, the West did its best to seep through their culture by all means and establish business.

They also did not miss the vast number of people in these areas as a potential in increasing their human resources and manpower at a lesser price. Thus, rudiments of capitalism and imperialism began to form (Kennedy 6).            Capitalism was an endless struggle for economic dominance through the use of expansion. It treated its wealth as its goal and expansion as its way.

The capitalist, then, tries to be powerful by gaining riches. They took of advantage of the economists’ common believe that they live in a world of scarcity. The capitalist used man’s tendency to desire for greater wealth as a means to control him. They enticed people with material possessions for their own personal gain. The problem of maximizing the resources for the world’s necessity can be resolved if it has the enough and equally distributed resources of capital as what Adam Smith believed (Arrighi 34).            Moreover, the capitalist believed that the economic strength of a country depends on how many players it has. Since the goal is to gain economic dominance, the capitalist will try to expand its capital by obtaining more sources of capital.

It means that capitalist nations conquer the smaller ones to gain colonies or more lands to get the riches. The capitalists then used the conquered country to extract the economic goods. The conquered country becomes the “goldmine” of its conqueror, where the spoils from the conquered are used to elevate the status of the conqueror (Arrighi)            The capitalists used coercion and most probably a strong influence in acquisition.

The captor tried to threat the weaker nation. It may cast a shadow of force to exercise its effulgence. Consequently, it would spread fear to the lesser states. The capitalists will then take advantage of this fear and do its best so that the lesser state would show resistance to the capitalist rule.

Economic sanctions are the most common strategy as of now, but military invasion was the most effective in the past (Kennedy)The capitalist can also be affirmative and optimistic. It would take care of its subordinates and offer promises of a better life. Under the shadow of the capitalists, weaker nations were assured of protection and its welfare would be taken care of. The capitalist can also offer alliances that aim to achieve “a common goal”. However, it will only be possible and attainable if one helped the other.

 The capitalist would offer great opportunities to the lesser ones, such as greater advances in economy, lifestyle and peace. It may gradually influence the weak to join the capitalists ally after persuading them to submit themselves to the hands of their captors (Arrighi)As a consequent of these strategies, capitalist rulers seek the help of merchants to supply their cause. Expansion was a high cost to bear, and the private sector can provide the necessary sources to execute the plan. This could be mutually beneficial to both the government and the businessmen.

The business of the merchants will continue to expand giving them more profit while at the same time, the government will subject their colonies under their authority.  The rulers pledge the merchants either a piece of land, a position in the colonial government or authority to venture on the colony. Capitalism can be considered as the modern form of feudalism. The only difference was in capitalism, wealth and capital are the important factors, not just power nor the size of land owned. (Kennedy).

Also, capitalism can be said as a major requisite for state formation. Strengthening a country involved forming a shared experience, culture, stable economy and effective governance. Capital plays the role as the foundation of the nation by empowering its merchants.

The more capital a country had, the more will it progress and the more stable its economy will be thus it will provide its people a better state of life.The capitalist does not care about obtaining power, but it recognized the truth that wealth leads to power. It uses its authority to force its subordinates to continuously generate income. It sucks all the life of the lesser states while keeping the wealth to itself (Arrighi).A fine example of a capitalist would be the 1700-1800 Britain. It had territories in Asia like the Indian race and parts of the Chinese nation; Africa and even in the Americas. However, Britain did not push for world dominance, but more profit. The result- Britain became the World Power before the Rise of the American race.

It acquired important stones and medicine from India; it sold opium and other goods to China, and used the Africans as their slaves. Britain obtained the title of being a world power since it conquered more territories for its economic interest. Most of the British territories were controlled by British companies where these territories do had specific products, showing that the private sector played a significant role in the success of England. Other European competitors like the Dutch were capitalists, too (Kennedy).            An example of a victim of capitalist rule was Africa. Most European countries scrambled to have a spot from the African lands.

The British, Dutch, Spanish, French, Italian and German had bits of the African Continent. Most parts of Africa had been the source of slaves and jewels. Hence, Africa was exhausted and exploited by the menace of capitalism that lasted almost 300 years (Kennedy).

            Most capitalists are supporters of the concept of free trade. Capitalists used their influence on their colonies to join the free trade and submit themselves together to a “Invisible Hand” that controlled the flow of riches produced in trade. That is why black slaves reached the American shores and Chinese porcelain made their way to other parts of the world. Capitalists are also responsible for the emergence of the present day’s Trans-National Companies (TNCs) that almost control the world’s flow of production and consumption. This way of the capitalists follow the virtue of “globalization”- the modern day term of neocolonialism and “economic imperialism” (Arrighi 30-32)Imperialist: For the Empire!            Meanwhile, another system of achieving power is to establish an Empire. Ancient Greece, Rome and China were the best examples of Imperialist powers. However, imperialism was defined by Gallagher and Robinson as “the truth of never-ending act of economic expansion in the modern era” (Foster 2003).

An empire is best described as a large, strong, influential and dominant political entity that existed for a long time. Dominance is the main objective of an imperialist nation. It aims to achieve not just leadership and hegemony, but superiority and dominance in its sense (Arrighi).

            The imperialist tries to establish its empire by the use of its military power to surmount lands. Hence, majority of its riches go to the cause of military empowerment and influence to control its territories. The imperialist then uses capital to achieve territories (Arrighi 32-34).            Imperialist nations strive to achieve dominance through gathering more subordinates. As properly described by Foster (2003), the imperialist gets a bigger container to fill more. Empires mostly establish its empire starting from its own region.

The Chinese Empire, for example, tried to conquer the whole Asian Mainland thousands of years back (Foster).            Like the capitalist, the imperialist can cast an unseen puppet string on its territories with the aid of treaties, alliances, and agreements. It may provide its territory freedom, but the territory cannot escape the influence from the imperialist (Foster).            An example of a modern day imperialist, as Foster suggested, is U.S.

In a sense, U.S. is an imperialist since it uses its resources to interfere with the affairs of the world.

America had many territories for the past century, and it still has a few nowadays. It also has its strings attached to its former territories and still exerted its influence politically, economically and even culturally (Foster). America was still the existing “World Power” at the moment, enjoying lasting power and prominence. As of now, U.S.

is in the process of “war-making” against “terrorism” and “protecting” the Middle East and the World from the threat. However, as Kennedy (1987) stated in his Rise and Fall of Great Powers, imperialists then would fall due to the course of militarization and much spending (Kennedy)Germany tried to rise as an imperialist when it waged war in the 1930s. It easily influenced its nearby nations to join in its quest for dominance. It also had allies – Italy and Japan. These were the countries that enjoyed their own era of empires. They had their own base: Italy in the lower part of Europe while Japan in the Asia and Pacific.

These countries overused their economy to support the war, but they ended in a horrifying loss and faced immense sanctions and debt. They used any resources available. Also, imperialist nations ventured on militarization with the aid of capital. Money, labor, and resources were used in order to achieve military power that imperialists can use in their venture. In short, the imperialists wanted to achieve power by obtaining subjects.

And obtaining such required vast efforts and militaristic operation (Kennedy).Imperialism did not only affect the economy and the political aspects of the colonies and the imperialists, it made a remarkable influence in its culture. In his book, “Culture and Imperialism” (Said), the author Edward Said made an in-depth scrutiny about the Western imperialists and its affiliation with its colonial countries. He had correlated his observation with the effects of imperialism in the Western culture as well as its influences to its colonies.

He juxtaposed the Western culture before after during its colonial years as was able to deduce that imperialism had affected the perspective of the people during those times. He asserted that the impact of imperialism and colonialism in literature was so apparent and had embedded a sense of domination against its colonies. He even cited the works of Jane Austen as an example of the imperialist influence in literature wherein the impression that the Westerners had the big responsibility in civilizing their colonies was adapted. This was just an example of how the Western colonizers view themselves – a superior beings destined to civilize the uncivilized. However, removing the mask of duty would reveal their real intention to gain more wealth and boost ego (Said). Ironically, these colonies that they had conquered actually had its own civilization and own means of living even before these Westerners came. Their basis of judgment was based on the comparison in its culture.

The oppression of races was evident. The discrimination of races tend to be an indirect impact of colonialism. This mind set was embedded in the mind of the people. Even writers had this sense of superiority among other races which was reflected in his writings. Thus, the proliferation of several writings that directly or indirectly implied the inferiority of the colonies under them was preserved up to this time. This was an indirect mockery against the colonized countries especially in literature.

What made it worse perhaps would be the claim that imperialism was just a period in the history of Western culture whereas its remnants were still evident today and was still plague into its colonies (Said).The mindset of the Western people about the imperialism and colonization was very limited to what they see. They only see the positive side in their end. Most of the Westerners were not aware of the oppression that this imperialist system brought to their colonies. They tend to envy the soldiers traveling to the Eastern side brought in gold and more wealth back in their country but they did not realize what these people witness on the other end – inhabitants clamoring for freedom from oppression. They did not see the faces of people tired by the exploitations and brutality of the intruders begging for freedom (Kennedy).Are They Alike?            After discussing the nature of the capitalist and imperialist nation, establishing any link between these two is now possible.

The next two questions from the introduction can now be answered (Arrighi). Also, similarities and differences between these two can help in answering the main question: Do Capitalism and Imperialism relate to each other?            Capitalism and imperialism are similar in goal; both concepts are prevailing philosophies aiming to achieve the needed power. These two are the answers of most World Powers to dominate in the struggle for power. Power is needed and obtaining power means obtaining things.

For the capitalist, more wealth means more power, since capitalism is a known economic philosophy. The capitalist understands that resources or CAPITAL is the means in carrying out plans in achieving leadership, dominance and power. The imperialist, meanwhile, sees that acquisition of the populace and having more land possessions is the key to success. The imperialist, by spreading his rule over the farthest possession, can carry out its goal of being the supreme entity of authority over this world (Arrighi. 1994: 34).

Both systems involve dominant countries as the predator and the lesser entities as their prey. Both systems can use “coercive action if needed” (Arrighi 1994:30-2) in pressuring the weak.Can a Capitalist be an Imperialist?            That seems to be a good question. Since the capitalist wanted to attain power through the acquisition of wealth, how would the capital be translated into power? One option would be to use capital in generating income, using it in the global market. As the demand for capital in the global scene increase, the capitalist becomes more and more influential. Since the capitalists held most capital in the market, the nations in need of capital will then try to persuade the capitalist to lend them by the use of international agreements, investment proposals and alike. However, waiting for the international credit scene to favor the capitalist involved enormous change and thus, the value of capital might depreciate (Arrighi).            There comes a new option that can generate bigger results.

The capitalist had more than enough resources, can invest in militarization and transform itself from an income-generating nation into an aggressive conqueror. Capital is translated into military power, and military power provides the opportunity of expansion (Arrighi).            Take Great Britain as an example. At first, the British is a clear capitalist, for its aims were only focused on economic expansion. It established colonies to enable a system of free trade between its territories and generate income for the kingdom. However, it clearly became an imperialist when it exerted efforts to drag its competitors out of the scene and used capital to strengthen its naval force. From 1700s to early 1800s, Britain clearly became a symbol of a true empire of other fellow nations (Arrighi)            Clearly, when a capitalist power achieved its goal, it stretched out to become an imperialist to continue to expand. Another possibility comes through: Can an imperialist be a capitalist as well?As previously mentioned in the book, “Imperialism: the highest stage of Capitalism” (Lenin), Vladimir Lenin considered Imperialism to be a form of into its fullest degree.

  Since the capitalists were after greater profits, they trend to dominate to expand their business among other countries. However, instead of exporting the products they produce, they would tend to export the capital to other countries. That was the reason why a lot of international corporations were able to flourish in different countries affecting the local industries in the said country. The products produced where exported and even sold in that country thereby competing with the local market.  It uses marketing strategies and influences to make its product more marketable to the local consumers.

By means of colonialism, a cycle was created wherein the international firms gets richer since it is using the resources of other countries while reaping the rewards in its own country (Lenin).From Lands to Riches            Remember the concept of imperialism: “continuous expansion” led to vast possibilities. The imperialist, after gathering large territories and obtain more labor force, needs to manipulate its possessions.

These factors can lead to more opportunities to better productivity rate and wider market (Arrighi).The imperialist then, can be a capitalist as well, if it uses its possessions to generate capital. The generated capital can be used to achieve more territories, like U.S. did when it bought the possessed countries of Spain in the 1898 Treaty of Paris. Also, capital can be used to pressure neighboring countries of the imperialist to venture into “mutual relations”and protect the interests of both parties.

(Arrighi).A Cycle of StruggleHence, states really undergo the cycle from formation to destruction. As a nation goes stronger, it would tend to maintain the momentum and would try to conquer the world. What happens next, when nation fails to maintain its current state?In his book, “The Age of the Empire” (Hobsbawm),  Eric Hobsbawm indicated that the cycle still continued. The imperialist and the colonialists did not simply engage in the system just to amass the resources and use it for their own good. Most of the colonialists tend to dominate the countries that might not be useful for them.

They just wanted to boost their ego. Dominating a country and subjecting it to its own rules would give them a sense of fame and power.  It was also a way of preventing civil wars.

  Keeping their own countrymen busy with trade and industry and knowing that they had a nation under their control, a sense of nationalism and pride were instilled in the hearts of the people that lessened the cases of revolt. It was a strategy that made the imperialists aspired to dominate more countries. He even gave an example like the invasion of Latin America as a strategy to stop the Civil War during Lincoln’s time. Consequently, imperialism could not be viewed simply as a mere domination of one country against another.

Rather, it could be viewed as a desperate attempt of an imperialist government to maintain peace within (Hobsbawm).As Foster and Kennedy pointed out, the imperialist, when it gave priority to militarization and tried to conquer more lands could endanger the status of the imperialist world power. Too much government spending on the military could result in the overworking of the nation’s economy, raising sky high taxes, and could increase public disapproval. Hence, the powerful nation could end up in ruins, might disintegrate, and might fall prey to another emerging power (Foster and Kennedy).The capitalist nation, meanwhile, when focusing to over accumulation of capital, can lead to surplus of capital. Possible emergence of public disapproval due to prevailing corruption might exist, and neglect of public needs could lead to rebellion. The Spanish America, for example, started their revolution when the Mother country (Spain) became weak after its defeat from Britain and internal decay of the government escalated. Spain tried to revive its influence through revitalizing its governance in these countries, but as of what happened, Spain suffered losses that led to its fall as a known world power.

Unravelling the Hegemony            Giovanni Arrighi, in his book, “Hegemony Unraveling” (Arrighi), exemplified the United Stated to ascend  as an empire embraced a new form of imperialism- capital imperialism­. As U.S. exerted its power through political influence and military superiority, this “Power Union” continues to be the key player in the world’s economic cycle.

U.S. uses the concept of “globalization” to “unify the world” or simply establish its global empire (Arrighi).            America’s military ventures such as the Iraqi “defense”, offense in Afghanistan, and continuous military exercises and treaties in most countries indicated that this power block still exerted military forces in nations. As a member of the UN Security Council, U.S. still was in control when it comes to “peacekeeping”, and thus still embracing the policy of “the White man’s burden”. Also, United States still holds majority of the inventory of “nuclear material”- nuclear plants and possibly nuclear weapons that can threaten its every opponent.

America can also block the production of such weapons with the use of UN rules. Lastly, U.S. is still leading in the development of military warfare – aircrafts, ammunition, explosives and vehicles (Arrighi).            The recent U.S. election clearly showed its political dominance. The victory of its president, Barrack Obama, led to a more complex political struggle.

Countries tried to be establish closer ties with the  U.S. as the new administration tried to “clean up the mess” brought about by the previous events of battle against terrorism.

Through the past century, the economy of the United States  became the basis of the world’s economic standing. When the United States suffered economic downfalls, the world suffered as well. It was clearly seen even today as the world experienced recession and going to the possible “nightmare” of global economic depression. The United States held most of the world’s economic transactions – it lends money to other countries but eventually tries to loan money. It clearly controlled the exchange rates, business administrations, and even flow of production and trade. The United States was the primary importer of goods, but it was also the home of the world’s major companies (Arrighi).U.

S. has also a special attribute that helped propagate its influence –  Culture. Most of its cultural influences reached almost every part of the globe. Therefore, it can easily invade the minds of people to manipulate their understanding of freedom, unity, peace and security.

U.S. also became the pioneer of “brand consciousness” that weakens local economies, and making local economies fall to the American economic scheme. Also, the “American Dream” deceived many that the American way of life and thinking is the best one can have. The world still idolizes this American Thinking and making it receptive to the concept of globalization, not knowing that the ruler of the promised “global community” is no other than U.S.As United States  possessed these dominant factors, it clearly fits the title of today’s imperialist, as Arrighi and Foster suggests.

It can easily manipulate the world affairs according to its wishes. It dominates politically, economically, militaristically and even culturally, factors fitting for a primary sponsor of “globalization” or the new imperialism (Arrighi).Capitalism- a clear form of Imperialism            As the studies suggested, capitalism and imperialism were closely related – the capitalist would end up becoming an imperialist, and the imperialist can evolve and become a capitalist mogul. The capitalist and imperialist have a clear goal – to be powerful through their own means.

The capitalist views that capital is power, while the imperialist views its territorial and military possessions are the power indicators (Arrighi).Capitalists and imperialists of the past used every aspect of military, economic and political means to climb up to power, maintain power and oust each other out of power. Each of the philosophies came to different forms, even combining together. However, these concepts clearly changed the world’s scene for a long time. These changes, both seen and unseen made an impact to the formation of weak and strong nations, forming and destroying alliances, starting and stopping the wars (Arrighi).The study of these seemingly contradicting but clearly complimenting philosophies would lead to the understanding of the endless struggle for power  of nations against each other. Noticing the clear indicators of capitalist and imperialist nations would further dictate the outcome of the present. The probable evolution of these concepts is still to come, depending on how these would be shown, but the result is still the same- it is to dominate or stagnate.

Clearly, this continuing struggle never ends!Works CitedArrighi, Giovanni. The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins of our Times. Verso. 1994Arrighi, Giovanni. “Hegemony Unravelling”.

2005. New Left Review. 08May 2009 < http://www.writers.ph/sys/index.php?rate=20&order=283246>”Capitalism.” Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia.

1997-2009. Microsoft Corporation. 08May 2009  http://encarta.msn.com”Imperialism.” Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia. 1997-2009.

Microsoft Corporation.08 May 2009  <http://encarta.msn.

com  >Foster, John Bellamy.  “Imperial America and War.”  Monthly Review Press 55 (2003)            May 7, 2009 <http://www.monthlyreview.org/0503jbf.

htm>Hobsbawm, Eric. The Age of Empire 1875-1914. Massachusetts: Peter Smith Pub Inc, 1997Kennedy, Paul. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000. New York: Random House, 1987Lenin, Vladimir. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Australia: Resistance Books, 1999Said, Edward W.

  Culture and Imperialism.  New York: Vintage Books, 1994                                Hegemony Unraveling. New Left Review.

2005