Third World Quarterly

ISSN: 0143-6597 (Print) 1360-2241 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctwq20

Whatever happened to the idea of imperialism?

John Narayan & Leon Sealey-Huggins

To cite this article: John Narayan & Leon Sealey-Huggins (2017) Whatever happened to the idea
of imperialism?, Third World Quarterly, 38:11, 2387-2395, DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2017.1374172

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1374172

Published online: 03 Oct 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 13028

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctwq20
Third World Quarterly, 2017
VOL. 38, NO. 11, 2387–2395
https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1374172

Whatever happened to the idea of imperialism?

John Narayana and Leon Sealey-Hugginsb
a
Department of Sociology, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK; bThe School for Cross-Faculty Studies,
University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

From the writings of Lenin, the guerrilla activity of Che Guevara, the Received 29 August 2017
anti-racism of the Black Panther Party and the Third World’s plan for Accepted 29 August 2017
a New International Economic Order, the idea of imperialism and the
KEYWORDS
politics of anti-imperialism were a mainstay of political vernacular Imperialism
throughout most of the twentieth century. Yet, with the onset of neo- anti-imperialism
liberal globalisation in the Global North and, most importantly, in neo-liberalisation
the Global South the idea of imperialism has seemingly disappeared capitalism and centre-
or been deemed irrelevant. This special issue draws on a range of periphery
theoretical contributions that use the prism of imperialism to explore
the strengths and limits of classical Marxist theories of imperialism;
the relationship between Marxist, post-colonial and de-colonial
approaches; imperialism and social movement theory; and the
strengths of returning to ideas of Black Marxism and Pan-Africanism
in the midst of contemporary neo-imperialism. These theoretical
debates are in turn complemented by the collection exploring the
idea of imperialism from different empirical vantage points in the
Global North (Europe, US) and Global South (Africa, the Caribbean,
Cuba and Kashmir). The issue thus provides both theoretically and
empirically innovative interventions on how we should conceptualise
and approach the idea of imperialism in the twenty-first century.

The condition of coloniality that had given intellectual birth to us – from Césaire through Fanon
to Said – has run its course. That episteme is no longer producing any meaningful knowledge.
We are free, but not aimless; liberated, but not futile. The ‘we’ is no longer we folks in the Global
South, for some of us have migrated to the Global North chasing after their capital in search
of jobs, as their capital had gone positively transnational and chases after our cheap labour in
the Global South. So this ‘we’ is no longer colour coded or continental and includes all those
disenfranchised by the global cooperation of capital whether in the north or the south … In
its originiary modernity this globalized capital was mythically ‘European’. It no longer is. It has
been de-Europeanized, free from its overarching fetishes.1

What has become of imperialism?

In a recent polemic with Slavoj Žižek, Iranian scholar, Hamid Dabashi reflected a wider intel-
lectual current that neo-globalisation has led us to an impasse in the idea of imperialism.
Before the effects of neo-globalisation, imperialism was all so simple. The classic theorisations

CONTACT John Narayan j.c.narayan@warwick.ac.uk; Leon Sealey-Huggins http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5227-7990

© 2017 Southseries Inc., www.thirdworldquarterly.com
2388  J. NARAYAN AND L. SEALEY-HUGGINS

of imperialism had predominately seen neo-Marxists theoretically expand John Hobson’s

thesis that maldistribution of income in Europe was key to understanding colonial expansion
beyond Europe. Writers such as Luxemburg, Lenin and Bukharin examined how factors, such
as the rise of monopoly capitalism and the internationalisation of capital and labour exploita-
tion, were directly linked to the expansion of Western imperial empire and inter-imperial
conflict in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.2
At the mid-point of the twentieth century, in the midst of the rise of US geo-political
hegemony and the onset of decolonisation, dependency theory would advance this idea
of a Western-centred imperial world order.3 Imperialism now not only characterised the
territorial expanse of formal Western empires, but also the West’s informal economic and
military oppression of newly independent countries. This idea of imperialism centred on a
geo-political division between the ‘Centre and Periphery’, where the metropolitan centre,
its elites, states, multi-national corporations and geo-political institutions (UN, IMF, World
Bank), systematically underdeveloped the periphery (Global South) for profit. This created
a neo-imperial order where newly independent Third World countries were perpetually
placed on the outer-limits of the global economy, providing raw materials, natural resources
and inflows of capital to industrialised countries in the West and unable to develop their
own industries and infrastructure free of Western interference. The only solution to this
problematic was thus an anti-imperial politics of ‘de-linking’ from the Western controlled
global economy.4
From the revolutionary theory of Frantz Fanon and Che Guevara, to the Third World’s plan
for a New International Economic Order, and the writings of World System theorists, depend-
ence theory’s narrative of imperialism was a mainstay of theoretical and political vernacular
throughout most of the latter half of the twentieth century.5 Yet, as Dabashi’s intervention
makes clear, with the onset of neoliberal globalisation in the Global North and, most impor-
tantly, in the Global South, a number of interrelated processes have been seen to rupture
the centre and periphery – or First World/Third World, Global North/Global South – divide
that typically characterised this idea of imperialism. These include: the disarticulation of
Fordism in the Global North and across the Global South; the integration of large pools of
labour reserves in the Global South into the global economy; and the rise of Southern
geo-political powers such as the BRICS bloc. In a world of truly global capital, which appar-
ently recognises neither borders nor skin-colour, the suggestion is that the natives have
gone native. There thus appears no simple demarcation between the capitalist West and
non-capitalist ‘Rest’, but rather a new phase of imperialism.
That the nature of imperialism has changed under neo-liberalism is not contentious, but
the nature of what that change entails is certainly contentious. What then is the ‘new impe-
rialism’ of the twenty-first century? For some, neo-liberal globalisation signals nothing less
than the total spectrum dominance of capital and the end of the 400-year period we could
denote as the end of Western imperialism. This is best encapsulated in Hardt and Negri’s
declaration that the effects of neoliberal globalisation, or what they call empire, have super-
seded both the theoretical and political limits of what we have previously called imperialism.
Neo-liberalism’s decentralised and deterritorialised global networks of production, global
division of labour and finance, have thus founded a ‘smooth space’ for capital; akin to Marx’s
conception of a world market. The ultimate symbol of this ‘smooth space’ being transnational
corporations and the transnational capitalist class who, rather than any single all powerful
 THIRD WORLD QUARTERLY  2389

hegemon or empire, now directly ‘distribute labour power over various markets, functionally
allocate resources and organise hierarchically the various sectors of world production’.6
Others have been more circumspect about the changes brought about by neo-liberal
globalisation and argue that the new imperialism still maintains old divides whilst fostering
new developments of capitalist expansion and exploitation. These authors argue that despite
neo-liberalism creating huge shifts in the international division of labour, and massive
changes in the economies of the Global North through deindustrialisation and outsourcing,
the global economy is still based on the exploitation of the Global South’s resources and
labour, and is largely controlled by, and for, Western nations and their multinational corpo-
rations. 7 This is backed by the fact that whilst the Global North has been economically
exhausting itself, through a combination of shifting the share of profits from labour to capital
and astronomical levels of indebtedness, the Global South has largely remained on the
periphery and unable to catch up even with its ailing Northern counterparts. Whilst select
countries in the South – such as China - have taken the path of ‘neo-liberalism with southern
characteristics’ and become geo-economic, and increasingly inter-capitalist rivals to the
Global North, they are largely an exception to the Northern rule. The new imperialism, despite
massive geo-economic changes, is thus taken to be a geo-political terrain that can largely
be navigated through an old imperial cartography.8
This special issue does not seek to settle these debates about the nature of today’s new
imperialism but rather revisit the idea of imperialism from a range of theoretical and empirical
viewpoints. The range of these theoretical contributions use the prism of imperialism to
explore the strengths and limits of classical Marxist theories of imperialism; the relationship
between Marxist, post-colonial and de-colonial approaches; social movement theory; and
the strengths of returning to ideas of Black Marxism and Pan-Africanism in the midst of
contemporary neo-imperialism. These theoretical debates are in turn complemented by the
collection exploring the idea of imperialism from different empirical vantage points in the
Global North (Europe, US) and Global South (Africa, the Caribbean, Cuba and Kashmir).
Through using these varied empirical sites, the issue aims to highlight the contemporary
workings of imperialism and the purchase of these theoretical positions. As such, the issue
will provide both theoretically and empirically innovative interventions about how we should
conceptualise and approach the idea of imperialism in the twenty-first century. Before out-
lining the contributions in the volume, it is worth pausing to consider a number of contextual
developments that serve to underline the validity of maintaining the notion of imperialism
within our conceptual armoury.

Why imperialism now?

Most analysts of imperialism locate the seat of imperial power as residing in the US for the
majority of the post-World War Two period. Since then, the US has been engaged in a more
or less overt project to project its power globally via military and financial dominance.
Challenges to these efforts have existed in the form of both foreign and domestic opposition
to US policy. The most obvious examples would likely be the opposition to US military inter-
vention in Vietnam and Iraq in the 1960–1970s and 2000s respectively. Geopolitical and
ideological opposition to US hegemony has persisted even since the decline of Soviet ‘com-
munism’, emerging in South America, for instance, under the banner of ALBA (Alianza
Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América).
2390  J. NARAYAN AND L. SEALEY-HUGGINS

A number of signals point to ongoing challenges to US imperial hegemony. The US’s own
military strategists in the Strategic Studies Institute, aligned to the US Army and Department
of Defence, recently published a paper lamenting what they saw as the US as an imperial
power in decline. The report stops short of explicitly using the concept of Empire, instead
speaking euphemistically of ‘a more competitive, post-primacy environment’.9 They suggest
that this environment is being brought about by, on the one hand, ‘the increasing vulnera-
bility, erosion, and, in some cases, the loss of an assumed US military advantage vis-à-vis
many of its most consequential defence-relevant challenges’.10 On the other hand, they point
to the ‘volatile and uncertain restructuring of international security affairs in ways that appear
to be increasingly hostile to unchallenged US leadership’. In light of these ‘challenges’, one
of their objectives is to ‘create, preserve, and extend US military advantage’.11 While not
directly representing US foreign policy, the document provides an insight into understanding
the US military elite’s insecurities over their status. These insecurities must be borne in mind
when trying to come to terms with recent attempts to reassert US power via spectacular
military interventions, such as the dropping of the perversely named ‘Mother of All Bombs’.12
It is also through the lens of an imperial power in decline that we can better understand
the Trump project more broadly. A combination of imperial nostalgia, along with the per-
ceived threat from China and others, helps to account for Trump’s vow to ‘Make America
Great Again’. China, the US Right’s main scapegoat in the story of its imperial decline, has
itself enthusiastically adopted the mantle of an emerging imperial power. In a throwback to
the heady days of the Han dynasty, China has embarked on the building of a ‘new Silk Road’
(One Belt One Road), as well as being implicated in various neo-colonialist land grabs across
East Asia, Africa and the Caribbean.13
Imperial nostalgia and its attendant rhetoric is in vogue beyond the US and rival super-
powers such as China, however. With ‘Brexit’ dominating the parochial policy agenda of the
UK, civil servant talk has been of establishing ‘Empire 2.0’.14 Meanwhile, survivors of Empire
Version 1.0 are yet to have seen any form of reparatory justice for that phase of history.15
Elsewhere in Europe, France, lacking the imagination to think past neoliberalism, successfully
avoided the authoritarian populism of the Front National by installing a centrist technocrat
as President. President Macron promptly caused outrage by suggesting that Africa had ‘civ-
ilisational problems’, continuing the unveiled racism long since accompanying French impe-
rialism.16 That Macron’s electoral success came against the openly racist authoritarian
populist Marine Le Pen, only serves to further underscore the progressive deficit exhibited
in the politics of so many post-, or neo-, imperial states.
Accompanying trends of imperial nostalgia and empire-building is the emergence, in
some cases persistence, of a number of authoritarian populist projects, such as: Narendra
Modi’s BJP in India; Manuel Duterte in the Philippines; Recep Erdoğan in Turkey; Victor Orbán
in Hungary; Yoweri Museveni in Rwanda; Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe; and Putin in Russia.17
These politics are often underpinned by a rhetoric of aggressive nationalism and, in some
cases, expansionism. Hence the sentiment used to shore up these projects is frequently
similar in tone to the rhetoric employed by the Great Imperial powers at the height of their
racist colonisation projects. While it is unclear what the trends towards authoritarian pop-
ulism will bring, it is fairly clear that progressive movements will need to retain, or indeed
recall, the notion of imperialism in order to accurately understand and oppose them.
Globally, social movements sensitive to the interconnected dimensions of class, race,
gender, ecology and empire are emerging. These include mobilisations in the US against
 THIRD WORLD QUARTERLY  2391

White Supremacy, or against indigenous ecological genocide at Standing Rock; mass student
uprisings in Chile; and the much-discussed Arab uprisings. Examples of encouraging state-
level solutions to these questions are wanting, a fact that perhaps points to the inadequacies
of the nation state as an entity through which empire might successfully be opposed. It is
nevertheless clear that any serious political project to push for progressive alternatives must
necessarily contain an analysis and critique of contemporary forms of imperialism, as well
as attendant forms of global solidarity.

Themes and contributions

Whilst the contributions in this issue often speak from different theoretical and empirical
viewpoints, inspired by, or engaging with, a range of political projects, they all contribute
to an overall narrative about the nature of imperialism in the contemporary moment. A
number of the pieces in this issue, for example, identify the persistence in the present of
longstanding imperialist relationships. The Caribbean is a region whose history was under-
pinned by colonialist expansion, a history in which the region’s geopolitical significance has
been borne out by imperial rivalries. The articles by Sealey-Huggins, and by Domínguez
López and Yaffe, both identify how important these histories are to contemporary social
relations between the Caribbean and elsewhere. For Sealey-Huggins, it is the old imperial
sub-division of the world between the ‘West and the Rest’ that erases claims emerging from
the Caribbean about the steps needed to avoid cataclysmic climate change. By analysing
contemporary climate politics with reference to imperialist social relations, Sealey-Huggins
is able to both account for and challenge the catastrophic trajectory of global warming
trends that ignore Caribbean and other states’ imploration for a limit to warming of ‘1.5°C
to stay alive’. Domínguez López and Yaffe, focussing on the same region but on the position
of Cuba within it, show how the old imperialism of the US towards Cuba exists even in the
midst of the so-called ‘Cuban Thaw’ of Cuba–US relations. The period of politics emerging
after the Cuban revolution of 1959 offered a concerted challenge to US imperialism, and the
policies pursued by the Cuban government both before and after the fall of the USSR sup-
ported anti-imperialist struggles in the ‘Third World’.
Indeed, Nulman’s research also examines how the old imperial dynamic also plays out
across different social movement organisations. He investigates the extent to which social
movement organisations in the Global North mobilising around climate justice, refugee
solidarity and debt relief, utilised an understanding of neo-imperialism in their articulations
of the problems they addressed. His research found that those organisations whose mem-
bership, or target audiences, included constituencies who had historically suffered adversely
at the hands of imperialism were much more likely to make reference to neo-imperialism.
This raises questions about the plausibility of achieving solidarity from actors based in the
Global North who are focussed on Northern audiences.
Vijay Prashad’s piece notes the persistence of an old imperial cartography of geo-politics.
He points towards the extra-economic power – of law and force – of the neo-liberal order
as form of protection for a global commodity chain that benefits the Global North at the
expense of most the Global South. The ‘new imperialism’ is thus to be found in how ‘globalised
institutions that follow a neo-liberal policy platform’ promote the interests of old imperial
powers. Yet, Prashad’s piece also notes possible changes in the nature of imperialism induced
by the turn to global, neo-liberal policy platforms. His discussion of the ‘imperialism with
2392  J. NARAYAN AND L. SEALEY-HUGGINS

southern characteristics’ of the BRICS bloc narrates how potential inter-capitalist rivals in the
Global South may become inter-imperial rivals to the Global North. This dynamic, between
older and newer manifestations of imperial relations, sets the tone for the issue’s contribu-
tions that identify a range of significant shifts in terms of how imperialism is operating today.
Pradella and Rad complicate existing accounts of imperialism via a discussion of European
imperialism in Libya. They deploy of a model of imperialism attentive to a reading of Marx
that enables them to identify rivalries between both Western global powers, such as the US,
UK, France and others, notably Russia and China; as well as regional actors, including those
within the state itself. Their analysis is also attentive to the relationships between capitalist
market crises, and the central role of economic and military imperialist intervention in the
Global South in expanding the global reserve army of labour. This focus helps them to better
explain both the causes and consequences of NATO led military intervention in Libya.
Western imperialism was limited in its advance here, they suggest, in part because of the
market ascendency of China in the wake of the crisis of profitability faced by European
countries, as well as due to the impotence of the pro-Western National Transition Council.
In short, their investigation suggests that we must be circumspect in our accounts of the
‘functioning’ of Western imperialism.
Osuri’s contribution leads to a similar conclusion that the framework of the West versus
the Rest is somewhat outmoded in the contemporary period. We would do better, Osuri
argues, to attend to the ongoing ‘coloniality of (post) colonial sovereignty’. Osuri arrives at
this conclusion through an interrogation of the postcolonial scholarship which illuminates
the relationship of India to Kashmir. This work calls into question the extent to which the
establishment of an independent state in India led to the subversion of imperial and colonial
relationships. Instead the contemporary conditions of imperialism and colonialism suggest
that, even with the onset of independence, postcolonial states attempted to enforce sover-
eignty over territories and their inhabitants. This line of reasoning is also echoed in Andrews’
reflections on the history of Pan-Africanism. His conclusion is that Pan-Africanism’s inher-
itance of colonial ideas of nationalism and the nation state have often combined to stifle
the transnational potential of Pan-Africanism’s anti-imperialism. Drawing on the history of
Garvey and Malcolm X, Andrews attempts to rearticulate a transnational idea of Blackness
that can achieve Pan-Africanism’s idea of liberation in the twenty-first century.
If imperialism can be said to be moving between both old and new poles of exploitation
then contemporary events seem to suggest that the effects of these processes are being
refracted through engrained historical relationships of race, class and nationalism in the
Global North. This is evident in Virdee and Narayan’s respective contributions, which argue
that European Marxism, and its theorisations of imperialism, have been unable to get a firm
grasp of how racism and nationalism have been key to the imperial (dis)organisation of
labour under capitalism. Moreover, both authors put forward the idea that the contemporary
machinations of imperialism can only be appreciated through understanding how racism
and nationalism are again being used to split those suffering under the rule of capital.
Virdee, for instance, locates the racist hostilities associated with Brexit in the old tropes
of the ‘White working-class’ and points to a racially fractured history of the international
proletariat. His history of the socialism of ‘racialised outsiders’, such as Du Bois, Hall and
Deutscher, serves to provide a more expansive understanding of class that reconsiders its
multi-ethnic diversity. Narayan recovers W. E. B. Du Bois’ and Huey P. Newton’s alternative
theorisations of imperialism to examine how the ‘wages of Whiteness’ have been used as a
 THIRD WORLD QUARTERLY  2393

means of splitting the working class along lines of race. For Narayan, the conditions that
have given rise to Trumpism were anticipated in Newton’s critique of reactionary intercom-
munalism. He concludes that Trump’s attempt to supply the ‘the wages of Whiteness in the
absence of wages’ is simply a ruse for capitalist exploitation, which offers more chance of
race war than class war.
In these dark times, many of the contributions in the issue also point towards the possi-
bility of a more humane horizon. This can be found in the idea of rearticulating a transnational
form of anti-imperial Blackness; the continuance of Cuba’s role in confronting US imperialism;
the recognition that Caribbean peoples’ right to existence is in part a recognition of our own
planet’s future; abandoning the false hopes of sovereignty and the nation state; and calls to
renew an anti-imperial left across the Global North and South. What all of these ideas suggest
is that if we are to take the idea of imperialism seriously, then we must take the idea of
anti-imperialism even more seriously. While it may appear merely academic to debate what
happened to the idea of imperialism, the reality, as many of these papers highlight, is that
the destitution, destruction and death created by imperialism has never disappeared. We
thus owe it to our predecessors and successors to once more take the idea of imperialism
as something that must not only be theoretically and empirically examined, but also polit-
ically confronted.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on Contributors
John Narayan is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow in the Department of Sociology at the
University of Warwick. His current research focuses on the global politics of Black Power. He
is the author of John Dewey: The Global Public and its Problems (2016) and co-editor of
European Cosmopolitanism: Colonial Histories and Post-Colonial Societies (2016).
Leon Sealey-Huggins lectures in Global Sustainable Development at the University of
Warwick. His work centres on the social relations of climate change, with a particular focus
on the Caribbean region. His research investigates what climate justice means in the context
of global historical and present inequalities. He is particularly keen to bring a sociological
lens to bear upon what are often very unsociological, and depoliticised, discussions of climate
change. Other research interests centre on and around: the sociology of sustainability; the
conditions of contemporary higher education; innovative and critical pedagogies; explora-
tions in activist-scholarship; and the impacts of neoliberalism on contemporary societies.

Notes
1. 
Dabashi, “Fuck You Žižek!”
Bukharin, Imperialism and the World Economy; Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital; Lenin,
2. 
Imperialism. For an alternative classic theorisation of imperialism see Du Bois, Darkwater. Also
see Narayan, “The wages of whiteness in the absence of wages.”
3. 
See Foster, “New Imperialism of Globalised Monopoly” for a narration of how dependency
theory arose within Asia, Africa and Latin America in the post-war period and evolved out of
2394  J. NARAYAN AND L. SEALEY-HUGGINS

Lenin’s prior work on imperialism. See Baran, The Political Economy of Growth; Frank, Capitalism
and Underdevelopment and Amin, Accumulation on a World Scale for classic dependency theory
texts.
4. See Guervara, Global Justice for a classic speech at the Afro-Asian conference in Algiers (1965)
on the need for the Third World to embark on delinking from the global economy.
5. See Wallerstein, The Capitalist-World Economy; Fanon, Wretched of the Earth; Guervara, Global
Justice. For detail on the Third World’s geo-politics see Prashad, The Darker Nations; Mazower,
Governing the World and Garavini, After Empires.
6. Hardt and Negri, Empire, 31–32. Elements of Hardt and Negri’s viewpoint can also be found in
those who would reject the idea of empire but not the idea of a global US Empire, see Pantich
and Gindin, The Making of Global Capitalism and Harvey, The New Imperialism.
7. See Patnaik and Prabhat, “Imperialism in the Era of Globalisation”; Foster, “New Imperialism of
Globalised Monopoly”; Smith, Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century.
8. Prashad, The Darker Nations; also see Prashad, “The time of the Popular Front.”
9. Freier et al., “At Our Own Peril,” ix; Ahmed, “Pentagon Study Declares American.”
10. 
Freier et al., “At Our Own Peril,” xv
11. 
Freier et al., “At Our Own Peril,” 25.
12. 
Hume, “US Airstrikes Have Killed.”
13. 
Escobar, “China Widens Its Silk Road”; Pröbsting, “China’s Emergence as an Imperialist Power”;
Okeowo, “China in Africa.”
14. 
El-Enany, “Empire En Vogue.”
15. 
CARICOM Reparations Commission, “CARICOM Reparations Commission.”
16. 
Anyangwe, “With This Slur Against Africans.”
17. 
Mason, “Democracy Is Dying.”

Bibliography
Ahmed, Nafeez. “Pentagon Study Declares American Empire is ‘Collapsing’.” Medium: Symposium:
Pathways to the Post-Carbon Economy (2017). https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/pentagon-
study-declares-american-empire-is-collapsing-746754cdaebf.
Amin, S. Accumulation on a World Scale. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974.
Anyangwe, Eliza. “With This Slur against Africans, Macron’s Radical Pretence is over.” The Guardian, 2017.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/11/slur-africans-macron-radical-pretence-
over.
Baran, P. The Political Economy of Growth. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1957.
Bukharin, N. Imperialism and the World Economy. Monthly Review Press, 1973.
CARICOM Reparations Commission. “CARICOM Reparations Commission.” CARICOM. Accessed August
28, 2017. https://caricomreparations.org/
Dabashi, H. “Fuck You Žižek!” Zed Books. Accessed July 26, 2016. https://www.zedbooks.net/blog/posts/
fuck-you-zizek
Du Bois, W. E. B. Darkwater: Voices from within the Veil. London: Verso Books, 2016 [1920].
El-Enany, N. “Empire En Vogue.” Red Pepper, 2017. https://www.redpepper.org.uk/empire-en-vogue/.
Escobar, P. “China Widens Its Silk Road to the World | Asia times.” Asia times, 2017. https://www.atimes.
com/article/china-widens-silk-road-world//.
Fanon, F. The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press, 2004 [1963].
Foster, John Bellamey. “The New Imperialism of Globalized Monopoly-Finance Capital.” Monthly
Review 67, no. 3 (2015). https://monthlyreview.org/2015/07/01/the-new-imperialism-of-globalized-
monopoly-finance-capital.
Frank, A. G. Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1967.
Freier, Nathan P., Colonel (Ret.) Christopher M. Bado, Dr. Christopher J. Bolan, Colonel (Ret.) Robert S.
Hume, and Colonel J. Matthew Lissner. “At Our Own Peril: DoD Risk Assessment in a Post-Primacy
World.” Carlisle, PA, 2017. https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1358.
Garavini, G. After Empires: European Integration, Decolonization, and the Challenge from the Global South.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
 THIRD WORLD QUARTERLY  2395

Guervara, E. Global Justice: Liberation and Socialism. London: Ocean Press, 2003.
Hardt, M., and A. Negri. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Harvey, D. The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Hume, Tim. “US Airstrikes Have Killed More and More Civilians in Iraq and Syria since Trump Took
Office – VICE News.” Vice News, 2017. https://news.vice.com/story/us-airstrikes-have-killed-more-
and-more-civilians-in-iraq-and-syria-since-trump-took-office.
Lenin, V. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. London: Penguin Books, 2010 [1917].
Luxemburg, R. The Accumulation of Capital. New York: Routledge, 2003 [1913].
Mason, P. “Democracy is Dying – And It’s Startling How Few People Are Worried.” The Guardian. Accessed
August 28, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/31/democracy-dying-
people-worried-putin-erdogan-trump-world
Mazower, M. Governing the World: The History of an Idea. London: Allen Lane, 2012.
Narayan, John. “The Wages of Whiteness in the Absence of Wages: Racial Capitalism, Reactionary
Intercommunalism and the Rise of Trumpism.” Third World Quarterly (2017): doi:10.1080/014365
97.2017.1368012.
Okeowo, Alexis. “China in Africa: The New Imperialists?” The New Yorker, 2013. http://www.newyorker.
com/news/news-desk/china-in-africa-the-new-imperialists.
Pantich, L., and S. Gindin. The Making of Global Capitalism: The Political Economy of Global Empire.
London: Verson Books, 2013.
Patnaik, U., and P. Prabhat. “Imperialism in the Era of Globalization.” Monthly Review 67, no. 3 (2015).
https://monthlyreview.org/2015/07/01/imperialism-in-the-era-of-globalization.
Prashad, V. The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World. New York: The New Press, 2007.
Prashad, Vijay. “The Time of the Popular Front.” Third World Quarterly (2017): doi:10.1080/01436597.2
017.1350103.
Pröbsting, M. “China’s Emergence as an Imperialist Power.” New Politics XV-1, no. 57 (2014). https://
newpol.org/content/china’s-emergence-imperialist-power.
Smith, J. Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century: Globalization, Super-Exploitation and Capitalism’s Final
Crisis. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2016.
Wallerstein, I. The Capitalist-World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.