I looked through that article and found it somewhat problematic. Especially the description of core countries as:
They have strong state institutions, a powerful military and powerful global political alliances.
For example, Iceland does not even have a military, but can still be part of capitalist neo-colonialism as part of the "imperial core". Even so, one should also keep in mind that Iceland historically had been under Denmark's dominion and it is wrong to say that it has been a primary benefactor of classic colonialism leading to the rise of western powers in modern history. On the other hand, Portugal has been a strong colonial power historically. Still, the development index of Iceland is way higher and I would argue there are lots of factors in play as to why, and one cannot say that there is a direct equivalence between development index and imperialism. Both Norway, Iceland and Finland gained independence in the 20th century, never had proper colonies and are part of the economic elite. Norway is still in large an economy based around export of natural resources, which is atypical for being an imperial core member. I often feel that many facts like these are overlooked in discussions of imperial cores in favor of simplistic ideas such as equivocating HDI and imperialism. Can we not have better discussions around the mechanics of modern imperialism than throwing around a map and calling out people for not being intimate with the idea of an imperial core, an idea whose simplicity makes itself highly flawed?
I agree that I gave a simplistic answer, you can read literal books about it. But Iceland, as an example, does actually have a history of being closely tied to the military of the US and the UK voluntarily, I think Greenland is actually a better candidate for peripheral than Iceland. And realistically it's going to be more of a spectrum than a binary, you're usually going to fall somewhere in the middle rather than being on the extreme end like the US and Israel.
And even then you might have internal dynamics that complicate it. Parts of the US (Appalachia, "Indian Country") are clearly peripheral within the US economy and subject to exploitation that other areas are not. So agreed, it's complicated.
Dialectics as a method warns us against assumptions that "the state of things" is static, these things are always changing. But I think there's value in the basic observation that world economic systems work in tension, where opposed interests are not equally met in a mutually beneficial exchange a la neoliberal dogma. Even if you have to acknowledge that it is much more complicated than "it's the same map every time" I think the concept is useful.
What would you say is a better way of talking about this sort of thing?
I think what bugs me (generally, not you so much specifically) is what I perceive to be so many ideas conflated into one. One can talk about a lot of different issues under the "imperial core" label, but I think one should be careful about considering who one talks about as imperial core according in context of the issue in question, since the imperial core is not a homogeneous group in a lot of matters, much like any other collection of countries. In particular, I think it is important to allow for some more varied terms of imperial core, else risking falling into a false dichotomy. I see that it might look pretty similar from a global south perspective, but I believe it is helpful to be more nuanced in the approach about who are imperial core to better analyze and understand the mechanics of the imperialism in play.
I think you're probably right, at least when the participants are all familiar with the concept and prepared to get more detailed. On a forum post where someone is ostensibly being introduced to the idea for the first time I worry that trying to get into all of the nuance might be overwhelming when the other person most likely just needs 'the basic idea' to get what someone means. Given that the left is full of nuanced jargon I feel like this is a perennial problem of balancing accessibility and thoroughness.
I looked through that article and found it somewhat problematic. Especially the description of core countries as:
For example, Iceland does not even have a military, but can still be part of capitalist neo-colonialism as part of the "imperial core". Even so, one should also keep in mind that Iceland historically had been under Denmark's dominion and it is wrong to say that it has been a primary benefactor of classic colonialism leading to the rise of western powers in modern history. On the other hand, Portugal has been a strong colonial power historically. Still, the development index of Iceland is way higher and I would argue there are lots of factors in play as to why, and one cannot say that there is a direct equivalence between development index and imperialism. Both Norway, Iceland and Finland gained independence in the 20th century, never had proper colonies and are part of the economic elite. Norway is still in large an economy based around export of natural resources, which is atypical for being an imperial core member. I often feel that many facts like these are overlooked in discussions of imperial cores in favor of simplistic ideas such as equivocating HDI and imperialism. Can we not have better discussions around the mechanics of modern imperialism than throwing around a map and calling out people for not being intimate with the idea of an imperial core, an idea whose simplicity makes itself highly flawed?
I agree that I gave a simplistic answer, you can read literal books about it. But Iceland, as an example, does actually have a history of being closely tied to the military of the US and the UK voluntarily, I think Greenland is actually a better candidate for peripheral than Iceland. And realistically it's going to be more of a spectrum than a binary, you're usually going to fall somewhere in the middle rather than being on the extreme end like the US and Israel.
And even then you might have internal dynamics that complicate it. Parts of the US (Appalachia, "Indian Country") are clearly peripheral within the US economy and subject to exploitation that other areas are not. So agreed, it's complicated.
Dialectics as a method warns us against assumptions that "the state of things" is static, these things are always changing. But I think there's value in the basic observation that world economic systems work in tension, where opposed interests are not equally met in a mutually beneficial exchange a la neoliberal dogma. Even if you have to acknowledge that it is much more complicated than "it's the same map every time" I think the concept is useful.
What would you say is a better way of talking about this sort of thing?
I think what bugs me (generally, not you so much specifically) is what I perceive to be so many ideas conflated into one. One can talk about a lot of different issues under the "imperial core" label, but I think one should be careful about considering who one talks about as imperial core according in context of the issue in question, since the imperial core is not a homogeneous group in a lot of matters, much like any other collection of countries. In particular, I think it is important to allow for some more varied terms of imperial core, else risking falling into a false dichotomy. I see that it might look pretty similar from a global south perspective, but I believe it is helpful to be more nuanced in the approach about who are imperial core to better analyze and understand the mechanics of the imperialism in play.
I think you're probably right, at least when the participants are all familiar with the concept and prepared to get more detailed. On a forum post where someone is ostensibly being introduced to the idea for the first time I worry that trying to get into all of the nuance might be overwhelming when the other person most likely just needs 'the basic idea' to get what someone means. Given that the left is full of nuanced jargon I feel like this is a perennial problem of balancing accessibility and thoroughness.
Totally get that. I was probably just being a little bit of an ass because I had seen some similar things earlier that I thought missed the mark.