Modern marxist debates of imperialism are summarized as follows. In the fist part of the body, William Robinson's theory of TNS (transnational state), in modern ultra imperialism perspective, was reviewed. Following him, in 1990s when globalization was almost culminated, TNS was emerging. It was institutionalized through nation states system and various supranational institutions. This change was mediated by forming of global bourgeoisie which was represented by transnational businessmen and politicians, and by forming of world hegemony which was globalist bloc. This world dominance of global bourgeois class, exhibited by the structural power of transnational capitals, was transforming welfare and developmental states into neoliberal national states and facilitating global labor into proletariat through casualization and irregularization. However, this new global order was in crises rather than stable through 1990s by contradictions of transnational hegemony. In structural aspect, overaccumulation and social polarization crises were occurred, while in politics legitimacy and authority crises. Further studies are required about organic crisis which will be over-determined by these two kind of crises and the formation of counter hegemony.
The following arguments of Robinson seems to have some moments to be developed further, that the characteristics of antagonisms between states are of classes, that current global crisis are of legitimacy of neoliberal state system and of supranational institutions as well as of economy, and that organic crisis is important. And the arguments that global tripolar division or subsistence of nation state system have not necessarily brought out imperialist opposition, conflicts and wars are meaningful. However, he doesn't pose any significant objection against the critic's observations which are the impossibility of being one single ruling class for itself of transnational capitalist classes, the methodological functionalism of establishment of TNS, the persistence of nation state or multi state system by uneven and combined development law, and the absence of legitimate monopoly of armed forces. Therefore, the theory of TNS has very weak theoretical basis.
In the second part of the body, Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin's theory of informal empire, which claims US super imperialism has accomplished to rule world unilaterally, was reviewed. According to them, classical imperialism theories have many limits, and the tendency of separation the political from the economical in capitalism concluded historically into informal empire. It was the emergence of America, and to this process are played significant roles by the formation of US state as well as specific economic and cultural factors of America. It was decisive in the process of the formation and development of US state to internationalize states and transform of capital flows into foreign direct investment before and after the world war Ⅱ. At the end of the long boom of post war in 1970s the tensions between capitalist states were rearrangement of existing order, and the result was reinforcement of dominance of US informal empire through transition to neo-liberalism and it's expansion to world under the leadership of us state, which is demonstrated by US economy's improvement in 1980s. US empire has privileges in interest and foreign exchange rates, fiscal deficit and direct investment. And whenever all financial fluctuations and signs of recession after early 1990s, she has made liquidity abundant throughout the world through FRB, which contributed in turn to turning vast labor force to production in Asia. Therefore, nevertheless present economic crisis US empire is still reinforced. However, there are contradictions of dominance of US empire, which is the legitimacy of neo-liberalism in the context of US empire. Especially frustrations of the third world countries will ultimately undermine US empire itself.
There are some factors to assess arguments of Panitch and Gindin. Those are that current global contradiction is one between all imperialism and the others, that latent China imperialism's manifestation should be proved materially, that US imperialism's nature has been unilateral and informal, and that the asymmetry between imperialist powers and phenomenal cooperations between them are important. However, there are dogmatic tendencies in their arguments that US hegemony is further reinforced, that after 1980s global long downturn was recovered by US economy, that the reality of global tripolar economic competitions and the possibility of their transformation into geopolitical conflicts are ignored, and that China will not challenge US hegemony until long afterward. There is an error of economism in the back ground of this perspective, in other words they interprets US capitals' direct investment and active flows into western countries can and do always automatically assure 'internationalization of state' and cooperations between powers. Moreover, they reveals the limitations of supply-side crisis theory and the ignorance of the tendency of uneven development with regard to economic crisis and development. These interpretations ignore intense global tripolar competitions and resulting increases of organic composition of capital and tendency of falls in rate of profit behind the phenomenon. Accordingly they overlook the contradictions of capitalism itself and state level contradictions developed by those contradictions behind the apparent stability of capitalism.
In the third part of the body, David Harvey's new imperialism theory, in competing imperialism perspective, was reviewed. According to him, capitalist imperialism is defined as contradictory combination between the politics of state and empire and the molecular processes of capital accumulation in space and time, or the dialectic relationship between territorial and capitalist logics of power. These two logics are entangled in complex and sometimes contradictory ways, and sometimes territorial logic comes to forefront, but capitalist logic is typically dominating. Then the logic of endless accumulation of capitals does not let alone power which tends to be fixed in space, accompanying necessarily the accumulation of power, which creates the foundation of geographical uneven development, geopolitical struggles and different forms of imperialist politics. On the other hand, with regard to the molecular processes of capital accumulation in space and time itself, 'spatial-temporal fix' brings out transitional crises or falls into localized deep crises of devaluation in the weakest centers or produces geopolitical struggles between regions. To turn the view point inside, the relations and status of struggles between classes in social formation affect obviously driving forces for spatial-temporal fix. In this sense, the territorialized politics of state and empire reappears to advocate leading role in continuing dramas of endless accumulation and overaccumulation. In this context ‘accumulation by dispossession’ is important. The most important of it is dispossession mediated by finance, and new forms of it are intellectual property rights, bio-piracy, genetic resources plunder, accelerating exhaustion of global environmental commons(land, air, water), extensive commodification of all forms of nature, commodification of cultural forms and historical and intellectual creativity, and world wide sweeping privatization waves. This accumulation by dispossession became striking increasingly after 1973. As England waged imperialist Boer war in response to chronic overaccumulation problems in end of 19th century, the internal reformation of classes interests and the blockade of investments in social infrastructure after 1970s was decisive for America to comprehend new imperialism. Accordingly US invasion into Iraq was the same as Boer, and both can be understood as occurred at starting point of the end of hegemony. However, military intervention is the tip of an iceberg. Free trade and open capital market is means of advanced capitalism' monopoly power to take advantage of trade, production, service and finance. So the primary means of accumulation by dispossession is market-opening. ‘New imperialism’ is, though different in space and time, no more than the readvent of past imperialism.
The foregoing arguments of Harvey can be estimated as that the offensive of neo-liberalism and plundering behaviors of financial capitals are well catched in the notions of space-temporal fix and accumulation by dispossession as the efforts of capitalism after 1970s with response to chronic overaccumulation crisis, and particularly that Harvey's dialectics opens new prospect of understanding capitalist imperialism which territorial logic has independence and simultaneously is dominated under capitalist logic as dual dialectics about internal and external relations. However, the arguments are his weak points that capitalist logic of endless accumulation drives endless accumulation of political and military power, that the logic of accumulation by dispossession became surpassing that of expansive accumulation, and that as to driving forces of imperialism there are limits of chronic overaccumulation theory ie. dropping considerations of the cause of overaccumulation difficult to invest profitably.
In the fourth part of the body, Giovanni Arrighi's theory of world hegemony substitution, which is from world system perspective in the middle position between competing imperialism theory and unilaterally dominant US imperialism theory, was reviewed. After summarized R. Brenner's arguments as uneven development theory(from boom to crisis, over capacity and persistent stagnation, unsustainable revival), he claimed that current world turbulence after 1970s should be explained by the concept of establishment and crisis of US hegemony embedded by all inter-capitalist competitions, state behaviors as well as uneven development. As to this, he explained current world turbulence by 3 phases of US hegemony crisis and signal crisis, financialization and monetarist counter-revolution, and Belle Epoque and terminal crisis. In this context, 9·11 and Iraq invasion as part of ‘Project for New American Century’ was accelerating terminal crisis of US hegemony, and at the background of this event was an early current account deficit owing to the absence of territorial empire and then dollar depreciation. Imperialism can be defined as spatial fix on a larger scale in connection to systematic cycle of accumulation, and be analysed historically through Genoa-Iberian and Dutch systematic cycles of accumulation and imperialist practices, English cycle and complete fusion between imperialism and capitalism, and US cycle and failed attempts to be world state. Finally imperialism can be detected through virtuous cycle among capitalism, industrialism and militarism. In the conjuncture of current unravelling of US hegemony, the emerging alternative of world hegemony of China can be appraised.
The foregoing arguments of Arrighi explains well the dynamics of ascent and decline of US imperialism, catching US hegemonic world dominance as our time's characteristic dominant imperialist form. On the one hand his arguments may have given Harvey inspirations as to the development of dialectics between territorial and capitalist logics of power, and on the other hand relating between several conceptions developed by Harvey and exposition of K. Mark about chains among capitalist states(Venezia, Holland, England, America), innovated them from long term and historical perspective than Harvey. Futhermore, the understanding of differences between different types of hegemon's dominance broadens and deepens the dynamics of capitalist geopolitics. In particular, in order to understand the dynamics of acquisition and loss of hegemony of hegemon, extending C. Tilly's state theory (about whether the mechanisms to legitimize racketeering operates successfully or not) to imperialism is a concrete development of the logic that the production of protection can be another axis along with the reproduction of capitalism in modern imperialism. This recognition gives novelty to the understanding capitalist imperialism. However, Arrighi sticked so much to scheme of systematic cycle of accumulation that his exposition exposed limitation bringing in schematism by seeing as world hegemon city state(Genoa) and semi nation state(Holland) whose era was characteristically absent of international center and anarchic. This problem stems from distributionalism and a perspective to see capitalism as monopoly above market. Another problem is lack of insight about the reason why US vast deficits have not developed into terminal hegemony crisis or collapse, which brought out by cooperative relationships among advanced capitalisms and Neo Bretton Woods system's unexpected and sustaining solidity. In this point, there is an implication of economism, and dogmatism which stems from the limit of his theory that sees current long term overaccumulation crisis as only second-half phase of cycle of hundred years long systematic circulation(M-C-M’). Also because of improper concept of capitalism, the argument that China's will emerge as a non capitalist hegemon is another problem. On the contrary, China should be interpreted as a capitalist imperialist power which pursues its own competitive interests in economic and politics.
In the fifth part of the body, Alex Callinicos's theory of imperialist conflicts, which is the most complete imperialism theory and interpretations of history, was reviewed. He interpreted imperialism in view of the relationships between capitalist mode of production and state system. This interpretation was developed with the aims of overcoming three problems of classical imperialism theories (crisis theory, suitability of experience, interpretation of relationship between state and economy), and arranged with regard to several theoretical issues(state system or many state with uneven and combined development, realist moments, determining relation between capitalist mode of production and state system, interests of capitalists and state managers, and interests and ideology). History of imperialism can be classified by way of concentration and centralization of capitals, state system, situation and hegemonic state, and divided into 3 phases with regard to connecting points as world war(classical imperialism, super power imperialism, post cold war imperialism ). This division reflected definition of capitalist imperialism as intersection between economic and geopolitical competitions, opening to various and changing forms of history.
These arguments of Callinicos are the best realization of our time's marxist imperialism, which defines capitalist imperialism as intersection between economic and geopolitical competitions independent of Harvey, and applies and develops further Marx's methodology of political economy critique, developing further elaboratively the prospect of understanding capitalist imperialism as dual dialectics about internal and external relations than Harvey. Along with that, he accepts and develops positive factors of Arrighi's arguments, too. The core of his arguments about capitalist imperialism is that the dynamics of many states as complex determinations of progressive and more concrete development are determined by capitalist competition, and at the same time determined by independent geopolitical logic, thus realist moments are disposed properly. Consequently capitalist imperialism is more intensified in the deepening processes of intersection between economic and geopolitical competitions. Therefore late 19th century's capitalist development is specifically important because of now being first formation of capitalist world market and genuine competitions between capitalist states. This understanding makes clearly imperialism current era of globalization as well as classic imperialism era. Moreover, it can make distinction between phases according to changing forms of intersections between economic and geopolitical competitions. Besides through comparing differences and similarities between English and US imperialism, it investigates and reveals well our time's imperialism as open door and informal, dislocation between economic and geopolitical competitions, and contradictory movements that can be sustainable only through US responses against inter-imperialist tensions and conflicts. Finally it summarizes well heartbeat of current capitalism as solid uneven development, extended lower growth and profitability, redistribution of global power and lasting geopolitical competitions.
Despite the foregoing extensive strengths, two shortcomings should be remedied. First, in historical formation of many states direct role of nation and nationalism should be recognized. Secondly, logic of economic and geopolitical competitions involves the possibility of simplification and skip of so many determinations of capitalist mode of production. Related to this is that capitalist imperialism is confined to only after late 19th century. The overseas expansions of England and Holland before that time can be termed as imperialism without hegemony or with mercantilism and formal colonialism(17/18c), and transition of free trade of informal imperialism(19c). About prospect of current imperialism, though it is difficult to reply clearly whether resulting world war like classical imperialism or not, if dividing five imperialist phases this last phase can be prospected as resulting in conflicts about influences rather than security, territory and resources, which are fundamental 4 factors of geopolitical competitions. However, oil and environment crises are important exceptions that have been and can lead to wars. Considering these points, for better interpretation of intersection between economic and geopolitical competitions to set up objective indices will give more accurate forecasting. As hypothesis, indices of imperialism are competitions about 9 factors-trade, direct investment, foreign exchange and interest rates, international institution, alliance, siege, containment, arms race and war. If evaluating imperialist competitions through these indices, yet the present possibility of inter-imperialist war is low, in the future when America' indices being still all high and China and EU too becoming all high, unforeseeable conflicts will be intensified. If EU integration and emergence of China being complete politically and they will interlock oil and environment crises, inter-imperialist war is not necessarily impossible. The result is only co-destruction. Therefore to solve and prevent this problems should seek an alternative that can eradicate radically all controversial issues relating capitalist mode of production and state system itself.