Extract
[...] The author fails to clearly distinguish what would relate to the Empire as a form of political regime and imperialism as a policy of dependence. The examples given often refer indifferently to both words (this confusion is indeed apparent in the main work titles that essentially speak of imperialism and not of the Empire). Also, the demonstration sometimes lacks clarity due to the chrono-historical approach that leads the author to evoke an example in one chapter, then to return to it in another chapter (for example, the Ottoman Empire is cited in 4 different chapters). [...]
[...] The Leninist Critique: A Truncated Analysis of the Imperial Fact in the XXième century In this continuity, Laurens highlights that Hobson's analysis is taken up with force by Marxist circles and notably by Lenin from the 1910s. Indeed, according to Lenin, imperialism 'is the monopolistic stage of capitalism. This definition would encompass the essential, as, on the one hand, financial capital is the result of the fusion of the capital of a few large monopolistic banks with the capital of monopolistic industrial groups; and, on the other hand, the division of the world is the transition from colonial policy, extending without obstacle to regions that have not yet been appropriated by any capitalist power, to the colonial policy of the monopolized possession of territories of a completely divided globe'2. [...]
[...] We find the same attributes in the greatest Empires throughout History: Ottoman, British, etc. B. The Empires as drivers of the universalization of humanity Also, Laurens emphasizes that Empires are driving entities of a form of universalization for humanity. Once the Empires are formed and in place, Laurens demonstrates that their power dynamics are part of a form of universalization, consisting of generalizing their philosophies, legal or political systems to the conquered territories. Many examples are given in this sense in the book. [...]
[...] It is a chain of subordinations according to the schema described by Braudel'12. Laurens analyzes that the modern Empire (from the 15th century onwards)ème century) fits into this dynamic. He cites numerous examples, including the conquest of the New World by the Spanish. This imperialism, which was materialized by the desire to conquer the world with predation and crusade as instruments, is accompanied by economic motives (gold rush), philosophical and religious motives (spreading the faith) and territorial and geostrategic stakes (conquest of new territories and desire to dominate the world). [...]
[...] Critical Conclusion The book published in 2009 proves to be an essential work for anyone interested in the imperial fact, whether students of history or political science. According to my research, there are no other works within the two disciplines that would deal with this concept over the long term. Moreover, the book has the merit of exploring, by comparing them, the very diverse motives that guided the expansion of Empires (Rome and its search for domination, security and benefits through material profits and from another perspective, the Russian project started in the Middle Ages in resistance to Mongol domination and then guided by the will to power over the entire Eurasian territory). [...]
