The main interpretations of the concept of "imperialism" in the modern theory of international relations.

Veselov Yurii Aleksandrovich ORCID: 0000-0003-2043-2778 Master at the Department of International Security of the Global Politics Faculty of Moscow State University 119192, Russia, g. Moscow, mikroraion Leninskie Gory, 1, stroenie 51 veseloff30@gmail.com Other publications by this author

On December 31, 2019, during an interview with RIA Novosti, the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, M.V. Zakharova, assessing the events that have passed over the year, raised the topic of imperialism in modern international relations. An interview with the telling title "We live with the United States, which has put its feet on the world table" can be a powerful impetus for the development of a new perception, a new concept of imperialism in the modern democratic post-Marxist Russian Federation, and push Russian researchers to a broader and more thorough study of the phenomenon. M.V. Zakharova said: "... We believed that in the conditions of democracy and the international legal field, it was all gone... there was a feeling that with the end of colonialism, with the granting of equal rights to every country, every people, with the primacy of free competition and measures to support developing countries in order to bring them into the bosom of the global financial and economic family, imperialism changed or it changes its qualities. And after all, those works that described imperialism, they are all a century old, or even more, and, it would seem, the world is already as if different… That's what it is, imperialism is what we are seeing now."^[8]

Indeed, first of all, imperialism is associated with the heyday of colonialism in the second half of the XIX century - the highest point in the formation and development of the colonial system in the world, since almost the entire territory of the planet was divided into colonies and spheres of influence by European and non-European (Japan and the USA) powers. It was during that period that the term "imperialism" appeared, the creator of which for most researchers is considered to be John Hobson. ^[6] In parallel with the completion of the distribution of territories, the ideas of Marxism arise, which from the very beginning of the existence of the term give it a pronounced economic character. The most famous work on this topic is not the work of its founder, but the essay by V.I. Lenin "Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism". ^[14] It was this essay that gave imperialism a negative connotation, which at the moment is firmly entrenched behind it, especially in domestic science.

However, it should be noted that Hobson was not the first to use this term. In the XIX century, it was already used by politicians and journalists in disputes about colonial conquests. ^{[31, p. 235]} For example, British Prime Minister B. Disraeli was one of the first to mention imperialism during his election speech at the Crystal Palace in 1872 ^{[42, p. 128, 131, 134 However, there is also an opinion that the term "imperialism" was first used in France back in the 1840s by supporters of the revival of the French empire, nostalgic for the times of Napoleon Bonaparte (and then to denote the internal political principle of the unity of Emperor Napoleon III with the people). [54, p. 3]} It is also possible that it was the active foreign policy of Napoleon III, connected, in many respects, with national prestige, as well as its further interpretation in the UK media ^{[54, p. 22]} that contributed to the formation of the broadest definition of the term. ^{[11, p. 6]} Nevertheless however, then, under the influence of the ideas of Marxism, he acquired an economic interpretation that characterized imperialism as a certain stage in the development of the capitalist system. Such a rather vague origin of the term, sometimes with a clear bias in economics, makes it possible to interpret this phenomenon and its nature in world politics.

Imperialism at the moment does not attract the close attention of researchers, at least in domestic science. The reasons for this may be excessive ideologization of the term. In the XX century in the USSR it was often used in slogans directed against capitalist countries. The famous speech of N.S. Khrushchev on October 12, 1960 in New York at the 15th session of the UN General Assembly is indicative: "... We have vast experience, and we are well aware of the tricks and habits of the oppressors-imperialists, colonialists..." ^[24]

At the XXII Congress of the CPSU (October 1961), a new party Program was adopted, in which the collapse of the colonial system was associated with the entry of imperialism into a phase of decline and death. In particular, it stated that "socialism opposes imperialism with a new type of international relations, which are based on the principles of peace, equality, self-determination of peoples, respect for the independence and sovereignty of all countries, and the implementation of a policy of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems."^[23]

It is possible to quote an excerpt from the speech of the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee L.I. Brezhnev at the Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee on June 20, 1967. "On the policy of the Soviet Union in connection with Israel's aggression in the Middle East": "... The aggression of Israel, committed with the support of well-known imperialist circles of the West and, above all, the United States of America, is another link in the chain of the imperialist policy of the West aimed at inciting war. The most reactionary and militant imperialist Western circles, led by the United States, tirelessly seek to disrupt the existing  there is a balance of forces in the world, to suppress the struggle of peoples for national liberation, to block their movement on the path to social progress, for which they constantly inflate international conflicts..." So the Arab-Israeli conflicts were perceived in the Soviet Union as another "conflict between the forces of imperialist exploiters and national liberation forces, democracy and social progress...". ^[9] The term "imperialism" has acquired such a negative connotation that it began to be used everywhere without any reason. It is not used as often as before, and if they do it, it is only in connection with certain events. For example, in connection with the war in Libya, ^[19] the crisis in Venezuela, ^[4] the coronavirus pandemic, ^[34] the poisoning of the Russian opposition leader A. Navalny ^[48] and other similar crisis phenomena. Moreover, if earlier such statements mostly came from the Soviet Union, were published in its mass media, now this, for the most part, comes from the PRC: "... In Hong Kong, many young people view the countries that are fighting against Western imperialism - Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Syria, Venezuela and many others — as some sinister freaks, as dictatorships and as "anti-democratic" entities...","Hong Kong is just one of the puzzle elements in the huge neo-imperialist game that the West is currently playing on the entire territory of our planet."^[52]

Nowadays, quite often in the media, "imperialism" is called the foreign policy ambitions of the United States, European countries and the interests of any states with an active foreign policy, and it is also used to define the aggressive policy of colonial empires. But most often "imperialism" is used in expressions characteristic of the bygone era of the Soviet Union, calling imperialism everything bad that exists on the planet – capitalism, oppression, etc.: "The oppression of colonial peoples is the basis of imperialism…As long as the capitalist system is maintained, the economic slavery of the proletariat of industrial countries and the colonial slavery of the multimillion peasantry of the East will be preserved."^[20] This reflects a certain evolution of the use of the term, at least in domestic thought.

The position of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, which equates the policy of globalism with imperialism, is also interesting: "In fact, globalism is the imperialism of the era of globalization. This was first pointed out in G.A. Zyuganov's book "Globalization and the Fate of Mankind", published in 2001. Then this characteristic of globalism was included in the Political Report of the Central Committee to the XV Congress of the Communist Party in 2013."^[10] Those who use "imperialism" put different meanings into it, most often without giving the term at least some scientific definition (or using the same Leninist term with its same characteristics). Such statements give rise to speculations, which are equally easy to call arbitrarily taken opposites imperialism (for accessibility of presentation, due to the incompetence of the author or for deliberate distortion of the term for their own purposes). Thus, the true and original meaning of the term escapes.

Moreover, the United States, which is most often accused of imperialist policies, can call someone's actions imperialist: "... his presidency [J. Bush St., approx. It took place during the most ambitious international changes of the post-war period: the collapse of European communism, the reunification of Germany, the collapse of the USSR and the rollback of the Russian [Soviet, approx. the author's] imperialism (rollback of Russian imperialism), as well as the full-scale participation of the United States in a ground war in the Middle East."^[36] This is how the term, which could be widely used in science, becomes a way to accuse an opponent of aggressiveness and does not carry any deep scientific meaning.

The current state of the Marxist interpretation of Imperialism

 The Marxist interpretation of imperialism proved to be the most stable, despite the fact that it was not even homogeneous. Marxist theorists cannot be considered a homogeneous mass and the goals of writing their works were also different. It was necessary not only to describe the current state of the world, the world economy, to describe the desired utopian future, but also to use their materials as propaganda in order to raise the target audience (not too educated workers) to revolt in order to change political power. This is how the Marxist interpretation of imperialism was formed. Nevertheless, such an interpretation, created as a means of combating the "world conspiracy" (of the capitalists), is not without irrefutable evidence, which still makes it no less relevant even with the collapse of at least most of the socialist bloc.

More than 100 years have passed since the statements of the Marxists at the dawn of the XX century, and the capitalist system did not even think of collapsing. The capitalism of free trade and the laissez faire principle has moved for a time into the stage of intensified state intervention in the economy. Moreover, since the 1970s, an unprecedented expansion of transnational business structures has become noticeable, caused by the crisis of Keynesianism, which forced many enterprises to transfer part of their production to third world countries. ^{[33, p. 13]} Trade liberalization, movement to the free market, thus, were evidence not of the collapse of imperialism (in its Marxist understanding), and a new round of its development, since the free market, a kind of "open door policy" provides the most favorable conditions for the expansion of capital. Also, the response to the global economic dynamics was the trend towards privatization, a certain departure from state "conducting" in the economy, the strengthening of non-state economic, political and even military organizations. Together with "capitalism", Marxist doctrine developed, pushing the world socialist revolution further and further beyond new horizons.  Globalization also began to be attributed to the main "sins" of the capitalist system. For example, the well—known American critic of corporate globalization D. Korten believes: "economic globalization is essentially a modern form of the phenomenon of ... imperialism," and its main element lies in the North-South problem.^[13] In turn, the American writer and activist J. Perkins in the bestseller "Confessions of an Economic Killer" claims about the exploitation or neo-colonization of the "third world" countries. He explains this by the intrigues of corporations, banks and the government of the United States, i.e., in fact, he calls the American policy of globalism "imperialism": "... thanks to a new, sophisticated form of imperialism, we sought to create with the help of finance what we tried to achieve by military means in Vietnam. Southeast Asia has made it clear to us that armies are not omnipotent; economists have responded by creating a more appropriate plan. International aid agencies and private contractors serving them (or, more precisely, those served by them) have learned to successfully implement this plan." ^{[61, p. 137]}

The Austrian journalist, ex-member of the European Parliament Hans-Peter Martin and the German writer, investigative journalist Harald Schumann in the bestseller "The Trap of Globalization" linked "imperialism" with cultural globalism: "... globalization, as the former French Minister of Culture Jacques Lan once complained, will by no means be limited to "American cultural imperialism" in the field of entertainment. The United States, as the "superpower of mass culture", will not only decide what the spectacles should be, but also give out bread. Did the former US National Security adviser Brzezinski have this in mind when, speaking in San Francisco, he presented his concept of "tittainment" to the world? ^{[15, p. 335]} Special attention was paid to the environmental agenda and the "concept of sustainable development". For example, a member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and the Russian Academy of Sciences N.N. Moiseev believed that the "concept of sustainable development" not only does not meet the needs of humanity, but also "serves the interests of transnational corporations and global imperialism, the so-called Pax Americana." ^{[18, pp. 148-160]} On the contrary, a Soviet and Russian chemist, academician USSR Academy of Sciences (1979), Vice-President of the Russian Academy of Sciences V.A. Koptyug believed that the "concept of sustainable development" is aimed at neutralizing destabilizations emanating "from the reactionary forces of globalization and imperialism, which threaten humanity with a social and environmental catastrophe." ^{[16, p. 270]}

These new elements of the evolution of imperialism (globalization and ecology) are united by the Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Economics, Doctor of Philosophy A.I. Subetto. ^[26] "Global Imperialism and the Noospheric Socialist alternative" is one of his many works on the problems of modern capitalism, which already shows by its title the neo-Marxist development of the ideas of alter/anti-globalism. In particular, A.I. Subetto calls "global imperialism" the last phase of the development of imperialism, "which ends either with the capitalist death of mankind, or with the transition of mankind to a new anti–capitalist form of being - noospherism or noospheric socialism." ^{[27, p. 469]} This phrase is the brief essence of what the author describes in hundreds of pages.

Neo-Marxist researchers developed the world-system analysis within the framework of the theory of dependent development (S. Amin, ^[35] I. Wallerstein, ^[3] J. Dumesnil, D. Levy, ^[43] P. Prebisch, ^[22] T. dos Santos ^[68]), revealed new manifestations of imperialist policy outside of aggressive, pronounced colonial expansion. Neo-Marxists converged on the study of the global dynamics of the formation of transnational capitalism, the root cause of which was called neo-imperialist expansion. ^{[17, p. 41]} Against the background of the development of ideas such as the "End of History" by F. Fukuyama ^[30] such neo-Marxists as Professor A. Negri of Padua University and political philosopher M. Hardt argued that a new the logic and structure of governance, the new global order, which they called "Empire". ^[50] The same term gave the name to the concept explaining the features of the global order of the beginning of the XXI century and characterizing the modern stage of the development of neo-Marxism. ^{[17, p. 41]} By "Empire" they meant a quasi-governmental structure consisting of a monarchy (the United States and the G7, as well as international organizations such as NATO, the IMF), oligarchies (transnational corporations and other nation-states) and democracies (various non-governmental organizations and the United Nations). The book "Empire" was a great success in the intellectual environment and was even called the "communist manifesto of the XXI century". ^{[72, p. 190-198]} Most of the neo-Marxists listed above (for example, Teotonio Dos Santos, Brazilian economist, professor at the Federal University of Fluminense, one of the creators of the theory of dependent development and representatives of world-system analysis) pointed out the key importance of transnational corporations, global monopolies dictating the international division of labor and which can now be presented by Marxists as the main actors of imperialism as a whole. The role of TNCs in world politics is really huge, and there is no point in proving that the branches of the largest and most influential of them are not located in other countries of the world and the more TNCs, the more states it affects either with its production or the possibility of selling its goods and services. Powers such as the United States always protect their companies, if possible alternating diplomatic methods with the threat of the use of armed forces. Also, one of the elements of the use of imperialism by transnational corporations is delocalization – the transfer of production to countries with low wages.

Nevertheless, one should not assume that TNCs exist fundamentally separately from states. An important form of cooperation between leading states and TNCs is "military Keynesianism". Destabilization of the situation in resource-rich developing countries requires military intervention, the provision of which becomes a stable source of support for high-tech industries. The ability to control certain countries with the help of the military force of "their" states turns into profitable contracts and preferences for TNCs. So TNCs, even with the sole purpose of making a profit, unwittingly often help "native" states in the deployment of hegemony, and it can be said that this symbiosis is modern imperialism from a Marxist point of view (some kind of the newest form of MMC). The global financial market, contrary to the ideologies of neoliberalism, is not a kingdom of stateless freedom and does not work effectively without the use of hard and soft power by the leading powers, ensuring both the status quo and the advantages of the strong in the competitive struggle. ^[7] Accordingly, the hypothetical symbiosis of a power and its TNCs, their joint or single activity in world politics, is modern imperialism. It can also be argued that TNCs can pursue exclusively their own interests and even indirectly not help the home countries (headquarters locations). In this case, TNCs themselves may be subjects of imperialist aggression. ^{[2, p. 35]} And this means their ability, to a certain extent, to dictate their conditions around the world, to suppress competitors, to influence the domestic policy of other countries (to lobby) and even to form public consciousness – that is, to do the same thing that the world powers could afford.

Moreover, today in most developing countries (which were previously called "third world countries") there are at least 50,000 non-governmental organizations receiving more than $10 billion in funding from international financial institutions, Euro-American-Japanese government agencies and local authorities. Managers of the largest NGOs (non-governmental organizations) manage millions of budgets with salaries and benefits that are comparable or higher than the budgets of many states. "They fly to international conferences, confer with senior financial directors and make political decisions that affect millions of people in the vast majority of cases." ^{[62, p. 429]}

According to a number of experts, whose judgments can probably be considered pro-Marxist, many non-governmental organizations were created to serve imperialist states. ^{[62, p. 429]} Their real tasks (in addition to or even contrary to the stated ones) include supplementing the work of the IMF, pushing privatization "from below" and demobilizing popular movements in order to undermine resistance imperialist states or, from the point of view of Marxists, capitalists, who govern these states. ^{[62, p. 429]} American Professor of Sociology J. Petras believes that in reality NGOs are not "non-governmental organizations" - they receive funds from foreign governments, work as private subcontractors of local authorities and/or are subsidized by corporate-funded private foundations with close relations with States. They often openly cooperate with government agencies at home or abroad. Their programs are accountable not to the local population, but to foreign donors, who "review" and "monitor" the activities of NGOs in accordance with their criteria and interests. ^{[62, p. 433]} International non-governmental organizations are considered to be representatives of public opinion, contributing to the formation of civil society. However, in fact, a significant part of them, in fact, turned into a continuation of the state structures of a number of countries. ^{[33, p. 14]} These statements illustrate the imperialist symbiosis of NGOs and the state.

NGO directors, as new viceroys, supervise and ensure compliance with the goals, values and ideology of donors, as well as the proper use of funds. ^{[62, p. 434]} For example, typologization by geographical criterion shows that the majority (67%) of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) included in the register of the World NGO Organization (WANGO), has a Western origin and membership. ^{[33, p. 6]} This may prove the still ongoing era of new imperialism or neocolonialism. According to data published in the magazines "Foreign Affairs" and "Euro Money", about half of the total capitalization of the world's stock markets accounts for 25 large cities. More than half of all foreign exchange market operations are concentrated in London, New York and Tokyo. Three American conglomerates (Morgan-Stanley-Dean-Watter, Merle-Lynch and Goldman-Sachs) participate in four-fifths of all major global financial mergers and acquisitions. ^{[21, p. 9]} Speaking about imperialism of the XXI century, it is impossible to bypass the development of "new imperialism". Professor A.V. Buzgalin believes that the new imperialism of the beginning of the XXI century, according to Marxist logic, can be characterized not only by inherited features, but also by the acquisition of a number of new, radically different from the "old imperialism" properties. First of all, the author highlights the change of the object of imperialist influence. Buzgalin does not single out any new causes of imperialist policy (capital "going beyond state borders due to the over-development of national capitalism and chronic internal over-accumulation… [capital, approx. the author]", ^{[2, p. 34]} however, believes that modern expansion is mainly aimed at industrially developed and developing countries according to the capitalist model, which legally have the status of an independent and sovereign subject of international relations, unlike the previous model of interaction with the agrarian semi-feudal world of colonies.

Modern imperialism, in this case, is structurally similar to the imperialism of the past, but has a completely different institutional design (for example, the rules of the free market). ^{[2, pp. 34-35]} Moreover, imperialism (and especially its modern form) cannot be exclusively the export of capital and includes the establishment of domination over the economy "host states", the preservation of intellectual property rights through the control of technologies, as well as certain financial management within their borders. According to this logic, only a state that can provide its capital with the necessary conditions for global hegemony and can be a real subject of imperialism. ^{[2, p. 36]} The great interest of researchers of imperialism was attracted by the study of the American philosopher and sociologist David Harvey "The New Imperialism" published in 2003, made in the spirit of Marxist methodology. ^[51] The phenomenon of "New imperialism" is associated with the leading role of the United States in the modern world, in other words, the old imperialism was the Europeanization of the world, and the new imperialism was the Americanization of the world. According to Harvey, the old imperialism was characterized to a greater extent by the connection of political and economic processes. If in the era of the initial accumulation of capital, force was required to open new markets (for example, Opium Wars), then under the new imperialism, financial markets themselves offer capitalists what they previously had to forcibly take away in the past. According to Harvey, the old imperialism was carried out mainly by political expansion, while the new one is characterized by economic. If the old imperialism led to the regionalization of the world, the new imperialism led to globalization. The logic of the expansion of capitalism under the old and under the new imperialism is practically the same, only the methods have changed.

Of particular interest is the study of Austrian-English Professor Christian Fuchs. In his article "New Imperialism: Information and Media Imperialism?" he believes that "imperialism has been revived and qualitatively transformed, that thanks to capitalist development and the crisis, new qualities of capitalism have emerged and others have been preserved, and that these new qualities, on the one hand, represent a return to capitalist imperialism, but on the other hand today there are aspects of imperialism that differ from the imperialism described by Lenin, Luxemburg, Kautsky and Bukharin 100 years ago." ^{[46, p. 35-36]} Fuchs' article is of some importance not only for considering the relevance of the Marxist concept for the modern world, but also by citing numerous tables proving this, as well as the positions of many modern researchers of imperialism.

Fuchs saw the connection between imperialism and the information sector as one of the main aspects of imperialism in the modern world. He believed that such a connection was not specific to the new imperialism. ^{[46, p. 37]} For example, an English professor specializing in media communications, Oliver Boyd-Barrett, showed that already in the XIX and early XX century, the major news agencies Havas, Reuters and Wolff "were based in imperial capitals", and their expansion "was closely connected with the territorial colonialism of the late XIX century." ^{[39, p. 23]} Fuchs provides relevant tables to argue the applicability of Lenin's theory to the modern world. Below are some of them:      

       To. Fuchs believes that the largest share of mergers and acquisitions is in the financial sector. In the information industry, a small number of large companies account for the bulk of the total number of employees, total turnover and total value added. These are data from only one area of the economic life of society.

Fuchs' conclusions can be supplemented with a typical example of the emergence of an information oligopoly in the United States: Back in 1983, about 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all mass media, and by 2018, only 6 megacorporations can be identified, which absorbed all their competitors. ^[29] This situation in the information sphere may also be repeated in other areas of the provision of goods and services. Fuchs provides a corresponding table to confirm the relevance of Lenin's thesis that under imperialism large companies dominate the economy and divide spheres of influence and markets among themselves. According to the study, developed countries account for 80% or more of the world's corporations, which cover almost all possible types of goods and services with their activities.

According to Fuchs, Lenin's statement that under imperialism there are not only colonies and colonial powers, but also semi-colonies, politically independent countries that are entangled in a network of financial and diplomatic dependence does not lose its relevance. ^{[46, p. 55]} The professor also believes that the United States, of course, Today they are the dominant world military power and successfully impose their will by military means without much resistance from other countries. Fuchs considers the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to be clearly illustrative examples of American imperialism.

The reasons for these invasions can be considered: ensuring access to oil as an economic resource; ensuring global geopolitical hegemony; expanding the economic power of the United States in exporting capital and goods in the context of strengthening the positions of Europe and China; conquering strategic countries in the Middle East in order to better prepare for limiting the influence of Islamic nations and groups that challenge Western domination in the world or the struggle for the spread of neoliberal capitalism around the world. One can imagine that the causes of these wars are a combination of some or all of these elements. And most importantly, regardless of what factors are considered priorities, "wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, global terrorism and potential future wars against countries such as Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Venezuela or Bolivia (at least, the war in Syria really happened, as Fuchs predicted., author's note), show that the war for ensuring geopolitical and economic influence and hegemony is an integral feature of the new imperialism and imperialism in general."^{[46, p. 56-57]} Although investment, trade, capital concentration, transnationalization, structural adjustment programs, in connection with which the IMF and the World Bank require countries toborrowers implementing a certain policy to obtain new loans, ^{[69, p. 43]} are economic strategies of imperialism, in which they do not resort to military means, it is likely that not all territories can be controlled by imperialist powers and that there will be some resistance. In order to contain this resistance, overcome crises and ensure the economic influence of capital in the last instance, war is the ultimate means, the continuation of imperialism with non-economic means to achieve economic goals. ^{[46, p. 57]} Such a new definition of war definitively complements imperialism from the point of view, at least, of Marxism.

Finally, the analysis of the Marxist interpretation should be completed by resolving the question that runs through the whole study – the connection between imperialism, protectionism and free trade. Although most of the theorists discussed above argued that the free trade regime opposes imperialism, and protectionism is its vivid form and any return to it by the state is a manifestation of imperialism, it can be argued that for large capitalists, the free trade regime, for the most part, is a more profitable regime, since it allows covering the whole world, spreading it has its own goods and services, which means it is even more imperialistic.

In general, we can say that the Marxist interpretation has not undergone significant changes, and the views of the theorists of this direction do not differ significantly from each other. However, the Marxist interpretation has a well-established framework, any way out of which will be considered as a non-Marxist approach to the object of study, which means, from the point of view of some groups of the most ardent adherents, wrong.

Nevertheless, despite all these claims, the Marxist interpretation of imperialism and the Leninist theory updated by Fuchs show that we can consider the modern world and the modern world order imperialist. The entire history of the Cold War was based on the confrontation of two centers of the bipolar world – the socialist one centered in the USSR and the capitalist-imperialist one centered in the USA. Following the simplest logic, the remaining superpower has extended its mechanisms of the world order almost completely to the global level. At least, it was felt in the 1990s and 2000s.

Interpretation of imperialism in the spirit of political realism

Despite the fact that it was proved above that the Marxist approach in the interpretation of imperialism can be used to explain the current world order, this does not mean that it is the only one that can be applied. Also, the fact that there is only one established interpretation within the boundaries of one paradigm does not mean that the same phenomenon cannot be studied from the point of view of other paradigms.

The national sovereign state (and not the class struggle of the Marxists) is primary for this paradigm, it is the basis of the system of international relations. Non-State actors are not given much attention, or at least their role can be tied to what was described in the last paragraph. Each state has its own national vital interests, which it tries to implement through an active, and sometimes even aggressive foreign policy, unleashing wars, concluding military-political alliances, turning world anarchy into a self-imposed order or leading to a change of the same order to a more profitable one for itself. It can be stated with great confidence that the state may well use any possible means - legitimate war (intervention by UN resolution, defensive war, participation in minor conflicts, recourse to the help of private military companies), economic levers, diplomacy, cultural dialogue (or the imposition of its culture and language) and others to implement its foreign policy plans.

In accordance with the above general theoretical characteristic of the paradigm, it is possible to find a political realist interpretation of imperialism, to describe the conditions in which it is carried out, its past, present and future, actors who can carry it out, methods, causes and consequences. It should be assumed that imperialism is inextricably linked both with the history of mankind and with the world-system theory of imperialism described in such detail by Professor Galtung in the article "The Structural Theory of Imperialism". ^[47] In addition, Schumpeter also introduced the concept of imperialism in the spirit of political realism to the world. ^[66]

Based on the works of non-Marxist researchers, it can be argued that imperialism cannot be given a subjective assessment, since it is an objective, natural, historical activity (politics, foreign policy strategy) of powers and those who seek to become them, expanding their capabilities, expanding territories, building up their potential to spread their influence or strengthen this influence, obtaining from this economic profit (not always, not in all cases), the desire to preserve the current beneficial world order or activities aimed at overthrowing it for the exercise of leadership, and preferably long-term hegemony and violations of the sovereignty of other actors in international relations and world politics in this regard.

The formation of an appropriate non-Marxist concept of imperialism is quite suitable for the first half of the XXI century. This is largely due to the current uncertainty of international relations, as well as the erosion of sovereignty. French economist Claude Serfati, an employee of the Institute of Economic and Social Research, believes that researchers may no longer be afraid to use the term "imperialism" to denote the relations of domination and political guardianship that they consider necessary to establish in relation to certain parts of the world. ^{[67, p. 96]}

The key element of the definition is a strong sovereign state – a world power, however, due to global trends, such as globalization, it may turn out that this concept already describes the characteristic features of the past of international relations. Nevertheless, liberal-idealistic tendencies may well not achieve the predicted results, and this concept of imperialism in the future (and maybe in the present) will have sufficient potential for application in modern world politics – explaining historical, political, economic and cultural events and processes on the world stage. The definition above can be considered executed in the spirit of classical political realism, and it complements and unites many objects studied by realist researchers.

It can be assumed that imperialism is a boon in accordance with the realist theory of hegemonic stability, according to which the international system is more likely to remain stable in the presence of a dominant world power, the hegemon. ^{[49, p. 107]} The dominant imperialist state cannot allow the strengthening of the power of its potential competitors, threats to its leadership and dominance, and takes any available and possible actions to prevent this. This theory, together with the theory of the transfer of power by A.F.K. Organsky, ^[60] the theory of the long cycle by George Modelsky, ^[57] the K-Cycles by N.D. Kondratiev, ^[12] the "waves" by Simon Kuznets ^[55] and the "structural theory of imperialism" by Johan Galtung in combination with each other can form a new a broad scientific view of imperialism, the attitude of the whole paradigm.

Moreover, the well-known Italian-American professor of political science A.F.K. Organsky created a hierarchy of states, on the basis of which it is also possible to form an idea of which states can be considered imperialist. ^[60] Organski identified from four to five groups of countries: the dominant state (the superpower with the largest share of the resources of power - population, production and political and military power, which founded the world order and benefits from it), the great powers (large and historically serious players on the world stage with the potential to become a superpower which may be on the side of the dominant state or try to resist it), medium and small powers (they can also be called regional powers, which may be both the countries of the periphery of the Center and the countries of the center of the Periphery and may have the potential to dominate the region, similar to what the dominant state has on a global scale, but they are not able to challenge the dominant state and the existing world order), as well as dependent countries (the rest of the states that have little capacity in their own geographical regions and have little influence and projection outside their borders). Based on this list of traditional actors in international relations, it can be stated that the first four types can be considered imperialist countries, but depending on their position down in the Organski pyramid, they will be able to use fewer and fewer methods and forms. It is also obvious that higher-ranking powers will influence both dependent countries and lower-ranking Powers.

Imperialism is also the eternal goal of the state, embodying a combination of eternal goals identified by the French political scientist and philosopher Raymond Aron: the desire for security, strength and glory, in the thirst for expanding space, increasing the population of the state and spreading the ideology and values of this actor. ^{[37, p. 82-87]} This, in turn, it also fits well with the ideas of one of the founders of the paradigm, Hans Morgenthau, who argued that the goals of various types of public policy are aimed at strengthening the position of the state in the international arena, at its dominance over other countries. ^[58] Among the three basic models of any state's policy identified by him (1-status quo, 2-accumulation and increase of power, 3-demonstration of force) Morgenthau directly named one of them – a policy focused on the accumulation of power and the growth of imperialist power. Nevertheless, if we proceed from the definition of imperialism given above, it would be more appropriate to assert that all three models are types of imperialism. Morgenthau did not give his definition of imperialism, although he mentioned it, which once again proves, even if there is a mention of this term by a theorist of political realism, the absence of a detailed analysis of imperialism from the point of view of this paradigm. In addition, Morgenthau called imperialism only the policy of states that is aimed at changing the current world order. ^{[58, p. 51]} It is noteworthy that Morgenthau also described the goals of imperialist policy, which are perfectly combined with the actors of imperialism outlined above: world domination and domination (the corresponding goal of a superpower, an imperialist leader, an imperialist-hegemony), hegemony/leadership on the scale of the continent (the corresponding goal of a great power), regional dominance and local domination-subordination (for medium and small powers, respectively). ^{[58, p. 52]}

It is also worth definitively determining the relationship between imperialism and colonialism. Hobson, the "pioneer" of imperialism, as already discussed above, shared this concept. However, it should be assumed that colonialism is part of the policy of imperialism and is a characteristic feature of the imperialism of the so-called maritime empires. Colonialism can also be divided into types, some of which may be classical colonialism (subjugation of indigenous peoples, which Hobson called imperialism) and settler colonialism. Morgenthau argued that one of the possibilities of conducting an imperialist policy is the existence of weak states or so-called "politically empty spaces", i.e. the emergence of a situation where there is a possibility of colonial imperialism or the emergence of unified federal states (with the loss of sovereignty by some nations). ^{[58, p. 51]}

Also, the above definition correlates with the idea of interference – purposeful actions of states to influence the political system of another state against its will, using various means of coercion to achieve political goals. ^{[1, p. 98]} For the sake of maintaining its dominance, the imperialist power will take any action up to direct/indirect control of other actors. Also, according to the Oxford Dictionary, imperialism is "a system in which one country controls others..." or "the fact of strengthening the influence of a powerful country on other countries through business, culture, etc." ^[53]

Morgenthau's ideas partially coincide with the views of Johan Galtung. Morgenthau distinguished three methods by which imperialism can be carried out – military (direct military influence, demonstration of force), economic (economic influence, including with the help of TNK – transnational corporations) and cultural (use of soft power). ^{[58, p. 54]} The political method should also be added to this list. Galtung thought in the same categories, only he called them types of imperialism. Nevertheless, it seems more appropriate to use the division into methods of imperialism to strengthen and complement the emerging political-realist interpretation of imperialism, and to name three models of state policy of Morgenthau as types of imperialism.: 1) a policy focused on the preservation, preservation of the current world order — the preservation of the Status Quo, 2) a policy focused on the accumulation of power and the increase of power, 3) a policy of demonstrating strength. ^{[58, p. 35]}

Another authoritative representative of the paradigm, Arnold Wolfers, introduced the terms "soft" and "hard" forces in the spirit of political realism: power (strength, might) and influence, where the first is the ability of an actor to change the behavior of other international actors by coercion (i.e., based on the definition, violating their sovereign rights to conduct their own policies and pronouncing their own decisions in their own interests), and the second term is the ability to change behavior through persuasion. ^{[71, p. 104]}

The above definition of imperialism corresponds not only to the works of the classics of political realism, but also to the works of the "new generation", the neorealists. For example, John Mearsheimer, a political scientist, professor at the University of Chicago, based on the ideas of Kenneth Waltz, the creator of structural realism (neorealism), developed a theory of offensive realism, according to which, within a permanently anarchic system of international relations, the state, for the sake of its selfish interests, to ensure its security, should prevail and dominate others, maximize its own influence. ^{[56, p. 9]} Violation of State sovereignty is also considered within the definition as an imperialist act. One of the founding fathers of the theory of international relations, E. Carr, believed: "The inappropriateness of state sovereignty is the ideology of dominant powers that consider the sovereignty of other states as an obstacle to the use of their own predominant position." ^{[41, p. 18]} International law, according to this logic, will be one of the most convenient mechanisms for securing the status-the status quo or the development of favorable legal norms for certain groups of countries. In addition, based on J. Galtung's table, it is quite logical to state that imperialism can be committed by various commercial organizations and various ideological movements (for example, the communist movement). ^{[47, p. 96]}

If we proceed from the definition that binds imperialism to a power that embodies its foreign policy ambitions, following its selfish national interests, then from the point of view of the disclosed paradigm, imperialism has existed at least since the beginning of the existence of the Westphalian system of international relations, since the emergence of the national state, its sovereignty, and so on, and as a maximum, since the existence of the first powers, including the powers of the ancient world. The term "imperialism" originated in the heyday of colonialism, but it can be assumed that colonialism is one of the forms of imperialism, for the most part, convenient for maritime empires. Such a definitely continental empire as Russia really colonized the lands in the northeast of Eurasia, but such a manifestation of imperialism is considered to be only a policy of colonization - the development of new lands, and not colonialism – a special feature of the Western economic and geographical system, which can be called thalassocracy.

Accordingly, it can be argued that this phenomenon is not an exclusive product of capitalism and is rather related to the essence of the state (according to the theorists of political realism), and the economic system is rather an indicator of the dominance of certain groups of powers. Moreover, according to such arguments, any world order can also be considered imperialist, regardless of whether one power is interested in it or a certain number of powers.

One of the most difficult issues of our time is the role of non-governmental organizations. According to the above definition, only a Power can carry out imperialism. According to the above (neo)Marxist interpretation, NGOs can also be a continuation of the policy of states, new means of influence and pillars of their power. This position has a well-founded right to exist, but can some non-state actors be considered imperialists now or potentially in the future, provided that sovereignty can be lost by all state entities? The East India Company, one of the world's first corporations, carried out its own actions on the international field, although not without the assistance of the British government. Modern major international organizations also cannot be considered actors of imperialism, but rather its means, carrying out actions necessary for their most important members – the powers. For example, the International Monetary Fund has more or less become an instrument of rich countries for the economic and ideological control of poor countries. ^{[63, p. 50-57]} Accordingly, it should be emphasized that NGOs are not currently actors of imperialism, since the state is a unique institution that has sovereignty and does not perform the sole function of profit. But nevertheless, with the help of non-state actors, an imperialist policy can be carried out.

Indeed, the "geometry" of imperialism is very complex and cannot be reduced to only one aspect, reason, indicators. ^{[38, p. 147]} It can be argued that imperialism is invulnerable, invincible, impregnable, the collapse of the imperialist will give a chance to the emergence of new imperialist powers or their victory, even in cases where they previously declared that they fought with him in relation to the first power. Such countries could use similar slogans just by implementing the cultural method of imperialism. Many researchers of imperialism have named options with which to fight or crush this phenomenon. As indicated in the definition above, imperialism is an objective and historical policy, so there may be an opinion that it is unnatural to fight it, as to fight the existence of states themselves. Nevertheless, imperialism will not be able to exist without powers, provided that the world is divided into a huge number of small interdependent entities, each of which will be deprived of the strength, capabilities, and resources to subjugate even its closest neighbors, to become an empire. Moreover, linking hegemony with imperialism is not a new idea, since the founder of the theory of world orders Hadley Bull himself figuratively called hegemony "imperialism with good manners". ^{[40, p. 8-10]}

Special attention should also be paid to the connection of imperialism with the process of globalization. The well–known British historian, Professor of Harvard University Neil Ferguson wrote in the acclaimed book "Empire: what the Modern World owes to Britain" that the process of development of British imperialism is primarily the history of globalization, or rather, the "anglobalization" of the world. ^{[28, p. 30]} This is also evidenced by historical facts, provided by the historian himself: "When the British ruled a certain country (or only influenced its government by flexing their military and financial muscles), they, as a rule, sought to instill — or at least pass on — certain features of their own society to it. Here are the most important of them: the English language, English forms of land ownership, Scottish and English banking, common law, Protestantism, team sports, minimal state participation [a view of the state as a "night watchman", approx. Accordingly, the types of globalizations listed by Ferguson (commodity market, labor market, culture, public administration, financial market and the worldwide nature of the war) were initially the consequences of British globalism, the spread of its influence on the world, all types of colonization, which means that globalization is, as well as a consequence of imperialism, and its manifestation. The so-called imperial construction is nothing more than the construction of an empire on a global scale, and one of the options for such construction will be the leadership of the objective historical process of globalization. Presumably, this option is more peaceful, humane and painless compared to another option for building a global unified empire – a world war.

Nevertheless, since imperialism is a long–term phenomenon in history, with a distant past and an uncertain future, it can be divided into phases. And in this case there may be several options. One of them implies that imperialism changed its forms depending on the world order and the world system of international relations. Depending on the dominant powers, the methods of implementation, types, forms of imperialist activity also changed, the priority in their use also changed. One of these forms has already been named earlier – colonialism. Capitalism (especially of the nature of free trade), thus, can be called another form of manifestation of imperialism (and not imperialism as a subphase of capitalism), a policy convenient from an economic point of view, aimed at constructing a world order and a system of subordination.

On the other hand, it is possible to make a periodization tied to the three above-mentioned methods of imperialism (military, economic, cultural) and with their help to designate the phases of imperialism. In this case, the first of them will be most manifested during the pre–industrial period and is the classical understanding of this term by non-Marxists - direct conquests, expansions. The economic method is more complex, it is already connected with the industrial era, when a Marxist interpretation appeared and it can be attributed to the world-system theory and globalization, the expansion of capital, the construction of free trade zones, the construction of their own regions, and so on. The cultural method is most evident in the unification of cultures (Romanization, [44, p. 1] Americanization), the spread of world languages (a language widespread on a global scale testifies to the imperialism of the country of this language), unified international law, and so on. For example, the British linguist Robert Phillipson, the creator of the theory of linguistic imperialism, believed that linguistic imperialism could be considered as a subtype of what he called cultural imperialism.^{[63, p. 50-57]}

Despite the binding of each method to one of the stages of human development, it is worth noting that the above-mentioned "predominance" of one of them allows the use of other methods to a lesser or even equal extent. Also, for example, in an article by N.A. Tsvetkova, PhD, Professor of the Department of American Studies at the Faculty of International Relations of St. Petersburg State University, the parallel efforts of the Soviet and American occupation administrations in Germany to reform the university system after World War II are compared. Thus, after the formation of the GDR and the FRG, both superpowers sought to impose their academic institutions and standards on universities in their German states and indoctrinate professors and students. The article argues that Americanization and Sovietization were structurally similar attempts of "cultural imperialism". Despite the title of the article "Why is cultural imperialism impossible? .." Tsvetkova still concludes "cultural imperialism is possible in an institutional sense ...", but believes that both superpowers were defeated and could not change the worldview of the citizens of Germany and the GDR. ^{[32, p. 171]} Nevertheless, it can be argued that since the reunification of Germany and the collapse of the socialist bloc, Western (American) values have successfully prevailed in central Europe for several decades. Accordingly, in the end, one of the imperialisms won on a certain territory and, most likely, using a set of methods, and not just one of them.

The above-mentioned method of cultural imperialism can be considered a long-standing practice of promoting, isolating and artificially introducing the culture of one society into another, indoctrination of the population. Thus, postcolonial theorists, in particular its founder Edward Said, are engaged in research on cultural imperialism as a form of non-military hegemony. Cultural imperialism is also correlated with such terms as "media imperialism", "cultural dependence and domination", "cultural synchronization", "electronic colonialism", "information imperialism", "ideological imperialism", ^[70] "propaganda", "indoctrination", "soft power" and others. In addition, E. Said in his work "Culture and Imperialism", a continuation of "Orientalism", noted that colonial imperialism left a cultural legacy to (previously) colonized peoples, which will remain in their modern civilizations, and thus cultural imperialism, which continues after the collapse of the colonial system, has a huge impact on international power systems. ^[65] In turn, the work of the French philosopher and social theorist Michel Foucault strongly influenced the use of the term cultural imperialism - power is deeply connected with the concept of "truth", which is culturally defined, inseparable from ideology, which often coincides with various forms of hegemony. ^[45]

Particular attention should be paid to the relationship between the concepts of "empire" (also the adjective "imperial" formed from this word) and "imperialism". Despite vague efforts, attempts to separate these two terms from each other seem unnatural. If the main subject of imperialism is a power, then the following formula can be created: not every power is an empire, but every empire is a power. In this case, "imperial" may be included in the name of an institutional entity (such as the Imperial War Museum in London), and the phrase "imperial policy" will be directed rather inside its Pax. Imperialism, in turn, will remain the name of the foreign policy of obtaining and retaining domination. Consequently, according to this logic, the phrase "imperial imperialism" ^{[25, p. 260-267]} will be an unreasonable repetition of these elements of power (even if it means "imperialism of pre-industrial empires" ^{[25, p. 266]}).

At the end of the creation of the concept of imperialism, it should be noted that the definition set out at the beginning of the paragraph is not "taken from the ceiling", but, in many respects, repeats the positions of most non-Marxist researchers. For example, Felix Quiros, a South American professor of history and geography at Concepcion University, Doctor of Social History, pointed out in one of his works that for most researchers imperialism means "the practice of domination by powerful nations or peoples to expand and maintain their control or influence over weaker nations or peoples." ^{[64, p. 1]}

Conclusion

Regardless of the point of view from which the essence of imperialism can be revealed, it can be assumed that "imperialism" will consist in the ordering of world anarchy by a power under its control, in the deliberate violation of the sovereignty of other actors in international relations due to a numerous number of goals: influence, resources, security, profit and others.

The main paradigms within which a full-fledged interpretation of imperialism can be given are Marxism and political realism. According to the first of them, the concept of imperialism can be divided into two main branches: orthodox and progressive. This division is quite justified and also corresponds to the logic of dividing Marxists into "orthodox" and "revisionists". ^{[5, p. 19]} The apogee of the orthodox understanding of imperialism is best fixed in the most famous work in Russia in this field by V. I. Lenin "Imperialism as the highest stage of the development of capitalism", in which the author uses the classical the Marxist approach of the formation theory and classical Marxist logic in a pronounced revolutionary-ideological coloring. The theory of imperialism as the final phase of capitalism was to become an "ideological pamphlet" emphasizing the end of the old world and the beginning of a new era in human history, which, as most macro-revolutionaries believed, was to come in the 20s of the XX century through the world proletarian revolution. This study revealed that, from the established orthodox Marxist point of view, humanity still exists within the framework of the "highest stage of capitalism".

A progressive interpretation of imperialism within the framework of Marxism can be considered the theory of K. Kautsky, who was not so optimistic and believed that imperialism would develop for many more decades, entangling the world with networks of transnational corporations. Moreover, Kautsky predicted imperialism as the policy of the main capitalist powers to jointly exploit the world by internationally united financial capital. Kautsky gave an interpretation similar to the liberal-idealistic paradigm of international relations, which presupposes a unified global world in which there would be no serious conflicts between powers, which would eliminate the possibility of a repeat of world wars between capitalist countries. The main fundamental difference between these two Marxist interpretations is that Kautsky singled out the next phase of imperialism (and hence a new sub-phase of capitalism), contrary to other Marxist theorists, which led to certain controversial issues. This approach also largely reflects the current state of international relations.

Within the framework of the paradigm of political realism, the task of forming–synthesizing disparate non-Marxist interpretations of imperialism in the spirit of the above paradigm into a single concept of imperialism, equal in weight to the Marxist one, capable of providing an alternative, universal explanation of the system of international relations both in historical perspective and as an explanation of current events on the world stage. The most concise statement that conveys the essence of the above concept will be the following definition: imperialism is the practice of domination by powers to expand and maintain their control or influence over weaker states.

Thus, this paper reveals two main approaches to the definition of imperialism from the point of view of both Marxism and political realism. If we touch upon other paradigms of the theory of international relations, then, for example, imperialism can hardly be explained by the liberal-idealistic paradigm, which itself can be considered as a "soft" tool of imperialism to build a special international architecture in the interests of certain powers or certain groups of the population. It is the world of victorious neoliberalism that is similar to the world of K. Kautsky's ultra-imperialism.

From the point of view of the constructivist paradigm, an imperialist is someone who identifies himself as an imperialist. Within the framework of historical sociology, imperialism would be considered a product of the activities of European powers, moreover, the first works on imperialism were created by European thinkers, which means that the understanding of imperialism is not applicable to the rest of the world. If we consider the feminist theory of international relations, then imperialism would be a system of oppression by some countries of others, and the first group is headed by white men, who are the main initiators of the construction and existence of a system of oppression.

In any case, from the point of view of the two paradigms discussed in detail above, the modern world can be called imperialistic, and imperialism is inextricably linked with the system of international relations and the current world order. It should also be argued that some scenarios of the collapse of such an order can be perceived by Marxists as the collapse of imperialism, but for another paradigm only the final fall of all powers can mean its collapse. Thus, even if the emerging new world order exists in the interests of a group of countries, it will also be imperialist. It is also possible that the imperialism of the new world order will evolve to its new state, acquire new levers, forms, and be characterized by a different set of methods.