Do you think the United States is imperial?

[Cassius]

It could, perhaps, be argued that the United States is an informal 'Empire', given that it exercises such a strong influence in the world and over certain areas of it in particular. However, I would say that one needs to be careful when describing America as an Empire (it's influence is strong, but should not be overrated, especially in present times). Moreover, the fact that the United States is a democracy severely limits its capacity to be effective as an Empire (just look at the 1920's, where America, to a certain extent, retreated from the world stage, partly due to public and poilitical opinion).

I'd like to say as well that popular comparisons of America to the Roman Empire (perhaps less common now than they used to be) are severely flawed. If there's an ancient state that America is most similar, its Athens. The latter was one of the most 'democratic' states in the ancient world (by the standards of the time), and it's empire was not one of territory, but rather an informal affair, bound together through its alliance system (the Delian League) and by trade. The latter is indeed somewhat comparable to NATO and the influence of American corporations throughout the world (though NATO is a far less one sided affair than the Delian League).

[Cassius]

Yes, all developed first world economies are, in some fashion, imperialist powers.

Lol at the idea of the Nordic nations or Switzerland acting imperialist.

protectionism, which was responsible for the development of every first world nation

Citation needed.

Here's a good starting point, and I would also recommend Bad Samaritans by Chang as well as 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism.

Well, its certainly highly disputable that the development of the United Kingdom as an industrial power was due to protectionism (after all, the UK pursued broadly free trading policies throughout the mid and late 19th centuries and into the 20th). More to the point, whilst protectionism certainly was a factor in encouraging the development of western industrial powers throughout the 19th and into the 20th century, it could equally be argued that such development arose as a result of dirt cheap labour operating in largely unregulated markets (basically modern south-east Asia but on steroids), run by businessmen who were very lightly taxed and had considerable clout in government. Protectionism is merely one factor, and often one that actually harmed economic development, as was the case with the so-called 'Corn Laws' (which pushed up the price of food, meaning that factory owners had to pay their workers considerably more, thus to some extent retarding the development of British industry).

This is of course, economic, rather than 'social' development. But still for what its worth...

[Cassius]

Well, its certainly highly disputable that the development of the United Kingdom as an industrial power was due to protectionism (after all, the UK pursued broadly free trading policies throughout the mid and late 19th centuries and into the 20th). More to the point, whilst protectionism certainly was a factor in encouraging the development of western industrial powers throughout the 19th and into the 20th century, it could equally be argued that such development arose as a result of dirt cheap labour operating in largely unregulated markets (basically modern south-east Asia but on steroids), run by businessmen who were very lightly taxed and had considerable clout in government. Protectionism is merely one factor, and often one that actually harmed economic development, as was the case with the so-called 'Corn Laws' (which pushed up the price of food, meaning that factory owners had to pay their workers considerably more, thus to some extent retarding the development of British industry).

This is of course, economic, rather than 'social' development. But still for what its worth...

From the link I posted:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I'm not denying that the British government (well, successive English and British governments) actively helped support and develop British trade and industry. Although I would say that plenty of government interventions were either ineffective, disastrous or ran contrary to the interests of business or landowning interests. An example of this was the anti-enclosure legislation adopted by successive Tudor governments, even though enclosure was a neccessary precursor to the agricultural revolution (which helped many a landowner and farmer enormously).

More to the point, I think the problem with such views as described in the above link is that they're essentially (I can't think of a better word) praising policies that are largely antithetical to their own, left wing, views. I mean, all of the interventions described above were designed to benefit either the crown (as with the development of woolen manufacturing, which was part of broader efforts by Henry VII to swell the coffers of the state), landowners (as with the corn laws) or businessmen (as in the case of much of that 18th century trading legislation). They were not put into practice in order to create a more equitable or socially just society. Moreover, I think it can be argued that countries like Great Britain benefited heavily from being the first to undergoe the agricultural revolution and then industrialise. This granted them enormous opportunities that simply aren't available to third world countries today, as other countries have already established a strong presence in international markets, the likes of which simply did not exist in the less globalised 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.