>Is globalisation a replacement for imperialism?
>I’ve deliberately made this question open to interpretation so make of it what you will. But to start the discussion, global capital flows were larger as a percentage of GDP at the end of the nineteenth century (i.e. when the European Empires covered about 3/4 of the globe) than today, and some critics talk of “Americanisation” as synonomous with globalisation.
>I'm completely for globalisation and free trade. However I do think there's something to the argument that power and wealth naturally spread out through conquest and such things, like heat and energy spread out through entropy, or water spreads to fill a container. Such logic was behind the Japanese and German forces in WW2, the German forces in WW1, the French in the Napoleonic Wars, and even going back to Ceasar. Colonisation did bring European resources to the colonies, and so far independent states have not proven that they can get richer faster by being independent (I'm not arguing for re-colonising anywhere by the way; I think such things such be decided by happiness not wealth).As it says in the introduction global capital flows were at their highest real points in history during the peaks years of European Empires. It's taken globalisation to get these levels soaring higher again, with the prospect that one day they may again reach nineteenth century levels.So in terms of spreading wealth yes I do agree that globalisation is doing what only imperialism managed to do before it.What about culture? Again I would use exactly the same logic. In the past strong cultures have often gone hand in hand with strong armed forces, resulting in invasions and the growth of the dominant culture. And yes globalisation is achieving this where nothing inbetween imperialism and it has.So basically I agree. I think globalisation has replaced many parts of imperialism, spreading its positive (and a few negative) aspects, without the need for invasions and mass bloodshed.