Simple question, just to get everyone's views on the subject. I'll post my own response later. For a few basic theories of US empire, wikipedia has a good section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Empire

Look under "Theories of US Empire."

I voted "Its more complicated."

I think it is an empire, it certainly practices many forms of Imperialism, but I think that will be most evident in the future when we look back at it. A new definition for "empire," will have to be devolved for the modern era.

Yes, I think the United States is an empire, but it is not like the empires of the past. For one, we are an empire that doesn't think that it is one, or at the very least doesn't say so for whatever reason. There is a really great article by Niall Ferguson, which takes on this very debate from a different angle, namely that he approaches it from a perspective which doesn't think that "empire" is a dirty word.

UPDATE: Okay actually the article is about how empires have shaped the majority of human history, and that over-time empires tend to fall as quickly as the rise. The term in political psychology I was thinking of is called "Imperial Amnesia" in which imperial ambitions are carried out with anti-imperial justifications, such as the "spread of democracy" which I mean isn't that just a new form of the white man's burden? Anyway the article is called "Empires with expirations dates" by Niall Ferguson. Foriegn Policy: Empires with Expiration Dates

I think that the US very much has an imperial state of mind.

The US is a Hegemony, which is an important distinction. If we were an Empire, then our allies wouldn't snub us when we asked them to do things; all of NATO and the Non-NATO Allies would be in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Instead, we respect them enough to ask and don't mind (too much) when they disagree.

We're the sole Superpower, but even we don't have enough power to have Imperium over the rest of the world, or even the part that's nominally on our side.

If you think of an empire in terms of owning countries that used to be independent then the U.S.A is not an empire. In terms of acting like an empire, e.g trying to boss other countries around, America is not an empire. It is however a Superpower.

I voted "It's more complicated" because the U.S. is defintley an imperialist country. There are some differences though, like and empire would have an emperor ruling it where we(U.S.) have a president. I think like Delta said there will be a term for what the U.S. is or another definition of empire.

I voted for "It's complicated." The traditional definitions of empire have usually entailed territorial acquisitions. The US certainly has those acquisitions (ie. Puerto Rico), but not nearly to the same extent as the European empires of old. At the same time the US has unequivocal dominance in the world, despite its declining economic power. The imperial system has moved, taking up a Hardt-and-Negri-ite view, from territory to networks, and it is within this system that the US has dominance. Think, for example, of the WTO. This also means that these systems are more collaborative among the dominant powers (ie. the general relationship between the US, the EU and China, or something like the G7).

It's no longer about competing empires (ie. French, British) but rather a consolidated system (the world market) in which countries compete for resources, markets and so on. New forms of transnational governance have also sprung up, like the advent of the UN or "development" institutions and Transnational Corporations. This means the simultaneous deterritorialization of the nation-state and its strengthening in other ways (ie. corporate-oriented bureaucracies such as "Defense").

The US has acted in a very imperial manner, intervening in other countries and overthrowing leaders, sponsoring proxy wars and using sanctions in order to consolidate its dominance in these markets,* but now with the Iraq and Afghan wars I feel it's trying to move back to older forms of Empire (more base territorial acquisition). That system, however, can't function as effectively in today's world, as we're seeing by the US's failure in Iraq.

In terms of my own thinking, I'm very much an anti-imperialist. I think all forms of imperial domination, whether through territorial acquisition (ie. kicking indigenous populations off the land, or forcing them to work for others' benefit) or through more postmodern network-oriented forms, are all despicable in that they leave people in the global South no choice but to succumb to the world market for the benefit of the dominant powers and the elites within those countries (ie. corporations and their CEOs).

*A brief caveat: although I don't consider the US an "empire" in the traditional sense as outlined in my above post, it'd be important to mention that this does NOT mean the US hasn't engaged in some very nasty things in order to further its and transnational corporate interests...For those ignorant of the consequences of US imperial actions (accordingly producing the delusion that these were "beneficient" or "humble services in the name of humanity"), a brief digression is in order:

The continual genocide of American indigenous communities from the first white settlers to the present...
1898- Acquisition of the Phillipines (and ensuing war/counter-insurgency), Puerto Rico, Hawaii, many islands of the South Pacific (later used for atomic testing despite people actually LIVING on the islands- deportation was frequent).
1953- Muhammad Mossadegh, democratically-elected center-left leader in Iran overthrown.
1954- Jacobo Arbenz, democratically-elected center-left leader in Guatemala overthrown.
1960- Patrice Lumumba, democratically-elected nationalist leader in Congo-Kinshasa overthrown.
1963- Ngo Dinh Diem, former US south vietnamese ally (remember, South Viet Nam was a creation of the US during the mid-'50s when the US blocked a unification plebiscite for fear of Ho Chi Minh's immanent electoral victory) assassinated by US-backed generals...ensuing military dictatorships and of course the later war in Viet Nam that killed millions of people.
1965- Sukarno, nationalist leader of Indonesia, overthrown, ensuing struggles resulted in 500,000 deaths.
and on and on...until we get to say, the '90s
1992-2003- Sanctions against Iraq which resulted in the deaths of nearly half-a-million Iraqi children.
1993- Invasion of Somalia on "humanitarian" premises that actually resulted in the deaths of thousands of Somalis while the US backed various local warlords (such as Ali Mahdi). In one incident, a marine attack force blew up a meeting of clan elders on 12 July 1993, killing fifty-one civilians in total.
1996- Bombing of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant. Consequent deaths estimated at perhaps the thousands as Shifa was the only plant in the country manufacturing anti-malarial medicines (Chomsky).

There's really too much to list, which is a testament to the "imperial state of mind" Intifada has mentioned.

Of course. Obvious, really. I mean, there is so much corruption in the US that it isn't even funny. Odd thing is, many people just don't get it. It's as if it's WWII all over again, with the US being Germany. We're being brainwashed into believing a load of, er... Excuse my language, but, er... Yeah. :lol: It's silly. Millions of people are dying, just for the price of oil, and this so called, 'democracy' theology.