Lessons from Bolivar's Early Anti-Imperialism Logic
Finding the fundamentals of anti-imperialism in the liberal tradition
The most stinging accusations are those one knows bear at least a kernel of truth, and one that often hits liberals particularly hard from the Left is the idea that liberals are at best less enthusiastic imperialists than conservatives, but still fundamentally committed to imperial practices. The sting: in many cases, this has proven true. Sometimes one could even reasonably trace a certain acceptance of imperialist to the liberal philosophy: John Stuart Mill, for example, defended and participated in the practice of empire in the hopes that it would spread liberal ideals. The (unfounded) implication is that without some grounding in leftist (generally Leninist) anti-imperialism, Liberals are inexorably drawn to dominating other countries.
The accusation has been coming around harder and faster as illiberal narratives pick up steam: from the right and left, - a high profile example of late being Tulsi Gabbard, who included warmongering in her list of sins of the Democratic Party, along with ‘cowardly wokeness’ and ‘anti-white racism’.
On the war in Ukraine, much has already been written, and there are plenty of practical reasons Gabbard’s claims are not supported by that conflict. Fundamentally, it is a defensive war, and success therein is likely crucial to the defense of any kind of liberalism in an international order. Most people can see straight through the faux anti-imperialism of a Gabbard or a Tucker Carlson, though they of course have a troubling number of followers. But that does leave the question: if we are to avoid this kind of shallow anti-imperialism, as well as presumably the Leninist formulation, on what tradition can liberals fall?
That’s something I hope to explore periodically here. A fantastic place to start is with Simon Bolivar, the independence hero responsible (among many others) for the liberation of much of South America from Spanish rule. Before his revolution had proven successful, however, Bolivar wrote a letter to a British gentleman while in exile on the island of Jamaica. In it, Bolivar lays out, in perfectly liberal terms, why imperialism is a scourge even beyond absolutism:
”The role of the inhabitants of the American hemisphere has for centuries been purely passive. Politically they were nonexistent. …we find that America was denied not only its freedom but even an active and effective tyranny. Let me explain. Under absolutism there are no recognized limits to the exercise of governmental powers. ….But, after all is said and done, the rulers of Ispahan are Persians; the viziers of the Grand Turk are Turks; and the sultans of Tartary are Tartars. . . How different is our situation! We have been harassed by a conduct which has not only deprived us of our rights but has kept us in a sort of permanent infancy with regard to public affairs. . . . In short, do you wish to know what our future held?--simply the cultivation of the fields of indigo, grain, coffee, sugar cane, cacao, and cotton; cattle raising on the broad plains; hunting wild game in the jungles; digging in the earth to mine its gold--but even these limitations could never satisfy the greed of Spain.”
Bolivar lays out three critical points - first, that absolutism in itself is undesirable. He might also have pointed out that even in systems that are constitutional within the metropole, the peripheral colonies often suffer under much more absolute rule.
Beyond that, though, colonial subjects feel the unique chafing of being ruled over by those who are unlike themselves. Notably, this difference is down to self-perception as a unique group - Bolivar and his South American compatriots were of course speaking Spanish as well as their Peninsular rulers, were almost all of the same religion and many likely belonged to the same families. But Bolivar recognized that an identity had been formed that would not allow Americans to accept being ruled over by Spain - to say nothing of populations in the Americas that were not Spanish in origin.
And finally, as a more practical matter, the reality of colonialism was that it was politically and economically stunting. The process of making and executing laws, of managing public affairs, so often seen as a burden, is here described as a privilege of a free people - and not only that, but a learning experience necessary for their growth as a society. Beyond the political, Bolivar complains about the economics restrains placed by Spain. However, his concern is not primarily about taxes or even about the wealth that could be acquired (and certainly many South American patriots, just like their counterparts in the north, were quite adept at collecting wealth), but rather that they were limited to only the resource extracting functions of society, without the opportunity to fully explore their potential and engage in more complex economic tasks.
Despite the state they found themselves in, Bolivar writes that “South Americans have made efforts to obtain liberal, even perfect, institutions, doubtless out of that instinct to aspire to the greatest possible happiness, which, common to all men, is bound to follow in civil societies founded on the principles of justice, liberty, and equality.” Without any reference to Marx or Lenin, Bolivar effectively laws out a compelling liberal case against imperialism.
How does this apply today? Well, Bolivar is not writing a merely informative letter; later he zeroes in on the desire of South Americans to attain assistance in their cause:
”Consequently, we have had reason to hope that the civilized nations would hasten to our aid in order that we might achieve that which must prove to be advantageous to both hemispheres. How vain has been this hope!”
Bolivar’s remarks are echoed in the strident proclamations of Volodymyr Zelensky, the President of Ukraine who also finds himself in the position of convincing the world of the wrongness of imperialism, the reality of his country’s identity, and the necessity of foreign aid for their struggle. Ukrainians are, thankfully, receiving assistance quickly, and are thus saved Bolivar’s frustrations. Of course, some - ironically, including the former president of the Republic bearing Bolivar’s name, have denounced this kind of aid as itself imperialist.
To those not reduced to blindly defending Russia as a counterweight to the US, however, the difference between the anti-imperial aid which Bolivar requested, and Ukraine has received, and the imperialism demonstrated by Spain and Russia, is clear. Aid to Ukraine will allow that state to defend itself independently, within recognized borders, and hopefully along liberal lines in a way Ukrainian society cannot manage under foreign domination. It’s an argument Bolivar and countless other anti-imperialists would recognize. This understanding of imperialism is more broadly applicable than the economic explanation of Lenin or the knee jerk anti-Americanism of Morales, as well as being more relatable and in line with how people right now experience imperialism in their lives.
The failures of previous liberals to realize how imperialism undercut their ideals do not mean that imperialism must forever be a sore spot. A rigorous defense of anti-imperialism is possible and indeed is the natural implication of liberal theory.