n instance, Michael Parenti depends on the economic exploitations of imperialism as the basis of his definition, as he says, “By imperialism I mean the process whereby the dominant politico-economic interests of one nation expropriate for their own enrichment the land, labor, raw materials, and markets of another people” (24).
A true impartial tone about the core nature of imperialism is Lake’s definition, as he says, “Imperialism is a form of international hierarchy in which one political unit, or polity, effectively governs or controls another polity” (7232). Since Lake’s political perspective focuses on the core political aspect of imperialism, it, though implicitly, implicates other aspects also through the two terms “effectively governs or control” and “another polity”. The term “effective control” refers to suppressions in various economic and cultural forms because the dominant polity in imperialism cannot assimilate “another polity” within itself by obliterating the otherness and the distance that prevails between the dominant and the dominated. Lake refers to this failure of the imperialistic dominant to shed the otherness as a primary cause of suppression in the following quote: “Exploitation of the weak by the strong is not essential to imperialism, but it is an often natural outgrowth of effective domination. The affinity between domination and exploitation explains the typically pejorative status of the term.” (7232) In fact, the definition of imperialism is such that it cannot shed off its oppressive and repressive apparels.
The existential basis of Imperialism essentially lies in the early European Colonialism. Though the overall concept of imperialism is different from early European colonialism, the underlying motif to rule the weaker people is existent at the core of these two forms of dominance. Indeed the later one is more associated with the political systems of ruling the people of an area than the colonialism