facts needed - The reason for opposing imperialism?

[Ramachandra]

hey all

just need some support from the anti imperialist point of view.If imperialism promotes free transfer of capital and labour if it helps the backward countries to get developed through capital why shoud a leftist oppose it?yeah i know this has been debated but it's good if some one can provide a full concrete answer.
ex- why should a leftist oppoese NAFTA if it brings capital and promotes capitalism in mexico - throgu aboloshing it backwardness?
- facts are in need for a debate with a liberal gang -

[Chambered Word]

Imperialism feeds the power of a single nation which, as it conquers other nations, continues to become more powerful. It effectively places a double set of shackles upon the working class.

There's also the matter of the death toll involved in wars which shouldn't be taken lightly.

[Invincible Summer]

hey all

just need some support from the anti imperialist point of view.If imperialism promotes free transfer of capital and labour if it helps the backward countries to get developed through capital why shoud a leftist oppose it?yeah i know this has been debated but it's good if some one can provide a full concrete answer.
ex- why should a leftist oppoese NAFTA if it brings capital and promotes capitalism in mexico - throgu aboloshing it backwardness?
- facts are in need for a debate with a liberal gang -

The fact that you refer to non-Imperialist countries as "backwards" is pretty goddamn insulting.

And why should a leftist oppose capitalism? Really? Are you sure you know what that hammer and sickle in your avatar stands for?



Imperialism basically puts the Imperialist (usually First World or highly industrialized capitalist) nation in the role of the "bourgeoisie" and the usually Third World nation in the position of the "proletariat." So the Imperialist nation enforces all sorts of rules in the Third World nation in order to benefit from the Third World nation's resources, labour, etc. They claim that it should bring wealth to the Third World nations, but clearly it does not. Just a casual look at the living conditions of the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Mexico, etc compared to their Imperialist overlords (pretty much any Western country) gives you an idea of just how well it works.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Far from helping poor countries with capital investment--the capital that is invested in the lesser developed world is a result of the need for capitalists in developed countries to reach a higher rate of profit. The domination of entire countries by finance capital is what keeps countries underdeveloped. If you are going to debate some idiots about imperialism you might want to formulate a solid argument, so take a look at the following links to start:

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm

http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/m.htm#imperialism

http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/NAFTA_Problems.htm

http://meme.phpwebhosting.com/~migracion/rimd/documentos_miembros/15770rdw-art_lap_2006.pdf (http://meme.phpwebhosting.com/%7Emigracion/rimd/documentos_miembros/15770rdw-art_lap_2006.pdf)

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html

[Ramachandra]

thanx :)

[Ramachandra]

@ Helios

the term backward countries is used because of the semi feudal nature of these countries and i see no insult in the term.It is a word used within marxist literature.
I knw what capitalism and imperialism is and a leftist should oppose them due to it's exploitation on masses.I have mentioned dat i i need facts to face an argument brought out by some pro capitalists.wat i was looking is a "complete" answer to confront them as i had confusions regarding the issue.So no need of making remarks on the hammer and the sickle in da avatar :)

[eyedrop]

I like the irony of the Canadian berating the Sri-lankian about what is rude to the "backward" countries.

I would recommend you to read
Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism (http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596913991) for a overview of how it is protectionism and not free trade that has been the basis of the growth of most of the developed nations. It has decently academic acceptance.

It can also be found in Audiobook form.

[Proletarian Ultra]

hey all

just need some support from the anti imperialist point of view.If imperialism promotes free transfer of capital and labour if it helps the backward countries to get developed through capital why shoud a leftist oppose it?yeah i know this has been debated but it's good if some one can provide a full concrete answer.
ex- why should a leftist oppoese NAFTA if it brings capital and promotes capitalism in mexico - throgu aboloshing it backwardness?
- facts are in need for a debate with a liberal gang -

If.

How's Mexico doing these days (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War)?

[Os Cangaceiros]

@ Helios

the term backward countries is used because of the semi feudal nature of these countries and i see no insult in the term.It is a word used within marxist literature.
I knw what capitalism and imperialism is and a leftist should oppose them due to it's exploitation on masses.I have mentioned dat i i need facts to face an argument brought out by some pro capitalists.wat i was looking is a "complete" answer to confront them as i had confusions regarding the issue.So no need of making remarks on the hammer and the sickle in da avatar :)

There is nothing remotely "feudal" (semi or otherwise) about Third World nations. When people use that word to describe the world's impoverished periphery I kind of wonder if they even know what the word refers to. Just because there are peasants or people who still work the land in a country in no way implicates feudal economic relations. The Third World has been completely integrated into the system of global capitalism at this point.

[Invincible Summer]

@ Helios

the term backward countries is used because of the semi feudal nature of these countries and i see no insult in the term.It is a word used within marxist literature.

IMO you should've just used "semi-feudal." Even if you yourself do not see insult in the term, I don't think that every other person living in these parts of the world would enjoy being labelled as "backwards." It is implicitly Eurocentric, suggesting that the semi-feudal nations are in all respects inferior to the West, and that the people are primitive, etc.


I knw what capitalism and imperialism is and a leftist should oppose them due to it's exploitation on masses.I have mentioned dat i i need facts to face an argument brought out by some pro capitalists.wat i was looking is a "complete" answer to confront them as i had confusions regarding the issue.So no need of making remarks on the hammer and the sickle in da avatar :)I'm sorry for being so rude in my initial post. It's just that it seemed like you were basically asking "What's so bad about imperialism?" and given your avatar, I was pretty shocked.

You should read Franz Fanon's "Wretched of the Earth"



I like the irony of the Canadian berating the Sri-lankian about what is rude to the "backward" countries.

Why does it matter? Ramachandra says he/she is not insulted, but that is a single opinion. It's not even that labelling whole nations of people as "backwards" is insulting, but in my eyes it implies Eurocentrism and a sort of 18th century view on other cultures.

What if I lived in Israel, was Jewish (although I'm not sure if ramachandra is Sri Lankan or just happens to live there), and said "I hate Jews?" Wouldn't people be justified in telling me that what I say is anti-Semitic and racist? Or am I justified just because I'm "in it?"

[Ramachandra]

The thread seems to be going out of topic with this argument on the term "backward".
The point about eurocentrism may be valid but both economically and culturally these countries show "underdeveloped" ( an alternative word for "backwardneess" :) ) features when comparing with advanced capitalist countries.My conclusion is based on FACTS.
ex - In some rural sri lankan areas violence against women is so high and the rural society is not aware of something called "women's rights".Battering women has been generalised.Isn't this a backward charachtaristic?
The elected president claims himself as a "king" and many are keen to worship the "king" without even questioning.values such as democracy media freedom have not been established in the society in a strong manner.So the term backwardness is used in a relative sense.
Anyways i"m a genuine sri lankan :)

[A.R.Amistad]

Helios, you really need to get over semantics. Ramachandra is asking some good questions that will be helpful for him when he engages in real world activism. Knowledge is power. Please quit patronizing people on the learning thread, its in bad taste, and also, don't chide them for 'not understanding' the meaning of the Hammer and Sickle. This is the learning thread, there are no stupid questions and Ramachandra said nothing wrong here