Imperialism

[Tim Finnegan]

Thats partly why I started this thread, my understanding of imperialism is obviously flawed, as I understand it the USSR, PRC and possibly also Vietnam and Korea could be described by those criteria as imperialist to some degree. I suspect its used as a buzzword in some cases but then I don't really know the definitive meaning. I am a pacifist so I will never justify any form of violence or forceful manipulation I'm just confused by what seems to me to be a double standard. No offense to anyones beliefs its just the way I see it just now. I can understand the fundamental difference between a Capitalist and (proscribed) Socialist or Communist State but in practice the effect on a 'subjugated' imperialised populous is the same surely? For instance Catholics who had fled from North Korea, or Chechnyan Muslims.

The key to imperialism isn't the sort of ethnic or cultural oppression you reference as such, although that is very frequently an expression of it, but of the creation of a system of political dominance and economic dependence. Ethnic, religious and cultural supremacism is an ideology construct to justify and sustain an imperial project, rather than, in most cases, the driving force behind the creation of empire. To take a local example, the British imperialistic project in the Scottish Highlands was not defined by anti-Gaelic oppression, even when it was strongly characterised by it, but by the rendering of the region as an economic dependent of the Lowlands, a wool-producing colony of the textile mills.

But is that the be-all and end-all? Take this fictitious example; say for arguments sake that country a is ruled in a series of local Kingdoms, with religious, ethnic and tribal divisions, massive differential between classes and castes etc but then they are conquered by the slightly more progressive country b (obviously this is a highly unlikely scenario I'm simply using the example for lack of an irl situation) and importantly those citizens are given the same rights as the citizens of the imperialist nation, and the poor, ethnic minorities and women are to some extent more liberated under that Imperial nation, and their local culture, language and customs are respected and encouraged, in that instance would it not be fair, as a defender of the lower classes, to support the continuation of that rule, until a fair and just system can be implemented by the people of that nation? I'm not talking about ethnic or religious nationalism just local rule which makes more sense economically and politically.

It's conceivable that one could support imperialism on a "lesser of two evils" basis, yes; a scientific understanding of such phenomena are necessarily free of absolutist morale judgements. However, in most situations, the "two evils" of allegedly-"enlightened" imperialism and indigenous despotism are far from the only two options; in Libya, for instance, it may be easy to reduce things to a simple choice between Gaddafi or a NATO puppet, but that has never in fact been the case.

Imperialism is plunder.

An archaic perspective. Imperialism is hegemony; both the international hegemony of capitalism and the pursuit of international hegemony or the consolidation of limited hegemony (as in the effective British autarky) by individual states, the former often express through the latter (hence the increasing preference for the now-international bourgeoisie for less centralised models).

[Bud Struggle]

One could make a case that Che in Bolivia was palying the part of an Imperialist (exporting an economic belief) when he was captured and killed.

[Tim Finnegan]

One could make a case that Che in Bolivia was palying the part of an Imperialist (exporting an economic belief) when he was captured and killed.

One could also stick one's hand into a meat grinder, but there would be little profit in it.

[bailey_187]

One could make a case that Che in Bolivia was palying the part of an Imperialist (exporting an economic belief) when he was captured and killed.

u could depeding on ur definition of imperialism though tho

The rough Marxist defenition that i sayd earlier in the thread wouldnt apply tho

[Viet Minh]

The key to imperialism isn't the sort of ethnic or cultural oppression you reference as such, although that is very frequently an expression of it, but of the creation of a system of political dominance and economic dependence. Ethnic, religious and cultural supremacism is an ideology construct to justify and sustain an imperial project, rather than, in most cases, the driving force behind the creation of empire. To take a local example, the British imperialistic project in the Scottish Highlands was not defined by anti-Gaelic oppression, even when it was strongly characterised by it, but by the rendering of the region as an economic dependent of the Lowlands, a wool-producing colony of the textile mills.

But were the Highlands not previously ruled over by local clan chiefs and Lairds, who had in turn occupied the West of Scotland under the Kingdom of Dal Riata some centuries previously? The Highland Clearances are often protrayed as English aggression but the tragic truth is the landlords were often their 'kinsmen', who turfed out families with young children into the snow to freeze to death, for the sake of the equivalent of pennies. In years previous to the British empire young men were often forced to fight to the death as part of the feudal traditions of the region. Even when my father grew up on a croft in the highlands the system remained to some degree, of the hierachy dividing the rich landlords (Lairds, essentially local royalty) and the poor crofters. There was also some voluntary migration to the bigger cities, as happens from many rural areas. I'm not in any way defending Imperialism, I'm still just struggling to understand its definition.

It's conceivable that one could support imperialism on a "lesser of two evils" basis, yes; a scientific understanding of such phenomena are necessarily free of absolutist morale judgements. However, in most situations, the "two evils" of allegedly-"enlightened" imperialism and indigenous despotism are far from the only two options; in Libya, for instance, it may be easy to reduce things to a simple choice between Gaddafi or a NATO puppet, but that has never in fact been the case.

In Libya and Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan the question of morality is out, it has been pretty much proven conclusively the military aggression was motivated by oil. At the start of the war I might have supported the invasion because of common misinformation about the Taliban in Afghanistan (the entirety of my knowledge being due to an undercover documentary about women being executed) and in Iraq the alleged suppression of Shia, Kurdish and Arab minorities, not to mention previous incursions into Kuwait and Iran. Even without the motivation of oil there are numerous other reasons to oppose such invasions, to use the oldest cliche 'woth great power comes great responisbility'.

An archaic perspective. Imperialism is hegemony; both the international hegemony of capitalism and the pursuit of international hegemony or the consolidation of limited hegemony (as in the effective British autarky) by individual states, the former often express through the latter (hence the increasing preference for the now-international bourgeoisie for less centralised models).

You and your complicated words! I see what you mean, but I think globalisation is less of an international conspiracy theory and more of the fact they created a monster. With increasing communication, education, mobilisation etc the World is now very much aware of the established Bourgeousie (ie that of the West) but they no longer have absolute control of their 'own' economy let alone the international markets. Suddenly they are all concerned about the environment, why? Because China is becoming a massive generator of World power, and like everything else they can undercut the synthetically high energy prices imposed by the Western supercompanies. In that regard I for one welcome our new world order overlords. Seriously I believe that if the World were united for one thing we'd reduce the massive waste of energy and resources on creating weapons and warfare. For another the people power would be substantial to ensure some sort of fairness and democratic process. And lastly if the inequality of Capitalism remained, at least it would remain on a consistent level, rather than the sickening increasing trend of abuse of third world workers. I see general more positive outcomes as well, for if all nations were one, the scientists of various nations could work together to advance our knowledge and capabilities, people would be unrestricted in their movement, basic human rights could be agreed upon and implemented globally. I know this is a naive long-term view, but ultimately we have to strive for unity if we are even going to survive as a species, as a planet. Places like Libya and Egypt are a sign of this changing demography, the most impoverished countries, where the differences between rich and poor are so stark, were bound to be the first to attamept to free themselves of their bonds. But hopefully it will continue and grow, but not if mankind does not support one another. Obviously the USA, UK and France have absolutely no right to interfere in Libya in the name of Democracy, I personally think it falls to Egypt who have overthrown their own dictator to help out their Arab brothers in their struggle for freedom.

[RGacky3]

One could make a case that Che in Bolivia was palying the part of an Imperialist (exporting an economic belief) when he was captured and killed.

But they'd be wrong, but go ahead make that case.

A communist movement was already strong in Bolivia, and imperialism is'nt just exporting an economic belief, its exploiting and profiting from other nations.

[Viet Minh]

But they'd be wrong, but go ahead make that case.

A communist movement was already strong in Bolivia, and imperialism is'nt just exporting an economic belief, its exploiting and profiting from other nations.

Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but since a fundamental principle of Socialism is not to trade with capitalist states, would the emergence of another Socialist State in nearby Bolivia not be beneficial to Cuba economically and also militarily, and therefore arguably in Cuba's interests to support regime change for reasons other than purely benevolent ones?
Or in other possible examples, North Korea or North Vietnam attacking South Korea/ Vietnam respectively? Chinese incursions into Tibet, Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia on the Khmer Rouge.

[RGacky3]

, but since a fundamental principle of Socialism is not to trade with capitalist states, would the emergence of another Socialist State in nearby Bolivia not be beneficial to Cuba economically and also militarily, and therefore arguably in Cuba's interests to support regime change for reasons other than purely benevolent ones?

When the hell has that EVER been a fundemental principle of Socialism? Its not ....

Or in other possible examples, North Korea or North Vietnam attacking South Korea/ Vietnam respectively? Chinese incursions into Tibet, Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia on the Khmer Rouge.

Chinese are not socialist, North Korea is not either, the former is plain on imperialism, the latter was a civil war.

Vietnam was a reaction to the US overthrowing a democratically elected government and invading Vietnam.

Vietnam intervention in Cambodia was a response to the Cambodians atacking Vietnam.

Imperialism is one country trying to control another country for economic profit, i.e. exploitation.

[Viet Minh]

When the hell has that EVER been a fundemental principle of Socialism? Its not ....

The Sino-Soviet split was mainly because of fundamental differences of opinion on peaceful coexistence. But even if not are you saying it would not benefit Cuba in any way to have another leftist state on the same continent?

Chinese are not socialist, North Korea is not either, the former is plain on imperialism, the latter was a civil war.

Vietnam was a reaction to the US overthrowing a democratically elected government and invading Vietnam.

Vietnam intervention in Cambodia was a response to the Cambodians atacking Vietnam.

Imperialism is one country trying to control another country for economic profit, i.e. exploitation.

I understand your definition of imperialism, but I don't think its that simple.

The China/ Tibet issue has been argued here ad nauseum, but for the sake of argument lets just say China is Socialist, and not capitalist, and gains nothing economically from its rule over Tibet. The proletarians are more free than they were previously under Tibetan rule. Workers, women, immigrants and ethnic minorities have greater rights under Chinese rule. This is not imperialism by your definition of economic profit, correct?

Then we take this same fictitious scenario, but the region of Tibet is profitable to China (added to this the overall wealth of the citizens of all classes increases, but I digress) this then according to your definition is imperialism, without doubt. BUT it is an imperialism supported by the people, and widely seen as a better alternative to the country which would have worse standards of living if independent, due to limited resources. So according to the economic profit definition, this is wrong, and yet it is popularly supported.

On the flipside in the former scenario we say that there is no economic benefit to the control of the region, but the people are largely unhappy and opressed. This according to your definition would not, however, be imperialism. Incidentally, since I'm opening cans of worms today Northern Ireland is not profitable to Britain according to figures I've seen, and yet the situation is doubtless imperialistic.

[RGacky3]

But even if not are you saying it would not benefit Cuba in any way to have another leftist state on the same continent?

Are you really claiming that that is imperialism? Che guevara joining a guerilla group is not invading a country or setting up a puppet government or forcing privitizations and taking resources.

The China/ Tibet issue has been argued here ad nauseum, but for the sake of argument lets just say China is Socialist, and not capitalist, and gains nothing economically from its rule over Tibet.

your making a hypothetical that does'nt exist, if we assume that the whole situation would be totally different.

Your asking hyptheticals that have nothing to do with reality.

[Viet Minh]

Are you really claiming that that is imperialism? Che guevara joining a guerilla group is not invading a country or setting up a puppet government or forcing privitizations and taking resources.

No I'm not. According to previous definitions given here imperialism can be as subtle as sending agents to act in the interests of your country, the original assertion was that Che Guevara was one such agent, and according to your own definition if Cuba stood to gain any profit from such actions it is imperialism. Thus I think the definition is innacurate, or not specific enough.

your making a hypothetical that does'nt exist, if we assume that the whole situation would be totally different.

Your asking hyptheticals that have nothing to do with reality.

I'm trying my best not to reference real life situations (which do exist and perfectly illustrate my point) because they just throw up other issues, whole other strands of debate and avoid the real question, much like you are doing just now. Economic or financial profit is a huge part of imperialism, but I still don't see how anyone can argue it is the only aspect to it.

[RGacky3]

No I'm not. According to previous definitions given here imperialism can be as subtle as sending agents to act in the interests of your country, the original assertion was that Che Guevara was one such agent, and according to your own definition if Cuba stood to gain any profit from such actions it is imperialism. Thus I think the definition is innacurate, or not specific enough.

The major difference is the power relation, a US agent can go into El Salvador, and just tell the president to do something with a bunch of clout, he can just make threats and so on, thats imperialism.

Economic or financial profit is a huge part of imperialism, but I still don't see how anyone can argue it is the only aspect to it.

Its the main aspect.

[Tim Finnegan]

But were the Highlands not previously ruled over by local clan chiefs and Lairds, who had in turn occupied the West of Scotland under the Kingdom of Dal Riata some centuries previously? The Highland Clearances are often protrayed as English aggression but the tragic truth is the landlords were often their 'kinsmen', who turfed out families with young children into the snow to freeze to death, for the sake of the equivalent of pennies. In years previous to the British empire young men were often forced to fight to the death as part of the feudal traditions of the region. Even when my father grew up on a croft in the highlands the system remained to some degree, of the hierachy dividing the rich landlords (Lairds, essentially local royalty) and the poor crofters. There was also some voluntary migration to the bigger cities, as happens from many rural areas. I'm not in any way defending Imperialism, I'm still just struggling to understand its definition.

All true; I certainly don't buy into the mythology that the Highlands were a cheerful communitarian society before "the English" turned up and ruined everything. The society of the pre-modern Highlands was inarguably feudal. However, that does not mean that it was imperialistic, because the process of exploitation was local, and did not establish a system of economic hegemony by any one region over another, while the Clearances, which re-appropriated most of the Highlands for the purpose of base-commodity production, i.e. sheep farming, created a system by which the region was economically subservient to the industrial regions of Great Britain.

Furthermore, the role of the lairds in the Clearances- something which the romantics are often grossly neglect in addressing- does not suggest the absence of imperialism; rather, it indicates that they complicit in the imperial project, re-shaping themselves as a colonial elite. (After all, all those who were likely to oppose this process were driven out after the '15 and '45, the last great hurrahs of Gaelic feudalism.) It helps, of course, that a significant number of the Lairds were, by this point, essentially Lowlanders with no investment in clan society, and so were able to serve as a capitalistic vanguard without the slightest qualm.

You and your complicated words! I see what you mean, but I think globalisation is less of an international conspiracy theory and more of the fact they created a monster. With increasing communication, education, mobilisation etc the World is now very much aware of the established Bourgeousie (ie that of the West) but they no longer have absolute control of their 'own' economy let alone the international markets. Suddenly they are all concerned about the environment, why? Because China is becoming a massive generator of World power, and like everything else they can undercut the synthetically high energy prices imposed by the Western supercompanies. In that regard I for one welcome our new world order overlords. Seriously I believe that if the World were united for one thing we'd reduce the massive waste of energy and resources on creating weapons and warfare. For another the people power would be substantial to ensure some sort of fairness and democratic process. And lastly if the inequality of Capitalism remained, at least it would remain on a consistent level, rather than the sickening increasing trend of abuse of third world workers. I see general more positive outcomes as well, for if all nations were one, the scientists of various nations could work together to advance our knowledge and capabilities, people would be unrestricted in their movement, basic human rights could be agreed upon and implemented globally. I know this is a naive long-term view, but ultimately we have to strive for unity if we are even going to survive as a species, as a planet. Places like Libya and Egypt are a sign of this changing demography, the most impoverished countries, where the differences between rich and poor are so stark, were bound to be the first to attamept to free themselves of their bonds. But hopefully it will continue and grow, but not if mankind does not support one another. Obviously the USA, UK and France have absolutely no right to interfere in Libya in the name of Democracy, I personally think it falls to Egypt who have overthrown their own dictator to help out their Arab brothers in their struggle for freedom.

I didn't mean to suggest that globalisation was a "conspiracy", but, rather, that the current class interests of the bourgeoisie tend towards its favour. The old imperial model is no longer particularly useful, particularly given that the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the pro-market reforms in China eliminated the only real threats to global capitalism and thus lessened the need to engage in old-fashioned superpower head-butting, so, combined with technological advances which lessen the demand for highly centralised organisational models, we see corporate entities no longer residing in one state and stretching their tentacles into others, but spanning multiple states and being ultimately beholden to none.

However, I would be sceptical of the suggestion that the outcome is necessarily greater international unity, at least in the sense of a free global society. Neoliberal economic politics have a history of producing authoritarian, draconian approaches to government, even in the West- the collapse of British heavy industry coming hand-in-hand and the emergence of our larval police-state, for example- which, while coinciding with the decreased ability of any geopolitical entity to act as the world-striding colossi of the 19th century, lead to them being very much in power locally. What we may well see is a sort of "universal imperialism", that is, the conditions of a colonised state being extended even to those regions which previously did the colonising, with the bourgeoisie re-shaping themselves as a ruling class without any regional basis.

Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but since a fundamental principle of Socialism is not to trade with capitalist states, would the emergence of another Socialist State in nearby Bolivia not be beneficial to Cuba economically and also militarily, and therefore arguably in Cuba's interests to support regime change for reasons other than purely benevolent ones?

The key to imperialism is not some extremely general benefit, but the creation of a system of economic hegemony. Only if Bolivia had become an economic serf of Cuba, or some other Marxist-Leninist state, could we argue that imperialism had taken place, and no such outcome seemed likely. In fact, if anything, it's likely that a Bolivian Marxist-Leninist state would, like Cuba, end up being heavily subsidised by the Soviet Union, serving, in effect, as an economic investment in improved geopolitical influence. (Although, admittedly, this relationship ironically recreated certain characteristics of colonialism, e.g. limited economic development, by encouraging a reliance on the proceeds of agricultural export at very favourable prices.)

[Rooster]

A good book to read is David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism. I think it gives a better description of the ways that capitalists exact tribute and how they try to strengthen their own class power. Lenin's booklet more or less just gives the bare bones of capital 100 years ago, giving a vague reading of finance capital and neo-colonialism. I would consider any action of exacting tribute into the coffers of capitalists from different nations as imperialism. Not so much as cornering markets, but the creation and expansion of markets in the interests of a bourgeois class. Trying to read "the state" into this is a mistake, I think, as most corporations are transnational and beyond states. Capital is mobile.

But were the Highlands not previously ruled over by local clan chiefs and Lairds, who had in turn occupied the West of Scotland under the Kingdom of Dal Riata some centuries previously? The Highland Clearances are often protrayed as English aggression but the tragic truth is the landlords were often their 'kinsmen', who turfed out families with young children into the snow to freeze to death, for the sake of the equivalent of pennies. In years previous to the British empire young men were often forced to fight to the death as part of the feudal traditions of the region. Even when my father grew up on a croft in the highlands the system remained to some degree, of the hierachy dividing the rich landlords (Lairds, essentially local royalty) and the poor crofters. There was also some voluntary migration to the bigger cities, as happens from many rural areas. I'm not in any way defending Imperialism, I'm still just struggling to understand its definition.

Not really. That's kinda like a mix of history and myth. The clan system wasn't really about families and kinsmen. Much of which was invented years later. It's true that the Lairds were often of the same nation but that doesn't really matter much as I don't think the idea of nationalism or patriotic duty mattered to them, or to much of anyone, at that time. Much of the whole point of the clearances was to force the population to become proletarianised. The old systems of farming and tiling the land had become too expensive and outdated and at the same time, new methods in wool working (powered looms) made raising sheep more profitable. The land owners were forced to provide raw materials and free up labour for the rising capitalist class. There wasn't really much voluntary migration to the cities. Most people had to go to work. In conjunction with this sort of thing, various blights, over crowding, immigration from Ireland, emigration from Scotland resulted in the concentration of industry in the cities. This sort of thing still goes on in the world. It is something that imperialism does to allow for the accumulation of capital.

Ug, I'm trying to type this after spending 10 hours travelling today without eating. Anyway, I hope that mess made sense as I can't get my brain to work fixing it.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Imperialism needs to be fought.

[Comintern1919]

The China/ Tibet issue has been argued here ad nauseum, but for the sake of argument lets just say China is Socialist, and not capitalist, and gains nothing economically from its rule over Tibet. The proletarians are more free than they were previously under Tibetan rule. Workers, women, immigrants and ethnic minorities have greater rights under Chinese rule. This is not imperialism by your definition of economic profit, correct?

Then we take this same fictitious scenario, but the region of Tibet is profitable to China (added to this the overall wealth of the citizens of all classes increases, but I digress) this then according to your definition is imperialism, without doubt. BUT it is an imperialism supported by the people, and widely seen as a better alternative to the country which would have worse standards of living if independent, due to limited resources.

Dude, are you serious? Sure it is supported by some of the people. By those chinese who migrated on order of the chinese government to places formerly owned by tibetian. Now by chinese. All while the tibetian people have no rights to stop it. And let's not forget the destroying of tibetian culture, the discriminating of Budhism, the killing of Monks, destroying of cultural places. And I can assure you the original tibetian population don't like that.

If you call that a "good" imperialism, then I beg you to stop calling yourself communist, as you clearly ain't. That's the way capitalists think, destroying culture for profit.

Just image a big "socialist" country invades your country, destroying it's culture, forcly migrates their people, All while they say it's for your "good". You wouldn't want that either, huh?

[Viet Minh]

Dude, are you serious?

Maybe I didn't make that very clear, I was using the example of China and Tibet to suggest a hypothetical scenario to illustrate my point. I should probably have just said 'country a and country b'.

Sure it is supported by some of the people. By those chinese who migrated on order of the chinese government to places formerly owned by tibetian. Now by chinese. All while the tibetian people have no rights to stop it. And let's not forget the destroying of tibetian culture, the discriminating of Budhism, the killing of Monks, destroying of cultural places. And I can assure you the original tibetian population don't like that.

First of all the situation as I understand it is not an attack on Tibetans as a people, nor as a culture. The conflicts where they occur are basically between state and 'church' (ie the Tibetan Buddhist hierarchy and also Tibetan nationalist political activists) so its misleading to talk in terms of chinese government versus tibetan people. In fact the same 'discrimination' happens against Han chinese buddhist monks, and elsewhere in South east asia between leftist governments and religious institutions.

If you call that a "good" imperialism

No. This is about an empiric (forgive the pun) definition of imperialism, not justification of it.

then I beg you to stop calling yourself communist, as you clearly ain't.

I never have and no I'm not.

That's the way capitalists think, destroying culture for profit.

Agreed.

Just image a big "socialist" country invades your country, destroying it's culture, forcly migrates their people, All while they say it's for your "good". You wouldn't want that either, huh?

I wouldn't really care to be totally honest, I for one welcome our new comintern overlords. Take another situation, its possibly a bad example given recent discussions but at face value when the soviets took control of former nazi Germany, good or bad 'imperialism'?

I suspect the majority of people don't care too much what nationality or culture their ascribed leaders are, it just comes down to how it affects their own lives on a personal level. And in this case I would hope a nominally leftist government would be a progressive step for the working class of any country, compared to say feudal serfdom.

[Comintern1919]

Maybe I didn't make that very clear, I was using the example of China and Tibet to suggest a hypothetical scenario to illustrate my point. I should probably have just said 'country a and country b'.

Maybe, however if the context was the same, I still would give you the same critic.

First of all the situation as I understand it is not an attack on Tibetans as a people, nor as a culture. The conflicts where they occur are basically between state and 'church' (ie the Tibetan Buddhist hierarchy and also Tibetan nationalist political activists) so its misleading to talk in terms of chinese government versus tibetan people. In fact the same 'discrimination' happens against Han chinese buddhist monks, and elsewhere in South east asia between leftist governments and religious institutions.

Well, yes and no, as you should know, the (original) tibetian people ARE religious, so what affects the "church", also affects the common people. The tibetian people are unhappy, that they get opressed, that their religion is being destroyed. The Dalai Lama is very important to them, and he got thrown out of Tibet by the chinese government against what the tibetian people want. If I would be religious, like most tibetian are, I'd hate the one who hinders me of living my religion. As you would too, if you would be religious.

I never have and no I'm not.

Oh, I'm deeply sorry , I was mislead by your good reputation ^_^. Sorry!

Agreed.

Well, at least here we agree, and that counts for much, I'd say ^_^.

I wouldn't really care to be totally honest, I for one welcome our new comintern overlords. Take another situation, its possibly a bad example given recent discussions but at face value when the soviets took control of former nazi Germany, good or bad 'imperialism'?

It was good, however, that wasn't imperialism at all. It was a justified war. Imperialism is, when one country attacks another without reason just to get more whealthy and raise their power.

Hitler attacked the USSR despide having a non-aggresion-pact with Stalin, and he did the natural thing and defended himself. (Out of danger, I want to clearify that I'm absolutly against Stalinism) .

I suspect the majority of people don't care too much what nationality or culture their ascribed leaders are, it just comes down to how it affects their own lives on a personal level. And in this case I would hope a nominally leftist government would be a progressive step for the working class of any country, compared to say feudal serfdom.

And here I completly disagree with you. Most people WOULDN'T like that. You may not mind it, but that doesn't mean everyone else wouldn't. That's very arrogant to think, you know. If they wouldn't, we already be under USA control, Cuba would still be capitalist, Korea would be culturally completly Japanese, and China as well as India still be a British Colony. People don't want to forcily change their way of life. And that's good so.

[Viet Minh]

Maybe, however if the context was the same, I still would give you the same critic.

The scenario, is basically country A invades country B, and imposes their laws. However under the rule of country A women have been given the right to work, arranged marriages have been abolished, slavery and rape are punished by law, there is general improvement in conditions for workers. Its a highly unlikely scenario, I'm just trying to make my point that 'imperialism' (as far as its been defined here) is not by default anti-progressive. One example I would certainly cite is Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia, although you could argue that was a defensive manouvre rather than just an invasion.

Well, yes and no, as you should know, the (original) tibetian people ARE religious, so what affects the "church", also affects the common people. The tibetian people are unhappy, that they get opressed, that their religion is being destroyed. The Dalai Lama is very important to them, and he got thrown out of Tibet by the chinese government against what the tibetian people want. If I would be religious, like most tibetian are, I'd hate the one who hinders me of living my religion. As you would too, if you would be religious.

The crucial element is in the religions control over the people, the Chinese Government undoubtedly broke that bondage. People are still free to a great extent to practise their religion however. Of course Tibetans should be free to choose their future democratically, including a theocratic Government or monarchy if they wish. But purely in terms of Tibet pre and post rebellion (which I admit is an unfair comparison as things would have changed very much since then) all the evidence suggests that the poorest people have a markedly higher standard of living and legal rights etc.

Oh, I'm deeply sorry , I was mislead by your good reputation ^_^. Sorry!

None taken! Actually I have no problem with Communism its just I haven't found any one label that suitably defines my particular set of beliefs.

Well, at least here we agree, and that counts for much, I'd say ^_^.

I'm not about invading countries for oil, my purposes of this thread was to gain a better understanding of imperialism

It was good, however, that wasn't imperialism at all. It was a justified war. Imperialism is, when one country attacks another without reason just to get more whealthy and raise their power.

Its not that I necessarily disagree, invading another country for financial gain (and lets face it all invading countries gain something financially) is wrong full stop, but I don't understand why its automatically anti-leftist. We could debate just how leftist USSR, PRC, Vietnam etc actually were but they all did the same thing to some extent to East Germany, Chechnya, Cambodia etc respectively.

Hitler attacked the USSR despide having a non-aggresion-pact with Stalin, and he did the natural thing and defended himself. (Out of danger, I want to clearify that I'm absolutly against Stalinism) .

Likewise. And again, agreed .. but did the self defence need to continue throughout the cold war and up until the fall of the Berlin wall? I'm not taking any stance on this, some people to this day remember the GDR very fondly, others remember it as a totalitarian nightmare.

And here I completly disagree with you. Most people WOULDN'T like that. You may not mind it, but that doesn't mean everyone else wouldn't. That's very arrogant to think, you know. If they wouldn't, we already be under USA control, Cuba would still be capitalist, Korea would be culturally completly Japanese, and China as well as India still be a British Colony. People don't want to forcily change their way of life. And that's good so.

Definitely, if people didn't think like that there would be no countries at all in the first place. But quite honestly I think most people don't feel very strongly that way, for example its only a small number of the right wing in America who demand Obama's long form birth certificate etc.

[CHE with an AK]

US overthrowing a democratically elected government

This is U.$. Imperialism's favorite past time ...

+ YouTube Video